Paul Greenberg
There are good people on both sides of the
current debate over letting homosexual
couples get married -- and good people in
between who aren't sure just where they
stand. And may never be. Lots of them are all
in favor of according homosexuals all the
financial benefits that go with marriage, and
the social and legal standing, too. From
pension and inheritance rights to hospital
visitation privileges. It's only right -- and
about time. And they want to do the decent
thing.
Yet many of these same people, fair-minded
as they are, balk at granting homosexual
couples a marriage license. They may not be
able to say exactly why they draw the line at
the word marriage. Which is why so many of
them have embraced civil unions as a fair
compromise; they envision it as marriage
with all the benefits, just not the name.
Why won't they cross that last line, go that
last step? They may say something about
custom and tradition, or even mention
religious scruples, but it's all very vague. You
get the feeling they're still struggling with the
question, that their opinion on this matter
hasn't matured. They must sound uncertain
and unconvincing even to themselves. They
want to do the right thing by their fellow man
-- and woman -- whatever the sexual
proclivities involved, but they can't bring
themselves to extend marriage to homosexual
unions.
Why is that? Maybe because they realize
somewhere in the back of their minds that a
word is more than just a word, that it can
carry all kinds of connotations and values
with it, a whole history. Certainly a word like
marriage does. Because it's not just a word.
Marriage is an institution hallowed not only
by the church but by time and custom and the
whole culture we're part of and rely on,
whether we realize it or not.
In the words of the old Book of Common
Prayer, marriage is an honorable estate "and
therefore is not by any to be entered into
unadvisedly or lightly; but reverently,
discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear
of God."
Yes, we can change the formal definition of
marriage, and wave it over any personal
arrangement we prefer, whether homosexual
marriage or polygamy or you name it, but
that doesn't mean our new definition will
retain its old meaning and significance.
Those who think we can arbitrarily change
the definition of marriage are making the
same mistake the French revolutionaries did
when they instituted a whole new calendar,
with the months and festivals renamed and
secularized to replace the old ones they saw
as relics of a backward, superstitious age. Just
as the Bolsheviks, in the first flush of their
bloody victory, thought they could change not
just the government and economy but the
whole culture, and create The New Man at
last. It's an old mistake: Change the name of
something and the thing itself will be
changed.
The new revolutionary names didn't last, any
more than the revolutionaries' reign by
terror did. Because the new, artificial
designations did not reflect the wisdom
slowly, arduously developed over time and
experience, for which there are no
substitutes. So it is with deciding that
marriage, too, is just a label we can affix at
will. And the whole culture will fall in line.
Only a culture is more cunning, more subtle,
more resilient, more enduring than that.
The advocates of homosexual marriage in
their innocence wonder why we stubborn
types hold on to its more traditional
definition and limits. What's the big
problem? Let the state be the state and the
church the church. The state is the one that
issues marriage licenses, isn't it? Why the
fuss? Let the state define marriage any way it
wants and the church can do whatever its
conscience or tradition demands. Problem
solved. See how simple that was?
It takes only a moment, or should, to see that
the workings of society, especially American
society, aren't quite as simple as all that. It's
hard enough to keep church and state
separate in this country -- see all those split
Supreme Court decisions -- but to separate
American society from its religious values is
pretty nigh impossible, the two are so closely
intertwined. As even a cursory review of
American history demonstrates -- from the
Puritans to every reform movement since,
from those that were successful (like the
abolition of slavery and the rise of the civil
rights movement) and those that weren't, like
Prohibition. Not to mention the nation's
founding documents like the Declaration of
Independence. ("We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all Men are created equal
and endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights....")
Why are officials of the state from high to low
required to take an oath of office? Presidents
since Washington have been sworn in on the
Bible, and so many have added the words "So
help me God!" that it has become almost part
of the inaugural oath. And what about
chaplains in the armed forces? Who is their
Commanding Officer?
The fabric of American life and government
is not so easily rent into two clearly separated
remnants. When a minister marries a couple,
is he acting only as an official of the state, or
of the church, too? Both, of course. Because
civil and religious values are inextricably
interwoven in our law, culture and lives.
Even the most secular-minded of couples may
want a clergyman present at their wedding if
only as a witness. And not just to please the
old folks, but to satisfy something within
themselves, their -- dare I say it? -- their very
being, their souls. They want to make their
marriage vows more than a civil procedure,
to make their union if not sacred then at least
not mundane. They want it to be more than
just another civil contract, like a mortgage or
housing permit or domestic partnership. They
want to look into each other's eyes and
promise each to the other: "You will be sacred
unto me." Not just a contracting party.
I noted the other day that even one of the
leading advocates of homosexual marriage
here in Arkansas, a local judge and pastor in
Little Rock, wore his religious vestments
when he married a homosexual couple.
All of culture, indeed all of civilization,
strives to maintain that connection between
the holy and the mundane. When it doesn't,
as in the French and Russian revolutions, it
doesn't endure.
At the turn of another century, a British
author who already was being dismissed as
an old fuddy-duddy, Rudyard Kipling, had a
word for these attempts to separate civil and
religious values in a society. "Decivilization,"
he called it.
One literary critic, Evelyn Waugh, understood
what Kipling meant because he shared the old
man's fears. Kipling, he wrote, "was a
conservative in the sense that he believed
civilization to be something laboriously
achieved which was only precariously
defended. He wanted to see the defenses fully
manned and he hated the liberals because he
thought them gullible and feeble, believing in
the easy perfectibility of man and ready to
abandon the work of centuries for
sentimental qualms."
Kipling would live to see Hitler come to
power, Stalin consolidating his terror, and his
worst fears confirmed. All the subtle
interworkings of man and God in a
civilization's culture, the traditions and
constraints that modern, "liberated" man may
see no use for, would be tossed to the winds.
With all too predictable results.
Civilizations do not collapse all at once with a
peal of thunder and some sudden, dramatic
fall. They don't so much fall as crumble, layer
by layer, at first almost imperceptibly and
then eventually their pillars give way and
leave only ruins for tourists to gaze at. In the
case of the decline and fall of the Roman
Empire, the process took centuries. Rot grows
slow.
So, no, despite what all the great simplifiers
say, it isn't all that simple, the separation of
the secular and religious in a civilization, the
maintenance and transmission of a culture
that involves both the temporal and the
eternal. A culture is the work of centuries,
and it would behoove those who would
casually lay hands on it to beware. There is
something holy there.
19 Jun 2014
SLAUGHTER IN IRAQ --BUSH FAULT?
Larry Elder
President Barack Obama, on Dec. 12, 2011,
called Iraq "self-reliant and democratic." He
praised that country, calling it a "new Iraq
that's determining its own destiny -- a
country in which people from different
religious sects and ethnicities can resolve
their differences peacefully through the
democratic process." Obama said, "I have no
doubt that Iraq can succeed."
He campaigned to end the war in Iraq. He
did -- at least he ended America's military
involvement in the war. He pulled out all the
troops, without leaving a residual force
behind as we did, for example, in South
Korea, where we have stationed troops for
over 50 years.
