Phases
From this morning's "Postmodern_Christianity" email list, I posted the following thoughts:
> Would you say that you have integrated any particular 'goods'
> from the evangelical side of the church Dave, to take with you as
> you move on ?
Yes, of course, I continue to find a lot of "good" within evangelicalism. I still live and successfully function inside that subculture, in my family as well as my professional life (I work for a private non-profit faith-based social services organization in Grand Rapids, MI, with strong ties to the local Reformed and evangelical Christian community.) A lot of my values and "God-talk" are positively shaped by evangelical perspectives - my main problem is the extent to which straight-jacket approaches to thinking and culture have come to characterize the evangelical way of life. But if a relatively loose handling of texts and theology is allowed, then I think evangelicalism provides a valuable, positive and life-affirming way of living. To me, the looseness I seek (and continue to develop) is a way of providing breathing-space that allows me to be me - pursuing Christian discipleship without getting overly anxious or hung-up on conformist expectations or the routine guilt trips that are used to "motivate" or otherwise exploit pew-sitters into service, or to gnaw on our consciences as a kind of pseudo-epiphany experience that gives us the sense that God has made his presence known among us.
> It seems to me that you are not one to cut your losses or close
> the books on your past.
Indeed, that's not the case. My challenge is to find creative ways to integrate it all into one experience of life - all my past "phases" rolled up into one seamless garment.
> I truly cannot imagine coming to a place where this sense of
> belonging to both peoples can be looked back on as a 'phase'.....I
> don't think I want to go there.....
I'm not sure what you mean by "belonging to both peoples." Personally, I don't draw an absolute dividing line within the overall group known as "humanity" that separates "the church" from "the world." (a.k.a. "everyone else" or "non-Christians.") Of course I recognize that such divisions and distinctions can be made for referential and descriptive purposes but people themselves hop back and forth over those lines all the time and I don't see how these lines can be established in a fixed, definitive manner, at least from any perspective accessible to human beings.
And as for the word "phase," it appears to hold a negative connotation for you that I don't see. To me, it's just a shorthand term that helps me keep track of the different sequences I've been through in my life - my "teenage Nietschze-reading stoner" phase, my "punk rocker" phase, my "psychedelic hippie" phase, my "zealous new convert/charismatic evangelist" phase, my "wholesome American suburbanite husband and father" phase, my "Reformed church deacon and elder-in-training" phase, and my current "pomoxian/social activist" phase that I've been in for the past few years... and there are smaller "microphases" that I could probably identify if I took the time to do so... I have been through so many of these that it's just become necessary for me to put this phenomenon of going through various kinds of conversion experiences in some kind of context that makes sense. Otherwise I'd probably go crazy wondering which one of these (more or less) compelling worldviews is the "true one" or simply the "best one" rather than merely the "current one" that I should hold to and invest in.
I hope that there is at least one person reading this who can relate to what it is I'm trying to describe! :o)
Saturday, April 24, 2004
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Molly Ivins
The noted political columnist was in town tonight to give a free talk followed by a book signing, so I went out to see her crack some jokes, tell a few stories and let G.W. Bush have it, rhetorically speaking. I imagine that her columns are familiar to most folks, but here's a link to an archive of her columns courtesy of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. The most recent column is titled "A warp in the White House reality continuum." Heh! I bought a copy of her book "Bushwhacked" tonight which she signed and I will soon read.
The noted political columnist was in town tonight to give a free talk followed by a book signing, so I went out to see her crack some jokes, tell a few stories and let G.W. Bush have it, rhetorically speaking. I imagine that her columns are familiar to most folks, but here's a link to an archive of her columns courtesy of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. The most recent column is titled "A warp in the White House reality continuum." Heh! I bought a copy of her book "Bushwhacked" tonight which she signed and I will soon read.
Saturday, April 17, 2004
Just gotta blog a little...
It's Saturday night and I just feel like dropping a few lines here, though I honestly don't have anything all that profound or impressive to say. It's been a good enough day, one of those all-too-rare "perfect spring days" here in Michigan, though we got a lot of rain in the early morning.
So anyway, what I've been up to is this. I got this very entertaining DVD at the grocery store the other day, with Five Count-Em Five! old B-movie Sci Fi features all on one disc! Here are the titles: "The Giant Gila Monster", "The Brain that Wouldn't Die," "Aliens from Space," "The Amazing Transparent Man" and "The Phantom from 10,000 Leagues." The IMDB links that I've supplied will give you a synopsis of each flick, if you are interested. I just love this stuff - I marvel at the culture that produced such far-fetched, over-the-top absurdities. My boys and Julie also had some big laughs watching some of these features (we haven't gotten through them all yet, but we've checked out some highlights from them all and they get us laughing quite easily!)
I intended to go to a youth-oriented peace rally this afternoon, but I was late getting there because I needed to pick up my daughter from college (she'll be finished with her freshman year by the middle of next week.) When I got to the location where the rally was to be held, a public park here in Grand Rapids, I didn't see any signs of an organized rally. There were some people playing softball, and there were several groups having what looked like small picnics here and there - but no banners, no gathering of more than a dozen people or so that I could see. And no good places to park either. So I circled around the park twice, decided that nothing was really happening, and went home from there. I hope something good came of the plans that were made, but I will just have to wait until I hear from someone who was there to find out what became of it all.
I am disgusted and angry with what is happening in Iraq these days - and in Israel/Palestine too. My expectations for good to come out of all that are extremely low - I just hope that the people who wind up surviving these days of chaos and calamity will be able to emerge unscarred enough that they will be able to eventually lead their societies to a better time of healing and reconciliation when the conflicts finally resolve themselves. That day seems so far off right now, and I lament the suffering that is yet to come that must be passed through before some semblance of sanity finally begins to assert itself.
Even though I think that GW Bush deserves a strong repudiation in this fall's presidential election, I am not at all sure that the mess his administration has created will be easily cleaned up or remedied in any meaningful way by a new person in the White House. It's just such a brutal and wasteful situation... I feel like civilization is in the process of collapsing around me in some ways, not to be overly dramatic about it. It's just the helplessness I feel - like I saw this crap coming, and protested to try and avoid it, but it happened anyway and was apparently in the works all along and the rest of us innocent bystanders just have to witness and endure it.
What a pity.
It's Saturday night and I just feel like dropping a few lines here, though I honestly don't have anything all that profound or impressive to say. It's been a good enough day, one of those all-too-rare "perfect spring days" here in Michigan, though we got a lot of rain in the early morning.
So anyway, what I've been up to is this. I got this very entertaining DVD at the grocery store the other day, with Five Count-Em Five! old B-movie Sci Fi features all on one disc! Here are the titles: "The Giant Gila Monster", "The Brain that Wouldn't Die," "Aliens from Space," "The Amazing Transparent Man" and "The Phantom from 10,000 Leagues." The IMDB links that I've supplied will give you a synopsis of each flick, if you are interested. I just love this stuff - I marvel at the culture that produced such far-fetched, over-the-top absurdities. My boys and Julie also had some big laughs watching some of these features (we haven't gotten through them all yet, but we've checked out some highlights from them all and they get us laughing quite easily!)
I intended to go to a youth-oriented peace rally this afternoon, but I was late getting there because I needed to pick up my daughter from college (she'll be finished with her freshman year by the middle of next week.) When I got to the location where the rally was to be held, a public park here in Grand Rapids, I didn't see any signs of an organized rally. There were some people playing softball, and there were several groups having what looked like small picnics here and there - but no banners, no gathering of more than a dozen people or so that I could see. And no good places to park either. So I circled around the park twice, decided that nothing was really happening, and went home from there. I hope something good came of the plans that were made, but I will just have to wait until I hear from someone who was there to find out what became of it all.
I am disgusted and angry with what is happening in Iraq these days - and in Israel/Palestine too. My expectations for good to come out of all that are extremely low - I just hope that the people who wind up surviving these days of chaos and calamity will be able to emerge unscarred enough that they will be able to eventually lead their societies to a better time of healing and reconciliation when the conflicts finally resolve themselves. That day seems so far off right now, and I lament the suffering that is yet to come that must be passed through before some semblance of sanity finally begins to assert itself.
Even though I think that GW Bush deserves a strong repudiation in this fall's presidential election, I am not at all sure that the mess his administration has created will be easily cleaned up or remedied in any meaningful way by a new person in the White House. It's just such a brutal and wasteful situation... I feel like civilization is in the process of collapsing around me in some ways, not to be overly dramatic about it. It's just the helplessness I feel - like I saw this crap coming, and protested to try and avoid it, but it happened anyway and was apparently in the works all along and the rest of us innocent bystanders just have to witness and endure it.
What a pity.
Friday, April 09, 2004
Here's a post to the "postliberal_theology" list that I just composed this morning on the situation in Iraq. The parts preceded with a > are quotes from someone else:
> It wasn't just 9/11 that was at issue in regard to Iraq, but it is
> true that after 9/11, we were and are clearly (at least to some of
> us) at war with the Islamists.
Personally, I think using the word "war" to describe this conflict is problematic. "Wars" have traditionally been fought between nations, or with organized resistance groups within them, and there's a whole set of traditions that have developed about truces, cease-fires, surrenders, negotiations, etc. that I imagine you (Lawrence) and others are a lot more informed about than I am. But the Islamists offer no central organization or leadership that we can effectively deal with or "defeat" in some kind of determinative way. And it seems to me that our efforts to exterminate Islamism will only exacerbate the problem if our primary response is characterized by armed force, occupation and authoritarian rule.
> The Liberal Press has clouded and politicized the issue
You say this as if there's no Conservative Press that has been busy doing its own version of the same thing...
> but no one said we should invade Iraq because of 9/11. 9/11 made
> us aware that we could not go on with the policy toward Islamism
> put in place during the Clinton administration.
Iraq wasn't an Islamist regime under Saddam. It's probably more Islamist in sentiment now, a year after Saddam's fall, than ever.
I agree that 9/11 signaled the need for policy change, but I am not convinced that Bush's leadership team has come up with an effective response. And you are the first person I've heard ever speak of a "policy toward Islamism." Is that what the war on terrorism is actually about? How come I don't hear government leaders speaking about "Islamism?" Are you speaking more directly than they are, or is this just your take on what's really going on?
> 9/11 made us look more seriously at the Middle East and Iraq was
> an outstanding problem.
How do you define "look more seriously?" I think the Clinton administration was taking the situation over there pretty seriously - the world has, in general, for quite a few decades now. It's not like the Middle East has just emerged as a trouble spot out of nowhere. Iraq has been identified as an outstanding problem since before the first Gulf War.
> The Gulf War, the first war against Iraq was never completed.
The crisis had never fully abated, but the level of lethal danger to our troops and Iraqi citizens was much lower up until the time the USA unleashed the "Shock and Awe" campaign. Meanwhile, US and otherforces had boxed in and were closely scrutinizing the main danger presented by Iraq's military and supposedly possessed WMD's.
> Iraq had to fulfill certain conditions as part of the truce. They
> had to get rid of their WMDs and verify that they had done so to
> the satisfaction of the Weapons Inspectors. Iraq never
> complied. In fact Saddam kicked the Weapons inspectors out. Hans
> Blix did not believe that Iraq was complying with the conditions
> of the truce.
Of course you are aware that Hans Blix didn't support the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, and argued for more time to continue his team's work there. I don't see the relevance of invoking Blix if he explicitly opposes your main point (justifying the war in Iraq.)
> I read several things before the war. Two stand out: The first
> was The Threatening Storm, the Case for Invading Iraq by Kenneth
> Pollack, 2002, who was a Persian Gulf military analyst during the
> Clinton administration. He covered all the possible issues (and
> there were many) and thought that we should invade.
Here is one rebuttal to Pollack's arguments, from February 2003:
And also, from around that same time:
" "I've always felt that we had to go to war against Iraq sooner rather than later. But I didn't necessarily think it had to be this year. And there were always a whole bunch of things that I wanted to do to make sure that we were ready to go when we did go. But the problem that I face now is that I think we are so deep into this - we are so far down this road - that it is now or never. I think that if we don't go to war this time around I don't think we will ever go to war with Saddam Hussein until he's acquired nuclear weapons. And then he picks the time and place of going to war ... if given my preference I would prefer not to be in the position we're in. But I can't turn back time. And we're in the position we're in. And at this point in time, as messy as it may be, I think that it is now or never. And now is a much better option than never."