Iraq fell off the front pages. By 2008, even
Sen. Obama, a harsh critic of the war and of
the "surge" that turned it around, said: "I
think that, I did not anticipate, and I think
that this is a fair characterization, the
convergence of not only the surge but the
Sunni awakening in which a whole host of
Sunni tribal leaders decided that they had
had enough with al-Qaida, in the Shia
community the militias standing down to
some degrees. So what you had is a
combination of political factors inside of Iraq
that then came right at the same time as
terrific work by our troops. Had those
political factors not occurred, I think that my
assessment would have been correct."
The lack of media interest reflected, in part,
their contempt for the war -- why we fought
it, why we were there. But another factor is
this: Iraq, as of 2011, was surprisingly calm --
the opposite of what the George W. Bush-
hating media predicted. Even those who
opposed the Iraq War were surprised at the
level of relative peace and security, after a
decade of expending blood and treasure. The
relative calm in Iraq in 2010 and 2011
explains why Obama and Vice President Joe
Biden decided to snatch some credit, with
Biden calling Iraq "one of the great
achievements of this administration."
Today YouTube shows videos of "infidel"
Iraqis being beheaded and mowed down with
automatic weapons. What went so horribly
wrong?
Into 2007, then-President Bush talked about
the importance of negotiating a long-term
status of forces agreement that would allow
U.S. troops to remain in Iraq to help with
security. He warned that if the U.S. didn't
stay the course in Iraq, the country could
become a terror state or a recruiting ground
for terrorists.
How much importance did candidate Obama
place on obtaining a status of forces
agreement? After his election, the "Office of
the President-Elect" website said: "Obama
and Biden believe it is vital that a Status of
Forces Agreement (SOFA) be reached so our
troops have the legal protections and
immunities they need. Any SOFA should be
subject to Congressional review to ensure it
has bipartisan support here at home." In the
weeks following Obama's election, the Iraqis
passed, and Bush signed, a SOFA agreement
that would have American troops out of Iraq
by December 2011.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
blamed the Iraqis for refusing to negotiate a
new, acceptable status of forces agreement
that would have allowed U.S. forces to stay in
Iraq past 2011. Former U.N. ambassador John
Bolton, however, says the Obama
administration wanted to walk away from
Iraq -- but didn't want it to look obvious. So
they blamed it on supposedly "failed" SOFA
negotiations.
Remember, Obama saw no national security
interest in Iraq, even though Saddam Hussein
was presumed to have stockpiles of weapons
of mass destruction; was shooting at the
British and American plane patrolling the
southern and northern "no-fly" zones; was
sending $25,000 to homicide bomber families
in Israel; was stealing from the oil-for-food
program; had used chemical weapons on his
own neighbors and his own people; and had
attempted to assassinate President George
H.W. Bush. Still, Obama saw no national
security interest in Iraq. Why would he now?
Obama now says he is "looking at all the
options ... I don't rule out anything" -- short
of combat. If, short of combat, we could have
achieved our objectives in Iraq, we would not
have sent in combat troops in the first place.
The Obama administration was caught flat-
footed at the brutality and lethality of ISIS,
the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, a group of
Islamic Sunni "extremists" said to be well-
trained, well-equipped, well-financed and
even more brutal than al-Qaida. And now the
administration is thinking of working with
Iran to help the mostly Shiite Iraqi
government survive? This is, of course, the
same Iran that helped kill and maim
Americans soldiers with roadside bombs in
Iraq? This is, of course, the same Iran that
our intelligence community says is marching
toward building a nuclear weapon?
Critics assailed Obama's recent West Point
speech, pre-billed as a legacy-defining
foreign policy doctrine. Some call the speech
unclear, lacking in focus or conviction. But,
no, there is , in fact, an Obama doctrine. It
can be explained this way: "The 'war on
terror' is over because I said so -- now go tell
the enemy."
President Barack Obama, on Dec. 12, 2011,
called Iraq "self-reliant and democratic." He
praised that country, calling it a "new Iraq
that's determining its own destiny -- a
country in which people from different
religious sects and ethnicities can resolve
their differences peacefully through the
democratic process." Obama said, "I have no
doubt that Iraq can succeed."
He campaigned to end the war in Iraq. He
did -- at least he ended America's military
involvement in the war. He pulled out all the
troops, without leaving a residual force
behind as we did, for example, in South
Korea, where we have stationed troops for
over 50 years.
Iraq fell off the front pages. By 2008, even
Sen. Obama, a harsh critic of the war and of
the "surge" that turned it around, said: "I
think that, I did not anticipate, and I think
that this is a fair characterization, the
convergence of not only the surge but the
Sunni awakening in which a whole host of
Sunni tribal leaders decided that they had
had enough with al-Qaida, in the Shia
community the militias standing down to
some degrees. So what you had is a
combination of political factors inside of Iraq
that then came right at the same time as
terrific work by our troops. Had those
political factors not occurred, I think that my
assessment would have been correct."
The lack of media interest reflected, in part,
their contempt for the war -- why we fought
it, why we were there. But another factor is
this: Iraq, as of 2011, was surprisingly calm --
the opposite of what the George W. Bush-
hating media predicted. Even those who
opposed the Iraq War were surprised at the
level of relative peace and security, after a
decade of expending blood and treasure. The
relative calm in Iraq in 2010 and 2011
explains why Obama and Vice President Joe
Biden decided to snatch some credit, with
Biden calling Iraq "one of the great
achievements of this administration."
Today YouTube shows videos of "infidel"
Iraqis being beheaded and mowed down with
automatic weapons. What went so horribly
wrong?
Into 2007, then-President Bush talked about
the importance of negotiating a long-term
status of forces agreement that would allow
U.S. troops to remain in Iraq to help with
security. He warned that if the U.S. didn't
stay the course in Iraq, the country could
become a terror state or a recruiting ground
for terrorists.
How much importance did candidate Obama
place on obtaining a status of forces
agreement? After his election, the "Office of
the President-Elect" website said: "Obama
and Biden believe it is vital that a Status of
Forces Agreement (SOFA) be reached so our
troops have the legal protections and
immunities they need. Any SOFA should be
subject to Congressional review to ensure it
has bipartisan support here at home." In the
weeks following Obama's election, the Iraqis
passed, and Bush signed, a SOFA agreement
that would have American troops out of Iraq
by December 2011.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
blamed the Iraqis for refusing to negotiate a
new, acceptable status of forces agreement
that would have allowed U.S. forces to stay in
Iraq past 2011. Former U.N. ambassador John
Bolton, however, says the Obama
administration wanted to walk away from
Iraq -- but didn't want it to look obvious. So
they blamed it on supposedly "failed" SOFA
negotiations.
Remember, Obama saw no national security
interest in Iraq, even though Saddam Hussein
was presumed to have stockpiles of weapons
of mass destruction; was shooting at the
British and American plane patrolling the
southern and northern "no-fly" zones; was
sending $25,000 to homicide bomber families
in Israel; was stealing from the oil-for-food
program; had used chemical weapons on his
own neighbors and his own people; and had
attempted to assassinate President George
H.W. Bush. Still, Obama saw no national
security interest in Iraq. Why would he now?
Obama now says he is "looking at all the
options ... I don't rule out anything" -- short
of combat. If, short of combat, we could have
achieved our objectives in Iraq, we would not
have sent in combat troops in the first place.
The Obama administration was caught flat-
footed at the brutality and lethality of ISIS,
the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, a group of
Islamic Sunni "extremists" said to be well-
trained, well-equipped, well-financed and
even more brutal than al-Qaida. And now the
administration is thinking of working with
Iran to help the mostly Shiite Iraqi
government survive? This is, of course, the
same Iran that helped kill and maim
Americans soldiers with roadside bombs in
Iraq? This is, of course, the same Iran that
our intelligence community says is marching
toward building a nuclear weapon?
Critics assailed Obama's recent West Point
speech, pre-billed as a legacy-defining
foreign policy doctrine. Some call the speech
unclear, lacking in focus or conviction. But,
no, there is , in fact, an Obama doctrine. It
can be explained this way: "The 'war on
terror' is over because I said so -- now go tell
the enemy."
LOSING OUR SOVEREIGNTY
Derek Hunter
Look, murders happen. We can’t stop them,
and we spend a lot of resources trying to
prevent them and punish those who commit
them. This money would be better spent on
other things, such as education, than trying to
stop what is going to happen anyway. Think
of the children who can be educated, or fed,
by the money we’re wasting trying to stop
what we can’t stop.
In addition to an inability to stop future
murders, we have to remove the stigma
unfairly attached to those who’ve done what
we’ve failed to stop in the past. The term
“murderer” is a term of shame and of
judgment. Who are we to judge those who
were simply seeking a better world for
themselves and their families?
To call someone a “murderer” dehumanizes
them and makes it easier to treat them
differently, to deny them their freedom and
the right to vote. They aren’t “murderers,”
they’re un-non-killing-Americans.
Were it not for the luck of the circumstances
of our births, our upbringings and the choices
we made, any one of us could be murderers,
too. And, when you think of the history of the
United States, we’re a nation of murderers, so
really, who are we to judge?
Prison gates should be opened, and un-non-
killing-Americans who pay a fine and
promise not to kill again ought to be
welcomed into society. Think of the money
we’d save on housing and health care alone.
Plus, un-non-killing-Americans would add to
the economy, come out from the prisons and
pay taxes – benefitting everyone.
It’s win-win, and the Chamber of Commerce
supports it, so there you go…
That is pretty much the argument for no
longer using the accurate “illegal alien” term
for the “undocumented” tripe – as if this all
was a matter of some form not being filled
out properly. This, and tales of families being
reunited and whatnot are pretty much the
extent of arguments put forth by amnesty
activists on both sides of the aisle. All of these
arguments are emotional, and none of them
should matter.
The Obama administration, which just a few
years ago took Arizona to court to stop it
from committing the sin of actually trying to
enforce the nation’s immigration laws, claims
to be powerless to stop an unfettered influx
of illegals flooding across the Mexican
border. Of course, the administration saying
it can’t stop the flood is like someone who’s
never tried asparagus refusing to eat it –
they’ve never tried it and never had any
intention of trying it, but their mind is made
up anyway.
The president has flung open the southern
border to the point that, for all intents and
purposes, it does not exist. Tens of thousands,
soon to be hundreds of thousands, of illegal
aliens are streaming over the border like the
zombies in World War Z poured over walls of
Jerusalem.
Democrats, and many Republicans, welcome
this horde with open arms, food, shelter,
health care, lawyers, and, eventually, the
hope of citizenship. American sovereignty is
an afterthought, if thought of at all.
So brazen have amnesty advocates become
that the White House welcomed 10 illegal
aliens to be honored as “ Champions of
Change” this week. But the White House is
not foolish. The recipients weren’t chosen at
random, they were chosen carefully.
All of the presidential honorees have attended
or are attending college and are working in
professional settings. This is to give the false
impression that the people streaming across
the border are just a few credits shy of a
Ph.D. or have backpacks full of venture
capital ready to start businesses. That’s not
the case.
The reality is the people currently stretching
shelters and military bases to capacity are
uneducated, non-English speaking children
and adults who add nothing but headcount to
the economy. Many are sick, and none bring
anything of value to the country, at least
now.
This nation has 10 million unemployed
citizens; it’s really our only growth industry
in the Obama economy. Adding 11 million to
30 million more, either as guest workers or
citizens, won’t magically create enough jobs
for them all. So why tear down the border?
Votes, obviously.
Uneducated, non-English-speaking masses
will be overwhelmingly dependent on
government, so they’ll vote for Democrats.
That large of an influx of low-skilled workers
will keep wages artificially low, which is what
the Chamber of Commerce wants and is why
so many Republicans support it. They know
it’s not good for the country. But it’s good for
them, so to hell with the country.
We’re told they can’t all be deported because
there are too many of them. But the people
telling us this are the same people who sit on
their hands as thousands more pour into the
country every day. They promise to secure
the border after we grant amnesty to those
here already, which is like a junkie promising
to enter rehab after just one more fix. To hell
with them.
We can’t afford to be the world’s life raft,
especially while our economy is leaking air.
Call me heartless, call me mean, I don’t give a
damn – we need to seal the border and
enforce current law, which includes
deporting illegal aliens who come into contact
with law enforcement. Prove to me you’re
willing to enforce current law and we can
talk about new laws. Don’t, and may you all
suffer the same fate as Eric Cantor.
Look, murders happen. We can’t stop them,
and we spend a lot of resources trying to
prevent them and punish those who commit
them. This money would be better spent on
other things, such as education, than trying to
stop what is going to happen anyway. Think
of the children who can be educated, or fed,
by the money we’re wasting trying to stop
what we can’t stop.
In addition to an inability to stop future
murders, we have to remove the stigma
unfairly attached to those who’ve done what
we’ve failed to stop in the past. The term
“murderer” is a term of shame and of
judgment. Who are we to judge those who
were simply seeking a better world for
themselves and their families?
To call someone a “murderer” dehumanizes
them and makes it easier to treat them
differently, to deny them their freedom and
the right to vote. They aren’t “murderers,”
they’re un-non-killing-Americans.
Were it not for the luck of the circumstances
of our births, our upbringings and the choices
we made, any one of us could be murderers,
too. And, when you think of the history of the
United States, we’re a nation of murderers, so
really, who are we to judge?
Prison gates should be opened, and un-non-
killing-Americans who pay a fine and
promise not to kill again ought to be
welcomed into society. Think of the money
we’d save on housing and health care alone.
Plus, un-non-killing-Americans would add to
the economy, come out from the prisons and
pay taxes – benefitting everyone.
It’s win-win, and the Chamber of Commerce
supports it, so there you go…
That is pretty much the argument for no
longer using the accurate “illegal alien” term
for the “undocumented” tripe – as if this all
was a matter of some form not being filled
out properly. This, and tales of families being
reunited and whatnot are pretty much the
extent of arguments put forth by amnesty
activists on both sides of the aisle. All of these
arguments are emotional, and none of them
should matter.