Those are the lines from my interview with Ken Pollack that most captured and confirmed the mix of resolution, ambivalence and anger I feel about the situation we're currently in with Iraq."
My point in this being that even Iraq war supporters questioned the timing and preparations made by the Bush admin. in building the case for war against Saddam. I always had the sense that Bush wanted to fight it as early as possible in 2003 so that things could hopefully settle down in time for his re-election campaign in 2004. IMO a significant part of the war's opposition was based on resistance to Bush's "steering" of the situation in order to create precisely the kind of "either/or" situation that Pollack himself laments. I believe that Bush's leadership was mostly in the wrong direction, and that a true coalition, more resembling the one his father put together in 1990-91, would have been at least preferable to what was cobbled together in 2002-3. And worth the wait as far as offering more legitimacy to our declared intentions of wanting to liberate Iraq and support the development of an open, democratic society.
> The second book was The Reckoning, Iraq and the Legacy of
> Saddam Hussein by Sandra Mackey, 2002. She too thought that we
> should remove Hussein, but she thought the peace more difficult
> than the war inasmuch as three disparate groups, the Shiites, the
> Sunnis and the Kurds were artificially group into a single
> nation. Hussein's Sunni minority ruthlessly kept the Shiites and
> Kurds subdued. Mackey wasn't sure we could manage with less
> ruthless methods.
Here's a column by Mackey from last May:
A few quotes:
"No one could quibble with the idea that getting rid of Saddam Hussein has been beneficial. My disagreement with the hawks in the Bush administration was, one, how we went about it, on an almost unilateral basis; and, second, that we really did not understand how difficult Iraq was going to be to deal with after the fact. And that's certainly been borne out by what we've seen in Iraq since the end of the fighting."
"The great paradox of Iraq is that, on the one hand, you don't have a sense of nationalism that is strong enough to bring all the groups together with the idea of making compromises for the common good. But on the other hand, you have a very strong opposition to foreign
occupation. So what we have now is what I would call non-authentic nationalism in Iraq; a negative nationalism of opposition to outside forces. If the outside forces leave, you're then back where you started."
"Britain really did have a very open, public debate on whether to go to war. That didn't happen in the US. I think it was a failure of politicians, of the media, and just of the general level of interest on the part of the American public. So this debate was never framed."
"I'm becoming a pessimist about what's going on in the US. I think the US is in danger of thinking that military power is the solution to all problems. The hardliners in the Pentagon, who tend to be very, very pro-Israeli, [feel] that if you've taken out Saddam Hussein, if you take out the government of Syria and you overthrow the Islamic republic in Iran, then you've eliminated all of the real threats to Israel."
Mackey's biggest concerns seem to have more to do with the USA's ability to meet the enormous challenges of this project, and I agree with her. I really don't think this nation has the will or resources to commit to fully rebuilding Iraq, and in any case, our full-fledged support was never honestly sought by our elected leaders. Instead, a distorted presentation of the dangers we faced was broadly distributed, political arm-twisting was employed to pass a series of authorizations to wage war and the future costs of our involvement remain clouded in a fuzzy TBD accounting scheme, ostensibly in order to not impede with the campaign for more corporate tax cuts. Another argument against the administration's management of foreign affairs.
> The initial impetus toward war was the Iraqi refusal to comply
> with UN ultimatums. Saddam refused and the UN was willing to back
> down, but the US wasn't in a mood to do that after 9/11.
I think you are oversimplifying the situation here, but I don't expect that I'll be able to persuade you to rethink the situation. Still, would you really support the USA complying to UN ultimatums if they went against our government's perceived self-interests? I'm not defending Saddam's policies here, but the question is, do we want a UN that has military power to back up ultimatums? Is the USA assigned responsibility to militarily punish all nations that don't comply with UN resolutions? I don't think any of us honestly want to see the UN wield that kind of authority at this point in time. Or maybe ever.
> No, there was no direct connection between Iraq and 9/11, but
> there was between Iraq and the Islamists. And it was the
> Islamists who attacked us on 9/11. Iraq provided training ground
> and monetary support to the Islamists, not the particular
> Islamists who attacked us, but this was a war not a police
> matter. Iraq and the Islamists had many common interests, one of
> which was a hatred of the U.S. Saddam made speeches threatening
> the U.S. Saddam vowed that he would not be interfered with, and
> if the U.S. were so foolish as to once again try, there
> would be an even more deadly Mother of all wars.
It seems to me that you are blurring issues now. It's not like the USA had a "hands off" approach to Iraq prior to invasion and occupation. There were a lot of things being done to manage the threat from Saddam and Islamists - the question was and is, did we make the right decision in overthrowing Saddam's regime at the time we did? Did the positives outweigh the negatives here? And since this is a theology list, what are/were the spiritual implications of these events and decisions?
> You see Saddam claimed to have won the first Gulf War and the bulk
> of the Middle East believed him (this is an example of how Middle
> Eastern militants sees things differently than we do).
Fine - let them persist in delusions, if that's how they are determined to see it.
> Saddam was the hero of opposition to the U.S. The Islamists
> loved him even though he was technically (according to the Sharia)
> an infidel.
I'm not so sure that Saddam was "loved" by Islamists - I don't have any direct knowledge of how an Islamist would view someone like Saddam - but I suppose he was admired for his guts and nerve simply because he stood up "manfully" against the West.
> We did precisely the right thing by invading Iraq. Pacifism in
> the face of an aggressive enemy never works.
I would hardly call the pre-war efforts against Iraq "pacifist." And in any case, pacifism is by nature an idealistic, principled approach to life, probably only practical on an individual or small group level. Modern nation-states are unable to relinquish the perceived benefits of violent or coercive behavior, so I think it's rather pointless to apply or critique pacifist ideology on this level since I don't think anyone is seriously proposing that the USA or any other nation adopt such an ethic.