The Obama administration, which just a few
years ago took Arizona to court to stop it
from committing the sin of actually trying to
enforce the nation’s immigration laws, claims
to be powerless to stop an unfettered influx
of illegals flooding across the Mexican
border. Of course, the administration saying
it can’t stop the flood is like someone who’s
never tried asparagus refusing to eat it –
they’ve never tried it and never had any
intention of trying it, but their mind is made
up anyway.
The president has flung open the southern
border to the point that, for all intents and
purposes, it does not exist. Tens of thousands,
soon to be hundreds of thousands, of illegal
aliens are streaming over the border like the
zombies in World War Z poured over walls of
Jerusalem.
Democrats, and many Republicans, welcome
this horde with open arms, food, shelter,
health care, lawyers, and, eventually, the
hope of citizenship. American sovereignty is
an afterthought, if thought of at all.
So brazen have amnesty advocates become
that the White House welcomed 10 illegal
aliens to be honored as “ Champions of
Change” this week. But the White House is
not foolish. The recipients weren’t chosen at
random, they were chosen carefully.
All of the presidential honorees have attended
or are attending college and are working in
professional settings. This is to give the false
impression that the people streaming across
the border are just a few credits shy of a
Ph.D. or have backpacks full of venture
capital ready to start businesses. That’s not
the case.
The reality is the people currently stretching
shelters and military bases to capacity are
uneducated, non-English speaking children
and adults who add nothing but headcount to
the economy. Many are sick, and none bring
anything of value to the country, at least
now.
This nation has 10 million unemployed
citizens; it’s really our only growth industry
in the Obama economy. Adding 11 million to
30 million more, either as guest workers or
citizens, won’t magically create enough jobs
for them all. So why tear down the border?
Votes, obviously.
Uneducated, non-English-speaking masses
will be overwhelmingly dependent on
government, so they’ll vote for Democrats.
That large of an influx of low-skilled workers
will keep wages artificially low, which is what
the Chamber of Commerce wants and is why
so many Republicans support it. They know
it’s not good for the country. But it’s good for
them, so to hell with the country.
We’re told they can’t all be deported because
there are too many of them. But the people
telling us this are the same people who sit on
their hands as thousands more pour into the
country every day. They promise to secure
the border after we grant amnesty to those
here already, which is like a junkie promising
to enter rehab after just one more fix. To hell
with them.
We can’t afford to be the world’s life raft,
especially while our economy is leaking air.
Call me heartless, call me mean, I don’t give a
damn – we need to seal the border and
enforce current law, which includes
deporting illegal aliens who come into contact
with law enforcement. Prove to me you’re
willing to enforce current law and we can
talk about new laws. Don’t, and may you all
suffer the same fate as Eric Cantor.
TRADITIONS, TIME AND TREASURE
Jackie Gringrich Cushman
ROME -- Birthdays have always been a big
deal in my family. When I was growing up,
the birthday girl (or man, in the case of my
father) would be regaled with a rendition of
"Happy Birthday" during breakfast. The
special attention continued throughout the
day and included letting the honoree choose
the dinner menu and being the center of
family conversation. Birthdays were not
about presents, but about being the center of
attention.
Celebrating birthdays is one of the many
traditions that our family shares. We also join
together on Thanksgivings, Christmas Eves
and mornings, and we have celebrated New
Year's with my sister and her husband for
decades. While some might view traditions in
general as stuffy and old fashioned, I think of
them as the glue of shared experiences that
hold us together. They represent the shared
memories of being together at special times
in our lives that we can all remember and
reflect upon.
Many traditions are serious, but there are
also fun ones. Our son and his aunt and uncle
have a tradition before eating of taking their
knives and forks in hand and banging the
ends down on the table twice to signify that
they are about to begin eating. My husband
and I both check in on our children before
they fall asleep, just to say good night, make
sure they are all right and say we love them.
Texts between family members end with LU,
meaning "Love You." They are only two extra
letters, but on some days, it means a lot to get
them from someone you love, to be reminded
that you are not alone, and you too are loved.
This sense of tradition and ceremony is one
of the reasons that I was drawn to the
Episcopal faith. The liturgy and prayers
repeated weekly provide a framework for the
faith and are the scaffolding of my faith. The
process of sitting, standing and kneeling at
various times helps to focus my mind on God
rather than on myself.
The process of ceremony itself transfers us
from the mundane tasks of our everyday lives
to a different holy place. This allows us to
travel to a different dimension -- mentally
and spiritually -- without leaving our seats.
So is true of ceremonies not only in church,
but also in our everyday lives. Blessings
before meals allow us to be thankful to God
and to others. The simple act of making tea
can become a ceremony when done slowly
and deliberately. Everything, when slowed
and focused upon, becomes something to
savor rather than something to push aside in
the usual rush to get through one's day.
This week, I had the opportunity to attend the
papal audience at St. Peter's Square in Rome.
We arrived hours early, as most of the
audience does, and waited for the pope to
arrive. The Swiss Guards, wearing red-
feathered helmets and blue, red and orange
uniforms, were scattered throughout the
square. They represented a reminder of an
earlier time and the importance of tradition
in the Catholic Church.
The pope took his time with the crowd, and
with those who were near the dais, as if to
say to those around him, "I am not in a
hurry; I have all the time in the world. You
are not alone; I am with you."
This week, we celebrated my father's
birthday in Rome as a family. Yes, we sang
"Happy Birthday" to him, and yes, he had the
opportunity to pick the menu for his dinner,
which included calamari, steak and pasta. In
that way, we certainly followed tradition.
Our gift was also homemade and was the
greatest gift of all -- the gift of time. It is the
one gift that cannot be bought and cannot be
picked out by someone else. It's a way of
saying, "I am not in a hurry. I have all the
time in the world. You are not alone; I am
with you. You are loved."
Our family was blessed to be able to be
together this week to celebrate his birthday. I
am sure that we will long savor the time that
we met in Rome and broke bread together
celebrating his birthday.
ROME -- Birthdays have always been a big
deal in my family. When I was growing up,
the birthday girl (or man, in the case of my
father) would be regaled with a rendition of
"Happy Birthday" during breakfast. The
special attention continued throughout the
day and included letting the honoree choose
the dinner menu and being the center of
family conversation. Birthdays were not
about presents, but about being the center of
attention.
Celebrating birthdays is one of the many
traditions that our family shares. We also join
together on Thanksgivings, Christmas Eves
and mornings, and we have celebrated New
Year's with my sister and her husband for
decades. While some might view traditions in
general as stuffy and old fashioned, I think of
them as the glue of shared experiences that
hold us together. They represent the shared
memories of being together at special times
in our lives that we can all remember and
reflect upon.
Many traditions are serious, but there are
also fun ones. Our son and his aunt and uncle
have a tradition before eating of taking their
knives and forks in hand and banging the
ends down on the table twice to signify that
they are about to begin eating. My husband
and I both check in on our children before
they fall asleep, just to say good night, make
sure they are all right and say we love them.
Texts between family members end with LU,
meaning "Love You." They are only two extra
letters, but on some days, it means a lot to get
them from someone you love, to be reminded
that you are not alone, and you too are loved.