> Aggression was building in several places in the Middle East. Had
> we not dealt with the chief source, Saddam, then others would have
> been emboldened, Muhamar Qhadaffi for one. But after we did deal
> with Saddam, the aggressive became far less aggressive. Muhamar
> said, "Forget you! I don't want the U.S. invading Libya. Quick,
> somebody! Come and get all my WMDs before the U.S. comes after me
> as well."
A nice example of recent-vintage conservative mythology. Here's something to consider from the May 2001 edition of Foreign Affairs:
"LIBYA MENDS ITS WAYS
As the Bush administration struggles to define its foreign policy, with sanctions slipping on Iraq and the prospect of missile defense raising complications around the world, a new question has emerged: How should Washington handle a "rogue" state that is gradually abandoning its objectionable practices? What should the United States do when its long-standing policy toward a maverick country such as Libya starts to pay off -- and that country finally begins to clean up its act? The question has recently become a pressing one as, in a surprising twist of events, the often and justifiably maligned Libyan regime of Colonel Mu'ammar Qaddafi has started to meet international demands and redress its past crimes. How the United States responds will serve as a test of Washington's ability to reintegrate a reforming "rogue" into the community of nations."
My point being that Libya was already on the path to reconciling with the West prior to the invasion of Iraq, even prior to 9/11.
> It is very important to note that according to Islamic (not just
> Islamist) teaching, Allah gives the victory. Allah can give the
> victory no matter what the odds. Allah will give the victory to
> the righteous.
Not that much different than Judeo-Christian teaching, ISTM.
> Now, all of the Islamic world can see who Allah
> gave the victory to. The Islamists can put their best spin on
> matters, but our victory impressed a lot of Muslims. Perhaps Allah
> isn't going to let the Islamists conquer the world after all.
Umm, I am not sure that the Islamists are at all convinced that the USA has emerged victorious from Iraq! I'm not convinced we have either. People have been talking about the Iraq/Vietnam parallels, but I am more concerned about the similarities with the USSR's experience in Afghanistan. As I see it, we are in a big fat stinking mess over there in Iraq, and I do honestly hope that the USA is able to emerge from it all in good shape. I want the people of Iraq to live in peace and freedom as soon as possible. I just have serious skepticism about the ability of any foreign power to come in and liberate a country in some kind of beneficent, altruistic manner. We are there because certain of our leaders see advantages if we can wrestle the situation into their control. If they've miscalculated and overshot, then a lot of people are in big trouble. We'll have to see how it plays out. But that doesn't stop me from feeling very dissatisfied and angry at those responsible for creating the situation.
> But hey, Islamists! Don't give up. All may not be lost. The
> leftist Liberal press is working powerfully in your behalf and
> perhaps Kerry will get elected. He will try to undo everything
> that warmonger Bush instituted. Kerry wants peace and not war. So
> let's get him elected and you may be back in business.
I seriously doubt that Kerry would just pull out of Iraq. He does need to articulate what, if anything, he would do differently than Bush. But I think his charges that the current administration has done a poor job managing the post-war situation have weight, and I believe in accountability as well - IMO Bush has misled the nation and others looking to the USA for leadership, and doesn't deserve re-election on that account.
> You want peace? You want the fewest number of people killed?
> Then support this administration's efforts. If we can turn Iraq
> into a Liberal-Democratic success, then this will be a more
> powerful argument than anything the Islamists can generate.
The results of this experiment probably won't play out before it's time to vote in November. We'll mostly be able to gauge if it's gotten better or worse than where we're at currently.
Can we reverse roles for just a minute? If we were in the situation that ordinary Iraqis find themselves, would we be pleased to let a foreign army of soldiers who mostly practice a different religion, come in to set up a government friendly to its own interests, supposedly "for our own good?" It makes plenty of sense to me as to why many Iraqis would be at the point of saying "US get out, we can handle this from here," and though I detest their use of violence and terror to pursue those objectives I can only say that we should have seen it coming.
> If you want war and lots of people
> killed, then oppose the administrations efforts.
I don't think you realize how insulting that sounds. Even though I oppose the Bush administration, I would never go so low as to say that people who disagree with me "want war and lots of people killed." I oppose the admin. precisely because I already see war and lots of people being killed, and I am concerned that in order to "prevail," the USA is going to pursue an even more aggressive course of action that may ultimately prove to be futile or at least more destructive than it might otherwise be.
> Kerry will
> withdraw from Iraq, the Islamists will be emboldened to greater
> and greater efforts and the future war to finally subdue the
> Islamists, when the Leftist and Liberals finally concede that we
> need to do that, will be of a magnitude to permit comparison with
> Korea and Vietnam - if not WWII.
What then is the scenario for "subduing the Islamists?" It seems to me that an iron-fisted approach is likely to only fan the flames of extremism among Islamic youth. We can't repress or oppress people into "loving freedom." If we want to be credible about promoting
such virtues, we have to live it and encourage it as consistently as possible.
> It wasn't just 9/11 that was at issue in regard to Iraq, but it is
> true that after 9/11, we were and are clearly (at least to some of
> us) at war with the Islamists.
Personally, I think using the word "war" to describe this conflict is problematic. "Wars" have traditionally been fought between nations, or with organized resistance groups within them, and there's a whole set of traditions that have developed about truces, cease-fires, surrenders, negotiations, etc. that I imagine you (Lawrence) and others are a lot more informed about than I am. But the Islamists offer no central organization or leadership that we can effectively deal with or "defeat" in some kind of determinative way. And it seems to me that our efforts to exterminate Islamism will only exacerbate the problem if our primary response is characterized by armed force, occupation and authoritarian rule.
> The Liberal Press has clouded and politicized the issue
You say this as if there's no Conservative Press that has been busy doing its own version of the same thing...
> but no one said we should invade Iraq because of 9/11. 9/11 made
> us aware that we could not go on with the policy toward Islamism
> put in place during the Clinton administration.
Iraq wasn't an Islamist regime under Saddam. It's probably more Islamist in sentiment now, a year after Saddam's fall, than ever.
I agree that 9/11 signaled the need for policy change, but I am not convinced that Bush's leadership team has come up with an effective response. And you are the first person I've heard ever speak of a "policy toward Islamism." Is that what the war on terrorism is actually about? How come I don't hear government leaders speaking about "Islamism?" Are you speaking more directly than they are, or is this just your take on what's really going on?
> 9/11 made us look more seriously at the Middle East and Iraq was
> an outstanding problem.
How do you define "look more seriously?" I think the Clinton administration was taking the situation over there pretty seriously - the world has, in general, for quite a few decades now. It's not like the Middle East has just emerged as a trouble spot out of nowhere. Iraq has been identified as an outstanding problem since before the first Gulf War.
> The Gulf War, the first war against Iraq was never completed.
The crisis had never fully abated, but the level of lethal danger to our troops and Iraqi citizens was much lower up until the time the USA unleashed the "Shock and Awe" campaign. Meanwhile, US and otherforces had boxed in and were closely scrutinizing the main danger presented by Iraq's military and supposedly possessed WMD's.
> Iraq had to fulfill certain conditions as part of the truce. They
> had to get rid of their WMDs and verify that they had done so to
> the satisfaction of the Weapons Inspectors. Iraq never
> complied. In fact Saddam kicked the Weapons inspectors out. Hans
> Blix did not believe that Iraq was complying with the conditions
> of the truce.
Of course you are aware that Hans Blix didn't support the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, and argued for more time to continue his team's work there. I don't see the relevance of invoking Blix if he explicitly opposes your main point (justifying the war in Iraq.)
> I read several things before the war. Two stand out: The first
> was The Threatening Storm, the Case for Invading Iraq by Kenneth
> Pollack, 2002, who was a Persian Gulf military analyst during the
> Clinton administration. He covered all the possible issues (and
> there were many) and thought that we should invade.
Here is one rebuttal to Pollack's arguments, from February 2003:
And also, from around that same time:
" "I've always felt that we had to go to war against Iraq sooner rather than later. But I didn't necessarily think it had to be this year. And there were always a whole bunch of things that I wanted to do to make sure that we were ready to go when we did go. But the problem that I face now is that I think we are so deep into this - we are so far down this road - that it is now or never. I think that if we don't go to war this time around I don't think we will ever go to war with Saddam Hussein until he's acquired nuclear weapons. And then he picks the time and place of going to war ... if given my preference I would prefer not to be in the position we're in. But I can't turn back time. And we're in the position we're in. And at this point in time, as messy as it may be, I think that it is now or never. And now is a much better option than never."
Those are the lines from my interview with Ken Pollack that most captured and confirmed the mix of resolution, ambivalence and anger I feel about the situation we're currently in with Iraq."
My point in this being that even Iraq war supporters questioned the timing and preparations made by the Bush admin. in building the case for war against Saddam. I always had the sense that Bush wanted to fight it as early as possible in 2003 so that things could hopefully settle down in time for his re-election campaign in 2004. IMO a significant part of the war's opposition was based on resistance to Bush's "steering" of the situation in order to create precisely the kind of "either/or" situation that Pollack himself laments. I believe that Bush's leadership was mostly in the wrong direction, and that a true coalition, more resembling the one his father put together in 1990-91, would have been at least preferable to what was cobbled together in 2002-3. And worth the wait as far as offering more legitimacy to our declared intentions of wanting to liberate Iraq and support the development of an open, democratic society.
> The second book was The Reckoning, Iraq and the Legacy of
> Saddam Hussein by Sandra Mackey, 2002. She too thought that we
> should remove Hussein, but she thought the peace more difficult
> than the war inasmuch as three disparate groups, the Shiites, the
> Sunnis and the Kurds were artificially group into a single
> nation. Hussein's Sunni minority ruthlessly kept the Shiites and
> Kurds subdued. Mackey wasn't sure we could manage with less
> ruthless methods.
Here's a column by Mackey from last May:
A few quotes:
"No one could quibble with the idea that getting rid of Saddam Hussein has been beneficial. My disagreement with the hawks in the Bush administration was, one, how we went about it, on an almost unilateral basis; and, second, that we really did not understand how difficult Iraq was going to be to deal with after the fact. And that's certainly been borne out by what we've seen in Iraq since the end of the fighting."
"The great paradox of Iraq is that, on the one hand, you don't have a sense of nationalism that is strong enough to bring all the groups together with the idea of making compromises for the common good. But on the other hand, you have a very strong opposition to foreign
occupation. So what we have now is what I would call non-authentic nationalism in Iraq; a negative nationalism of opposition to outside forces. If the outside forces leave, you're then back where you started."
"Britain really did have a very open, public debate on whether to go to war. That didn't happen in the US. I think it was a failure of politicians, of the media, and just of the general level of interest on the part of the American public. So this debate was never framed."
"I'm becoming a pessimist about what's going on in the US. I think the US is in danger of thinking that military power is the solution to all problems. The hardliners in the Pentagon, who tend to be very, very pro-Israeli, [feel] that if you've taken out Saddam Hussein, if you take out the government of Syria and you overthrow the Islamic republic in Iran, then you've eliminated all of the real threats to Israel."
Mackey's biggest concerns seem to have more to do with the USA's ability to meet the enormous challenges of this project, and I agree with her. I really don't think this nation has the will or resources to commit to fully rebuilding Iraq, and in any case, our full-fledged support was never honestly sought by our elected leaders. Instead, a distorted presentation of the dangers we faced was broadly distributed, political arm-twisting was employed to pass a series of authorizations to wage war and the future costs of our involvement remain clouded in a fuzzy TBD accounting scheme, ostensibly in order to not impede with the campaign for more corporate tax cuts. Another argument against the administration's management of foreign affairs.
> The initial impetus toward war was the Iraqi refusal to comply
> with UN ultimatums. Saddam refused and the UN was willing to back
> down, but the US wasn't in a mood to do that after 9/11.
I think you are oversimplifying the situation here, but I don't expect that I'll be able to persuade you to rethink the situation. Still, would you really support the USA complying to UN ultimatums if they went against our government's perceived self-interests? I'm not defending Saddam's policies here, but the question is, do we want a UN that has military power to back up ultimatums? Is the USA assigned responsibility to militarily punish all nations that don't comply with UN resolutions? I don't think any of us honestly want to see the UN wield that kind of authority at this point in time. Or maybe ever.