This sense of tradition and ceremony is one
of the reasons that I was drawn to the
Episcopal faith. The liturgy and prayers
repeated weekly provide a framework for the
faith and are the scaffolding of my faith. The
process of sitting, standing and kneeling at
various times helps to focus my mind on God
rather than on myself.
The process of ceremony itself transfers us
from the mundane tasks of our everyday lives
to a different holy place. This allows us to
travel to a different dimension -- mentally
and spiritually -- without leaving our seats.
So is true of ceremonies not only in church,
but also in our everyday lives. Blessings
before meals allow us to be thankful to God
and to others. The simple act of making tea
can become a ceremony when done slowly
and deliberately. Everything, when slowed
and focused upon, becomes something to
savor rather than something to push aside in
the usual rush to get through one's day.
This week, I had the opportunity to attend the
papal audience at St. Peter's Square in Rome.
We arrived hours early, as most of the
audience does, and waited for the pope to
arrive. The Swiss Guards, wearing red-
feathered helmets and blue, red and orange
uniforms, were scattered throughout the
square. They represented a reminder of an
earlier time and the importance of tradition
in the Catholic Church.
The pope took his time with the crowd, and
with those who were near the dais, as if to
say to those around him, "I am not in a
hurry; I have all the time in the world. You
are not alone; I am with you."
This week, we celebrated my father's
birthday in Rome as a family. Yes, we sang
"Happy Birthday" to him, and yes, he had the
opportunity to pick the menu for his dinner,
which included calamari, steak and pasta. In
that way, we certainly followed tradition.
Our gift was also homemade and was the
greatest gift of all -- the gift of time. It is the
one gift that cannot be bought and cannot be
picked out by someone else. It's a way of
saying, "I am not in a hurry. I have all the
time in the world. You are not alone; I am
with you. You are loved."
Our family was blessed to be able to be
together this week to celebrate his birthday. I
am sure that we will long savor the time that
we met in Rome and broke bread together
celebrating his birthday.
HILLARY CLINTON'S LEGACY: DEFENDING RAPISTS AND SEXUAL PREDATORS
Katie Pavlich
Earlier this week, audio of Hillary Clinton
gleefully defending a child rapist was
published by the Washington Free Beacon’s
Alana Goodman .
In 1975 during her time as an attorney,
Clinton took on the case of Thomas Alfred
Taylor, a man who brutally raped a 12-year-
old girl at the age of 41. Clinton said she
thought Taylor was guilty.
The issue isn’t her defense of the accused
rapist; after all, this is America and even the
worst and most evil villains in our society are
entitled to an attorney. Instead, the issue is
Clinton’s behavior after getting Taylor out of
a lengthy sentence for his crime when she
thought he was guilty. He served less than one
year in prison.
“Describing the events almost a decade after
they had occurred, Clinton’s struck a casual
and complacent attitude toward her client
and the trial for rape of a minor," Goodman
reported about the audio. "‘I had him take a
polygraph, which he passed – which forever
destroyed my faith in polygraphs,’ she added
with a laugh. Clinton can also be heard
laughing at several points when discussing
the crime lab’s accidental destruction of DNA
evidence that tied Taylor to the crime.”
Apparently accidental destruction of DNA
evidence wasn't enough for Clinton to go on,
so she attacked the 12-year-old victim as
possibly emotionally unstable and someone
who may be exaggerating or romanticizing a
sexual experience.
Shocking? Sure, but this newly uncovered
audio is just one piece of Hillary Clinton’s
long legacy, career and life of defending
sexual predators. Clinton’s history of
brushing sexual assault and abuse of young
women under the rug for her own personal
and political gain is fully documented in my
new book Assault and Flattery: The Truth
About the Left and Their War on Women,
which will be published on July 8.
Fast forward a few years after a giddy
Clinton relieved a child rapist of any real
consequence or justice and you'll find that for
decades she willfully helped destroy the
women who her husband, former President
Bill Clinton, was accused of sexually
assaulting or raping. Time and again instead
of holding her husband accountable, she
defamed his female accusers as mentally
unstable loons looking for money. Clinton
repeatedly allowed women to be lied about,
smeared and manipulated so her
philandering husband could hold onto power,
which eventually led to her own as a Senator
from New York, a presidential candidate, and
President Obama's Secretary of State.
But speaking of her record at the State
Department, what exactly did Clinton do
during her tenure there? She ignored alleged
rampant sexual abuse of minor girls by high
ranking State Department employees.
Under her watch, U.S. Ambassador to
Belgium Howard Gutman was accused of
routinely ditching his “protective security
detail in order to solicit sexual favors from
both prostitutes and minor children,” in a
nearby park according to an internal memo
written by a chief inspector general
investigator. A State Department security
official stationed in Beirut was accused of
engaging in multiple sexual assaults. Further,
a U.S. Embassy official was removed for
allegedly trading visas for sexual favors.
As CBS News first reported last year, at least
seven of Clinton’s security agents routinely
hired prostitutes on official trips overseas.
Their behavior was described as “endemic.”
Although the agents were eventually
reassigned, they weren’t seriously punished.
When investigations were launched into
misconduct, they were immediately shut
down by Clinton’s former Chief of Staff
Cheryl Mills.
The female whistleblowers who spoke out
against and exposed the abuse were
retaliated against for doing so. Whistleblower
Kerry Howard was “run out of the foreign
service,” stripped of her job and was bullied
after exposing U.S. Consul General Donald
Moore allegedly engaged in sexual activities
with women inside his government office and
with call girls in Naples.
This is just a snap shot of Clinton’s legacy of
defending rapists and sexual predators. She’s
done it for decades yet somehow has been
portrayed as a women’s rights champion. Her
record proves the opposite. Hillary Clinton is
America’s most famous enabler of abusive
and powerful men.
KASHMIR MISSING IN MODI'S FIRST-YEAR PRIORITIES.
Shujaat Bukhari
Editor, Rising Kashmir
When Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif met his
Indian counter part Narendra Modi on May 27 in New
Delhi, there was no mention of “Kashmir” in the briefing
by both sides. Pakistan Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz did
tell the media later that it was discussed but officially it
was not confirmed as part of the 50-minute long
meeting. This did raise eye brows in Kashmir about how
the policy on this contentious issue was being followed.
But the analysts gave it a pass for the reason that both
leaders must be given time to match up the chemistry
to find out ways and means to address such complex
issues.
However, it seems now that Kashmir does not figure
anywhere in the priorities Modi has set for himself for
next one year. Discussing it with Pakistan is surely an
external dimension and that may come up any time in
case both sides agree to see it as the issue that keeps
them at distance. However, the Modi government has
not made up its mind to even address the internal
dimension of the problem. When President Pranab
Mukherjee addressed the joint session of parliament on
June 9 (first after the general elections), he spelled out
programmes and policies; the Modi government would
follow for next one year. There was no mention of
Kashmir as an issue that needed attention.
The only priority Modi has set is about the return of
Kashmiri Pandits who have left Kashmir in early 1990
after the armed rebellion broke out in Kashmir. There
are conflicting figures about how many left at that time.