> No, there was no direct connection between Iraq and 9/11, but
> there was between Iraq and the Islamists. And it was the
> Islamists who attacked us on 9/11. Iraq provided training ground
> and monetary support to the Islamists, not the particular
> Islamists who attacked us, but this was a war not a police
> matter. Iraq and the Islamists had many common interests, one of
> which was a hatred of the U.S. Saddam made speeches threatening
> the U.S. Saddam vowed that he would not be interfered with, and
> if the U.S. were so foolish as to once again try, there
> would be an even more deadly Mother of all wars.
It seems to me that you are blurring issues now. It's not like the USA had a "hands off" approach to Iraq prior to invasion and occupation. There were a lot of things being done to manage the threat from Saddam and Islamists - the question was and is, did we make the right decision in overthrowing Saddam's regime at the time we did? Did the positives outweigh the negatives here? And since this is a theology list, what are/were the spiritual implications of these events and decisions?
> You see Saddam claimed to have won the first Gulf War and the bulk
> of the Middle East believed him (this is an example of how Middle
> Eastern militants sees things differently than we do).
Fine - let them persist in delusions, if that's how they are determined to see it.
> Saddam was the hero of opposition to the U.S. The Islamists
> loved him even though he was technically (according to the Sharia)
> an infidel.
I'm not so sure that Saddam was "loved" by Islamists - I don't have any direct knowledge of how an Islamist would view someone like Saddam - but I suppose he was admired for his guts and nerve simply because he stood up "manfully" against the West.
> We did precisely the right thing by invading Iraq. Pacifism in
> the face of an aggressive enemy never works.
I would hardly call the pre-war efforts against Iraq "pacifist." And in any case, pacifism is by nature an idealistic, principled approach to life, probably only practical on an individual or small group level. Modern nation-states are unable to relinquish the perceived benefits of violent or coercive behavior, so I think it's rather pointless to apply or critique pacifist ideology on this level since I don't think anyone is seriously proposing that the USA or any other nation adopt such an ethic.
> Aggression was building in several places in the Middle East. Had
> we not dealt with the chief source, Saddam, then others would have
> been emboldened, Muhamar Qhadaffi for one. But after we did deal
> with Saddam, the aggressive became far less aggressive. Muhamar
> said, "Forget you! I don't want the U.S. invading Libya. Quick,
> somebody! Come and get all my WMDs before the U.S. comes after me
> as well."
A nice example of recent-vintage conservative mythology. Here's something to consider from the May 2001 edition of Foreign Affairs:
"LIBYA MENDS ITS WAYS
As the Bush administration struggles to define its foreign policy, with sanctions slipping on Iraq and the prospect of missile defense raising complications around the world, a new question has emerged: How should Washington handle a "rogue" state that is gradually abandoning its objectionable practices? What should the United States do when its long-standing policy toward a maverick country such as Libya starts to pay off -- and that country finally begins to clean up its act? The question has recently become a pressing one as, in a surprising twist of events, the often and justifiably maligned Libyan regime of Colonel Mu'ammar Qaddafi has started to meet international demands and redress its past crimes. How the United States responds will serve as a test of Washington's ability to reintegrate a reforming "rogue" into the community of nations."
My point being that Libya was already on the path to reconciling with the West prior to the invasion of Iraq, even prior to 9/11.
> It is very important to note that according to Islamic (not just
> Islamist) teaching, Allah gives the victory. Allah can give the
> victory no matter what the odds. Allah will give the victory to
> the righteous.
Not that much different than Judeo-Christian teaching, ISTM.
> Now, all of the Islamic world can see who Allah
> gave the victory to. The Islamists can put their best spin on
> matters, but our victory impressed a lot of Muslims. Perhaps Allah
> isn't going to let the Islamists conquer the world after all.
Umm, I am not sure that the Islamists are at all convinced that the USA has emerged victorious from Iraq! I'm not convinced we have either. People have been talking about the Iraq/Vietnam parallels, but I am more concerned about the similarities with the USSR's experience in Afghanistan. As I see it, we are in a big fat stinking mess over there in Iraq, and I do honestly hope that the USA is able to emerge from it all in good shape. I want the people of Iraq to live in peace and freedom as soon as possible. I just have serious skepticism about the ability of any foreign power to come in and liberate a country in some kind of beneficent, altruistic manner. We are there because certain of our leaders see advantages if we can wrestle the situation into their control. If they've miscalculated and overshot, then a lot of people are in big trouble. We'll have to see how it plays out. But that doesn't stop me from feeling very dissatisfied and angry at those responsible for creating the situation.
> But hey, Islamists! Don't give up. All may not be lost. The
> leftist Liberal press is working powerfully in your behalf and
> perhaps Kerry will get elected. He will try to undo everything
> that warmonger Bush instituted. Kerry wants peace and not war. So
> let's get him elected and you may be back in business.
I seriously doubt that Kerry would just pull out of Iraq. He does need to articulate what, if anything, he would do differently than Bush. But I think his charges that the current administration has done a poor job managing the post-war situation have weight, and I believe in accountability as well - IMO Bush has misled the nation and others looking to the USA for leadership, and doesn't deserve re-election on that account.
> You want peace? You want the fewest number of people killed?
> Then support this administration's efforts. If we can turn Iraq
> into a Liberal-Democratic success, then this will be a more
> powerful argument than anything the Islamists can generate.
The results of this experiment probably won't play out before it's time to vote in November. We'll mostly be able to gauge if it's gotten better or worse than where we're at currently.
Can we reverse roles for just a minute? If we were in the situation that ordinary Iraqis find themselves, would we be pleased to let a foreign army of soldiers who mostly practice a different religion, come in to set up a government friendly to its own interests, supposedly "for our own good?" It makes plenty of sense to me as to why many Iraqis would be at the point of saying "US get out, we can handle this from here," and though I detest their use of violence and terror to pursue those objectives I can only say that we should have seen it coming.
> If you want war and lots of people
> killed, then oppose the administrations efforts.
I don't think you realize how insulting that sounds. Even though I oppose the Bush administration, I would never go so low as to say that people who disagree with me "want war and lots of people killed." I oppose the admin. precisely because I already see war and lots of people being killed, and I am concerned that in order to "prevail," the USA is going to pursue an even more aggressive course of action that may ultimately prove to be futile or at least more destructive than it might otherwise be.