Kashmiri Pandit organisations claim that 4 lakh people
migrated but the government figures suggest that 24202
families went out of Kashmir which roughly comes to
not more than 1,50,000. Again the government data
reveals that 219 KPs were killed. President Mukherjee
said in his address “Special efforts will be made to
ensure that Kashmiri Pandits return to the land of their
ancestors with full dignity, security and assured
livelihood.”
This surely is a welcome step and Kashmiris have
always shown their concern over the plight of KPs, even
as they have themselves faced the worst of conflict in
last over 20 years. What is more disturbing that Omar
Abdullah government has reportedly proposed
repurchase of their houses disposed of in distress before
fleeing Kashmir. This, according to a report in THE
HINDU is part of a Rs. 5,800-crore Prime Minister’s
Reconstruction Programme aimed at incentivising
Kashmiri Pandits to return to the Valley. This will further
distances between the two communities and put them
on loggerheads.
Return of KPs to valley must come after taking all the
stake holders into confidence. Putting them ghettoes
without even deliberating the issue with the
representatives of majority community will not suit their
return. Gun totting security men may provide them
security in designated zones, as is evident from the
course of statements being made by the government,
but the real confidence and sense of security can only
come from their erstwhile neighbours.
Ignoring the ground realities in Kashmir and not
prioritizing them is something disturbing when one
looks at the new government in Delhi. During the
election campaigning in Jammu Modi had invoked
former Prime Minister A B Vajpayee’s line of
“Jamhooriyat, Insaniyat and Kashmiriyat” to address the
Kashmir issue. Vajpayee had not only walked an extra
mile to reach out to Pakistan but along with then
Pakistan President Parvez Musharraf he had laid a
strong foundation for reconciliation, peace and
compassion through Confidence Building Measures. He
had also engaged with the separatist leaders in Kashmir,
though that could not yield much.
Prime Minister’s no road map policy for Kashmir was
further vindicated with the visit of trusted lieutenant and
Defence Minister Arun Jaitley who virtually shut the
doors on any political engagement in the near future. He
not only was non-committal on the issue of withdrawal
of controversial Armed Forces Special Powers Act
(AFSPA) but he also put conditions on any possibility of
talks with those who challenge the Indian rule in
Kashmir. “We are willing to talk to everybody who
wants to function under Indian constitution and Indian
sovereignty. Constitution and sovereignty are two issues
with which there can be no compromise,” Jaitley told
reporters on June 15. That means the Government of
India does not recognize the political dissent on the
ground.
Interestingly Jaitley was appointed as interlocutor for
Kashmir by the previous Vajpayee led government in
2002. He had held talks on devolution of powers with
then National Conference nominee and Minister Ghulam
Mohiuddin Shah.
One could take Jaitley’s statement on face value. But
the talks or demands within the ambit of Indian
constitution have so far failed to yield anything.
Rejection of Autonomy resolution by Jammu and
Kashmir Assembly with two-third majority stands
testimony to the fact that how New Delhi has
undermined the institutions it wants to strengthen in the
state. The BJP, which is in power, again has instead
called for abrogation of Article 370, which gives special
status to the state. So the question of giving more does
not arise.
Now that Modi has taken over as the “strong” Prime
Minister, he has in the first few weeks ignored the real
issues in Kashmir. Addressing one particular issue in
isolation also sounds like that he would follow a one-
sided approach. With this mandate Modi should not try
to address the one community that has voted for him at
least in Jammu and Kashmir. This problem needs a
comprehensive approach that is inclusive and has all
the dimensions in place.
The dialogue between Delhi and Separatists that broke
down in 2008 must be resumed without conditions.
Prisoners’ cases must be dealt with compassion and the
economic issues also be pursued with an open mind.
Distances between Srinagar and Delhi have increased
over the past few years. Youth are completely alienated
and angry at the treatment they are receiving.
One can hope that Modi modifies his priorities and
includes both external and internal dimension of Kashmir
in his priorities. Resumption of dialogue with Pakistan,
strengthening existing CBMs and doing more on
Kashmir is the need of the hour. Sitting on this
simmering political unrest won’t serve any party. Modi
must show that his policies are not framed on the basis
of vote bank but on the realities on ground.
Editor, Rising Kashmir
When Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif met his
Indian counter part Narendra Modi on May 27 in New
Delhi, there was no mention of “Kashmir” in the briefing
by both sides. Pakistan Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz did
tell the media later that it was discussed but officially it
was not confirmed as part of the 50-minute long
meeting. This did raise eye brows in Kashmir about how
the policy on this contentious issue was being followed.
But the analysts gave it a pass for the reason that both
leaders must be given time to match up the chemistry
to find out ways and means to address such complex
issues.
However, it seems now that Kashmir does not figure
anywhere in the priorities Modi has set for himself for
next one year. Discussing it with Pakistan is surely an
external dimension and that may come up any time in
case both sides agree to see it as the issue that keeps
them at distance. However, the Modi government has
not made up its mind to even address the internal
dimension of the problem. When President Pranab
Mukherjee addressed the joint session of parliament on
June 9 (first after the general elections), he spelled out
programmes and policies; the Modi government would
follow for next one year. There was no mention of
Kashmir as an issue that needed attention.
The only priority Modi has set is about the return of
Kashmiri Pandits who have left Kashmir in early 1990
after the armed rebellion broke out in Kashmir. There
are conflicting figures about how many left at that time.
Kashmiri Pandit organisations claim that 4 lakh people
migrated but the government figures suggest that 24202
families went out of Kashmir which roughly comes to
not more than 1,50,000. Again the government data
reveals that 219 KPs were killed. President Mukherjee
said in his address “Special efforts will be made to
ensure that Kashmiri Pandits return to the land of their
ancestors with full dignity, security and assured
livelihood.”
This surely is a welcome step and Kashmiris have
always shown their concern over the plight of KPs, even
as they have themselves faced the worst of conflict in
last over 20 years. What is more disturbing that Omar
Abdullah government has reportedly proposed
repurchase of their houses disposed of in distress before
fleeing Kashmir. This, according to a report in THE
HINDU is part of a Rs. 5,800-crore Prime Minister’s
Reconstruction Programme aimed at incentivising
Kashmiri Pandits to return to the Valley. This will further
distances between the two communities and put them
on loggerheads.
Return of KPs to valley must come after taking all the
stake holders into confidence. Putting them ghettoes
without even deliberating the issue with the
representatives of majority community will not suit their
return. Gun totting security men may provide them
security in designated zones, as is evident from the
course of statements being made by the government,
but the real confidence and sense of security can only
come from their erstwhile neighbours.
Ignoring the ground realities in Kashmir and not
prioritizing them is something disturbing when one
looks at the new government in Delhi. During the
election campaigning in Jammu Modi had invoked
former Prime Minister A B Vajpayee’s line of
“Jamhooriyat, Insaniyat and Kashmiriyat” to address the
Kashmir issue. Vajpayee had not only walked an extra
mile to reach out to Pakistan but along with then
Pakistan President Parvez Musharraf he had laid a
strong foundation for reconciliation, peace and
compassion through Confidence Building Measures. He
had also engaged with the separatist leaders in Kashmir,
though that could not yield much.
Prime Minister’s no road map policy for Kashmir was
further vindicated with the visit of trusted lieutenant and
Defence Minister Arun Jaitley who virtually shut the
doors on any political engagement in the near future. He
not only was non-committal on the issue of withdrawal
of controversial Armed Forces Special Powers Act
(AFSPA) but he also put conditions on any possibility of
talks with those who challenge the Indian rule in
Kashmir. “We are willing to talk to everybody who
wants to function under Indian constitution and Indian
sovereignty. Constitution and sovereignty are two issues
with which there can be no compromise,” Jaitley told
reporters on June 15. That means the Government of
India does not recognize the political dissent on the
ground.
Interestingly Jaitley was appointed as interlocutor for
Kashmir by the previous Vajpayee led government in
2002. He had held talks on devolution of powers with
then National Conference nominee and Minister Ghulam
Mohiuddin Shah.
One could take Jaitley’s statement on face value. But
the talks or demands within the ambit of Indian
constitution have so far failed to yield anything.
Rejection of Autonomy resolution by Jammu and
Kashmir Assembly with two-third majority stands
testimony to the fact that how New Delhi has
undermined the institutions it wants to strengthen in the
state. The BJP, which is in power, again has instead
called for abrogation of Article 370, which gives special
status to the state. So the question of giving more does
not arise.
Now that Modi has taken over as the “strong” Prime
Minister, he has in the first few weeks ignored the real
issues in Kashmir. Addressing one particular issue in
isolation also sounds like that he would follow a one-
sided approach. With this mandate Modi should not try
to address the one community that has voted for him at
least in Jammu and Kashmir. This problem needs a
comprehensive approach that is inclusive and has all
the dimensions in place.
The dialogue between Delhi and Separatists that broke
down in 2008 must be resumed without conditions.
Prisoners’ cases must be dealt with compassion and the
economic issues also be pursued with an open mind.
Distances between Srinagar and Delhi have increased
over the past few years. Youth are completely alienated
and angry at the treatment they are receiving.
One can hope that Modi modifies his priorities and
includes both external and internal dimension of Kashmir
in his priorities. Resumption of dialogue with Pakistan,
strengthening existing CBMs and doing more on
Kashmir is the need of the hour. Sitting on this
simmering political unrest won’t serve any party. Modi
must show that his policies are not framed on the basis
of vote bank but on the realities on ground.
18 Jun 2014
HERE COMES TOMORROW
John Stossel
Ray Kurzweil -- inventor of things like
machines that turn text into speech -- has
popularized the idea that we are rapidly
approaching "the singularity," the point at
which machines not only think for themselves
but develop intellectually faster than we.
At that point, maybe we no longer talk about
"human history." It will be "machine
progress," with us along for the ride -- if
machines keep us around. Maybe they'll keep
us in a zoo, like we do with our monkey
ancestors.
Scientists and ethicists are beginning to
wrestle with the question of how to make sure
artificial intelligence, when it arrives, is nice
to us.
Make sure the robots are strict libertarians?
That way, they'll be forbidden to commit
assault, theft or fraud -- the three legal
restrictions in which libertarians believe.
Unfortunately, computer programmers won't
listen to my suggestion. Those who work for
video-game companies and the military make
machines that kill people.
All this is scary because scientists say that
soon machines will be too smart and self-
motivated for us to predict.
"Robots absolutely can become much more
dangerous," says Patrick Tucker, of The
Futurist magazine. "And they become more
dangerous as we ask them to do more."
Our best hope may be a future where instead
of trying to control intelligent machines, we
blend with them.
In some ways, that's already happening.
Erik Brynjolfsson, author of "The Second
Machine Age," says today's machines augment
our minds the way that the industrial
revolution's machines augmented muscles.
This creates progress that government
statistics don't measure.
"It used to be you could just count physical
objects -- tons of steel, bushels of wheat," says
Brynjolfsson on my TV show this week. "As
we have more of an idea economy, it's harder
to measure the value of those ideas.
"Wikipedia created enormous value," he adds,
"but it's free, and that means that it doesn't
show up in GDP statistics, which measure the
value of goods and services."
Outsourcing parts of our thinking with tools
like Wikipedia and Google may be how we'll
keep improving our lives -- cooperating with
machines instead of fighting them. In science-
fiction terms, the future may be "cyborg":
part machine, part human.
Instead of parents deciding where to send
their kids to school, they may puzzle over
which machine enhancements to give them.
Already clinics offer "designer babies" by
selecting embryos based on genetic quality.
Soon parents will select by height,
intelligence, beauty and so on.
This future sounds unsettling, but it's not
much use just hoping machines stay dumber
than we. The IBM computer "Watson" lost to
humans on "Jeopardy" but beat the quiz
show's champion a few years later.
Leftists tell us that such computers will take
our jobs, requiring welfare programs for
unemployable humans. President Barack
Obama expressed this static thinking when he
told an interviewer that ATMs and airport
ticket kiosks kill jobs.
But this is childish thinking. In the 1800s,
nearly all Americans worked on farms. Now
1 percent do. Farm workers found other jobs,
often better jobs. So did horseshoers, phone
operators and secretaries. (Today's high
unemployment is caused by suffocating
regulation, not computerization.)
James Miller, author of "Singularity Rising,"
says that a future with little hard work left
for humans sounds like "an economic utopia."
He says that trying to prevent progress by
machines would be as destructive as if we'd
outlawed the rise of cars, buses and modern
trains. But Miller does fear the computer
revolution will be different: "The analogy
would be: 100 years ago, we breed super
intelligent horses. That would have
permanently destroyed a lot of jobs."
I'm more optimistic. As with so many
innovations in the past, I'll bet that handing
off tasks to machines will make our lives
better by freeing us up to focus on activities
that we enjoy more. Robots will make our
future better.
If they don't kill us.
Ray Kurzweil -- inventor of things like
machines that turn text into speech -- has
popularized the idea that we are rapidly
approaching "the singularity," the point at
which machines not only think for themselves
but develop intellectually faster than we.
At that point, maybe we no longer talk about
"human history." It will be "machine
progress," with us along for the ride -- if
machines keep us around. Maybe they'll keep
us in a zoo, like we do with our monkey
ancestors.
Scientists and ethicists are beginning to
wrestle with the question of how to make sure
artificial intelligence, when it arrives, is nice
to us.
Make sure the robots are strict libertarians?
That way, they'll be forbidden to commit
assault, theft or fraud -- the three legal
restrictions in which libertarians believe.
Unfortunately, computer programmers won't
listen to my suggestion. Those who work for
video-game companies and the military make
machines that kill people.
All this is scary because scientists say that
soon machines will be too smart and self-
motivated for us to predict.
"Robots absolutely can become much more
dangerous," says Patrick Tucker, of The
Futurist magazine. "And they become more
dangerous as we ask them to do more."
Our best hope may be a future where instead
of trying to control intelligent machines, we
blend with them.