> Kerry will
> withdraw from Iraq, the Islamists will be emboldened to greater
> and greater efforts and the future war to finally subdue the
> Islamists, when the Leftist and Liberals finally concede that we
> need to do that, will be of a magnitude to permit comparison with
> Korea and Vietnam - if not WWII.
What then is the scenario for "subduing the Islamists?" It seems to me that an iron-fisted approach is likely to only fan the flames of extremism among Islamic youth. We can't repress or oppress people into "loving freedom." If we want to be credible about promoting
such virtues, we have to live it and encourage it as consistently as possible.
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
What I've Been Up To
Oh my poor neglected blog. I have been away too long. Dear readers, please forgive my lack of attentiveness. I will try to do better from now on...
Now that that's out of the way, let's catch up with the latest news from my life. It has been another busy stretch of time at work - dealing with kids in crisis, licensing reviews, health inspections, and all sorts of other stress-inducing matters, all of which I am happy to say have been endured and dealt with positively and competently, not just by me but also by my trusted colleagues. Now I am on a one-week vacation from the job, while my boys are also enjoying their spring break, so life is good and relatively easy at the moment. We are even flush with money, as our tax refund, a pay increase and several months of overdue wages from the raise that I earned last September have all recently been deposited into my checking account. We even refinanced our mortgage so I didn't have to make a house payment for April! Woo-hoo!
It's springtime, and I've already mowed my lawn twice. The garage is swept out and I hauled a big load of junk out to the landfill last Saturday, including an old computer desk and a decrepit old toy box that have been sitting out there for many months. I love the feeling of getting rid of stuff that is just sitting around serving no purpose other than cluttering up my living space.
This past Friday I did something new: I worked as a concession vendor at the Van Andel Arena during a Grand Rapids Griffins hockey game. The reason I did this is that Julie and I are looking for ways to help offset the expenses of having two sons in the Wyoming Park High School marching band. Derek will be going to band camp for the first time this summer, and the bills will be substantial. By volunteering our time to work the booths at the arena, we will earn credit and reduce the amount of cash we have to pony up for our boys. My duties primarily involved running the cash register, which I actually enjoyed quite a bit. I like interacting with the people who come seeking refreshments. Pouring beer is difficult though - I kept getting cups of foam. Much practice is needed before I can claim any confidence in my ability to attend to the needs of a thirsty populace.
Baseball season has begun and that's always a great thing. Barry Bonds hit a home run last night, the Giants are off to a good start after a mediocre spring training. And the Detroit Tigers looked "for real" yesterday against the Blue Jays, winning 7-0! That was really nice to see - I have tickets to Saturday's game against the Twins at Comerica Park, just me and the boys - that's going to be a lot of fun. It looks like the Tigers have a team worth paying close attention to this year...
I recently finished reading a few books: Marcus Borg's Heart of Christianity and Al Franken's Why Not Me. Borg's book is an ideal summary of how we can apply the basic teachings and traditions of Christianity without getting hung up in the debates over literalism and "actuality" which increasingly seem to me to be irresolvable and largely irrelevant to how we actually live our lives. I would like to go through the book more thoroughly on my PoMoXian email list. Franken's book is a funny "alternate reality" version of the 2000 presidential election in which he defeats Newt Gingrich, only to resign due to scandal 144 days after taking office. It's a sarcastic, lewd and crude indulgence that also offers many barbed comments about the American electoral process. He published it in 1999, and there are some funny coincidences. Franken names Lieberman as his running mate, that's probably the most remarkable synchronicity. Bush is listed as a candidate for the Republicans, but Franken seems to have underestimated his ability to seize control of the party. Or maybe he just found Gingrich a funnier name to insert. Really, the book is a trifle, kind of outdated now, but still provides a fair amount of laughs as he skewers the conventional habits of politicians and the media in regard to presidential politics, primaries, advertising, spin-doctoring, etc.
Now I'm reading Eric Hoffer's The True Believer, a mid-20th century look at "mass movements" of both political and religious varieties. He makes a lot of good observations - what sticks with me at the moment, only about one-quarter way into the book, is his comment that mass movements are fueled by the frustrations of people who sense that the ideal world is within reach but just lacking some certain thing. The key here being "frustration." That urgent feeling is what motivates people into action. This is another book which I would like to present to the email list and see what people have to say about it. It's a classic of sorts, though it reads as a bit of a relic because Hoffer talks quite a bit about National Socialism and Communism, two ideologies that have very few adherents in today's world.
I've watched a few good movies on DVD recently. Children of Paradise and The Magnificent Seven. I'm going to go see Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind soon, maybe even later today. Also interested in Hellboy, just for the special effects and to see what that's all about. I don't know much about the comic strip at all. Matrix Revolutions comes out on DVD today. I will get that pretty soon, maybe today...
On my computer I've stored over 500 hours of music, and I'm in the process of listening to it all in alphabetical order (by song title.) I've actually been doing this for awhile now... I'm up to the letter "I" - "I Am the Walrus" is playing at this very moment! It doesn't get much better than that. But I do have a very eclectic collection - someday I should create a CD database and post it on my website so people can see what I listen to. I just have so many other things to do though...
Tonight I have a board meeting at IGE. I am not sure what to expect - the last one I went to indicated to me that we have some organizational tightening up to do.
It's also Holy Week - I'll be going to the Thursday night Tenebrae service at Christ Church with Julie and my sons - Alyssa has to work that night. Friday, my mom has arranged for us to attend some kind of interactive Passion Play thing at Kentwood Community Church, where we walk through different rooms and see various scenes portrayed from the gospels. Should be interesting. Last Sunday I went to a musical called "The Borrowed Tomb" - one of Julie's co-workers portrayed a blind man that Jesus healed. The story here was told from the point of view of Nicodemus, a Pharisee who became convinced that Jesus was the Messiah and had to decide how his newfound faith affected his status as one of the respected elders of the Jews. The apologetic portrayal of Jesus as self-conscious Messiah and Incarnate Son of God (and his followers responding to him as such) was really kind of odd, but seemed to be easily and uncritically accepted by the audience. To me, such a scenario is rendered implausible by the attempt to portray it in drama. The awkwardness and unnaturalness of the dialogue indicates to me that we are deaing with symbolism and an after-the-fact interpretation, not a realistic depiction of how it might have been. But that consideration doesn't seem to carry much weight with most of us, or if it does, we're not talking about it.
Oh my poor neglected blog. I have been away too long. Dear readers, please forgive my lack of attentiveness. I will try to do better from now on...
Now that that's out of the way, let's catch up with the latest news from my life. It has been another busy stretch of time at work - dealing with kids in crisis, licensing reviews, health inspections, and all sorts of other stress-inducing matters, all of which I am happy to say have been endured and dealt with positively and competently, not just by me but also by my trusted colleagues. Now I am on a one-week vacation from the job, while my boys are also enjoying their spring break, so life is good and relatively easy at the moment. We are even flush with money, as our tax refund, a pay increase and several months of overdue wages from the raise that I earned last September have all recently been deposited into my checking account. We even refinanced our mortgage so I didn't have to make a house payment for April! Woo-hoo!
It's springtime, and I've already mowed my lawn twice. The garage is swept out and I hauled a big load of junk out to the landfill last Saturday, including an old computer desk and a decrepit old toy box that have been sitting out there for many months. I love the feeling of getting rid of stuff that is just sitting around serving no purpose other than cluttering up my living space.
This past Friday I did something new: I worked as a concession vendor at the Van Andel Arena during a Grand Rapids Griffins hockey game. The reason I did this is that Julie and I are looking for ways to help offset the expenses of having two sons in the Wyoming Park High School marching band. Derek will be going to band camp for the first time this summer, and the bills will be substantial. By volunteering our time to work the booths at the arena, we will earn credit and reduce the amount of cash we have to pony up for our boys. My duties primarily involved running the cash register, which I actually enjoyed quite a bit. I like interacting with the people who come seeking refreshments. Pouring beer is difficult though - I kept getting cups of foam. Much practice is needed before I can claim any confidence in my ability to attend to the needs of a thirsty populace.
Baseball season has begun and that's always a great thing. Barry Bonds hit a home run last night, the Giants are off to a good start after a mediocre spring training. And the Detroit Tigers looked "for real" yesterday against the Blue Jays, winning 7-0! That was really nice to see - I have tickets to Saturday's game against the Twins at Comerica Park, just me and the boys - that's going to be a lot of fun. It looks like the Tigers have a team worth paying close attention to this year...
I recently finished reading a few books: Marcus Borg's Heart of Christianity and Al Franken's Why Not Me. Borg's book is an ideal summary of how we can apply the basic teachings and traditions of Christianity without getting hung up in the debates over literalism and "actuality" which increasingly seem to me to be irresolvable and largely irrelevant to how we actually live our lives. I would like to go through the book more thoroughly on my PoMoXian email list. Franken's book is a funny "alternate reality" version of the 2000 presidential election in which he defeats Newt Gingrich, only to resign due to scandal 144 days after taking office. It's a sarcastic, lewd and crude indulgence that also offers many barbed comments about the American electoral process. He published it in 1999, and there are some funny coincidences. Franken names Lieberman as his running mate, that's probably the most remarkable synchronicity. Bush is listed as a candidate for the Republicans, but Franken seems to have underestimated his ability to seize control of the party. Or maybe he just found Gingrich a funnier name to insert. Really, the book is a trifle, kind of outdated now, but still provides a fair amount of laughs as he skewers the conventional habits of politicians and the media in regard to presidential politics, primaries, advertising, spin-doctoring, etc.
Now I'm reading Eric Hoffer's The True Believer, a mid-20th century look at "mass movements" of both political and religious varieties. He makes a lot of good observations - what sticks with me at the moment, only about one-quarter way into the book, is his comment that mass movements are fueled by the frustrations of people who sense that the ideal world is within reach but just lacking some certain thing. The key here being "frustration." That urgent feeling is what motivates people into action. This is another book which I would like to present to the email list and see what people have to say about it. It's a classic of sorts, though it reads as a bit of a relic because Hoffer talks quite a bit about National Socialism and Communism, two ideologies that have very few adherents in today's world.
I've watched a few good movies on DVD recently. Children of Paradise and The Magnificent Seven. I'm going to go see Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind soon, maybe even later today. Also interested in Hellboy, just for the special effects and to see what that's all about. I don't know much about the comic strip at all. Matrix Revolutions comes out on DVD today. I will get that pretty soon, maybe today...
On my computer I've stored over 500 hours of music, and I'm in the process of listening to it all in alphabetical order (by song title.) I've actually been doing this for awhile now... I'm up to the letter "I" - "I Am the Walrus" is playing at this very moment! It doesn't get much better than that. But I do have a very eclectic collection - someday I should create a CD database and post it on my website so people can see what I listen to. I just have so many other things to do though...
Tonight I have a board meeting at IGE. I am not sure what to expect - the last one I went to indicated to me that we have some organizational tightening up to do.
It's also Holy Week - I'll be going to the Thursday night Tenebrae service at Christ Church with Julie and my sons - Alyssa has to work that night. Friday, my mom has arranged for us to attend some kind of interactive Passion Play thing at Kentwood Community Church, where we walk through different rooms and see various scenes portrayed from the gospels. Should be interesting. Last Sunday I went to a musical called "The Borrowed Tomb" - one of Julie's co-workers portrayed a blind man that Jesus healed. The story here was told from the point of view of Nicodemus, a Pharisee who became convinced that Jesus was the Messiah and had to decide how his newfound faith affected his status as one of the respected elders of the Jews. The apologetic portrayal of Jesus as self-conscious Messiah and Incarnate Son of God (and his followers responding to him as such) was really kind of odd, but seemed to be easily and uncritically accepted by the audience. To me, such a scenario is rendered implausible by the attempt to portray it in drama. The awkwardness and unnaturalness of the dialogue indicates to me that we are deaing with symbolism and an after-the-fact interpretation, not a realistic depiction of how it might have been. But that consideration doesn't seem to carry much weight with most of us, or if it does, we're not talking about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