In some ways, that's already happening.
Erik Brynjolfsson, author of "The Second
Machine Age," says today's machines augment
our minds the way that the industrial
revolution's machines augmented muscles.
This creates progress that government
statistics don't measure.
"It used to be you could just count physical
objects -- tons of steel, bushels of wheat," says
Brynjolfsson on my TV show this week. "As
we have more of an idea economy, it's harder
to measure the value of those ideas.
"Wikipedia created enormous value," he adds,
"but it's free, and that means that it doesn't
show up in GDP statistics, which measure the
value of goods and services."
Outsourcing parts of our thinking with tools
like Wikipedia and Google may be how we'll
keep improving our lives -- cooperating with
machines instead of fighting them. In science-
fiction terms, the future may be "cyborg":
part machine, part human.
Instead of parents deciding where to send
their kids to school, they may puzzle over
which machine enhancements to give them.
Already clinics offer "designer babies" by
selecting embryos based on genetic quality.
Soon parents will select by height,
intelligence, beauty and so on.
This future sounds unsettling, but it's not
much use just hoping machines stay dumber
than we. The IBM computer "Watson" lost to
humans on "Jeopardy" but beat the quiz
show's champion a few years later.
Leftists tell us that such computers will take
our jobs, requiring welfare programs for
unemployable humans. President Barack
Obama expressed this static thinking when he
told an interviewer that ATMs and airport
ticket kiosks kill jobs.
But this is childish thinking. In the 1800s,
nearly all Americans worked on farms. Now
1 percent do. Farm workers found other jobs,
often better jobs. So did horseshoers, phone
operators and secretaries. (Today's high
unemployment is caused by suffocating
regulation, not computerization.)
James Miller, author of "Singularity Rising,"
says that a future with little hard work left
for humans sounds like "an economic utopia."
He says that trying to prevent progress by
machines would be as destructive as if we'd
outlawed the rise of cars, buses and modern
trains. But Miller does fear the computer
revolution will be different: "The analogy
would be: 100 years ago, we breed super
intelligent horses. That would have
permanently destroyed a lot of jobs."
I'm more optimistic. As with so many
innovations in the past, I'll bet that handing
off tasks to machines will make our lives
better by freeing us up to focus on activities
that we enjoy more. Robots will make our
future better.
If they don't kill us.
MARRIAGE: PLASTIC OR GOLD?
Harry R. Jackson Jr
Months have now passed since the Islamist
terrorist organization Boko Haram sparked
international outrage by kidnapping at least
270 Nigerian school girls. In a rambling one
hour video, the group’s supposed leader
explained their actions to the world:
"I abducted your girls…I will sell them in the
market, by Allah. I will sell them off and marry
them off. There is a market for selling
humans…Women are slaves. I want to
reassure my Muslim brothers that Allah says
slaves are permitted in Islam…I will marry off
a woman at the age of 12. I will marry off a
girl at the age of nine…”
Most of the media coverage has
understandably focused on the apparent
inability of the Nigerian government to
rescue the girls, who were students at a
Western-style boarding school. But the evil
act also shined the light on two horrifying
practices: child marriage and polygamy. For
those of us who have lived our entire lives in
societies that do not tolerate such things, the
fact that they are still commonly practiced in
some parts of the world is almost
unimaginable.
In ancient times, including eras described in
the Bible, both polygamy and child marriage
were widely accepted. The practices were
largely influenced by the shorter human
lifespan (depending on one’s location, life
expectancy may have been between 20 and
40 years), as well as the high incidence of
women dying during childbirth. However, as
the centuries passed medical technology and
better nutrition extended the human life span
and made childbirth much safer. And so the
overwhelming majority of societies
(particularly those influenced by Judaism and
Christianity) outlawed marriage before
puberty and marriage to more than one wife.
Such practices remain widespread, however,
in some Muslim countries as well as the Sahel
region of Africa (the semi-arid strip just
below the Sahara), where experts estimate
half of all women live in polygamous
households. Furthermore, according to the
relief organization UNICEF, many African
countries still have shockingly high rates of
child marriage. In Niger, 75 percent of girls
are married before the age of 18. In Chad, it’s
72 percent and in Mali 71 percent, while well
over half of girls marry as children in the
Central African Republic and Mozambique.
UNICEF estimates that at least 70,000 child
brides die each year due to childbearing
complications.
Nor are such practices necessarily fading
away. This year, Kenyan President Uhuru
Kenyatta signed the Marriage Act of 2104,
which stated, “Marriage is the voluntary
union of a man and a woman whether in a
monogamous or polygamous union registered
under the Act.” The legislature removed a
clause from the bill which would have
required that the first wife approve of any
subsequent wives her husband took.
Although the debate in the United States is
currently focused on whether the institution
of marriage properly includes homosexual
relationships, the practices of polygamy and
child marriage in other parts of the world
highlight that a society’s definition of
marriage forms the foundation for its values.
Societies that accept polygamy and child
marriage dehumanize women and children.
Societies with “flexible” definitions of
marriage also have very malleable definitions
of “right” and “wrong.” As Jillian Keenan
argued last year in Slate, “The definition of
marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual
marriage is no better or worse than
homosexual marriage, marriage between two
consenting adults is not inherently more or
less “correct” than marriage among three (or
four, or six) consenting adults.”
Some critics have scoffed at the notion that
redefining marriage will lead to polygamy in
the West, noting that places like Kenya still
carry strong legal penalties for
homosexuality. Since polygamy and child
marriage are “traditional” in some parts of
Africa, they feel they would be justifiable
under the same reasoning that we
“traditional marriage” advocates use to
defend our cause. But the wonderful thing
about denying moral relativism is that I don’t
have to pretend that all traditions are equally
valid. I can embrace the (largely Western)
tradition of marriage as the lifelong union of
one man and one woman, while rejecting the
traditions of foot binding, female genital
mutilation and polygamy.
The reason I have spent so much of my time
and energy fighting for traditional marriage
is that I know it to be the best possible way to
arrange society. For five thousand years of
human civilization, it did not provide the
only model for family structure, but it
consistently provided the best environment to
raise children as well as the most just and
humane arrangement for women, which
brings out the best in men. That may sound
to some like cultural imperialism, but I
believe if more societies defined marriage
exclusively as the union of one man and one
woman, then men, women and children
would all be better off.
Months have now passed since the Islamist
terrorist organization Boko Haram sparked
international outrage by kidnapping at least
270 Nigerian school girls. In a rambling one
hour video, the group’s supposed leader
explained their actions to the world:
"I abducted your girls…I will sell them in the
market, by Allah. I will sell them off and marry
them off. There is a market for selling
humans…Women are slaves. I want to
reassure my Muslim brothers that Allah says
slaves are permitted in Islam…I will marry off
a woman at the age of 12. I will marry off a
girl at the age of nine…”
Most of the media coverage has
understandably focused on the apparent
inability of the Nigerian government to
rescue the girls, who were students at a
Western-style boarding school. But the evil
act also shined the light on two horrifying
practices: child marriage and polygamy. For
those of us who have lived our entire lives in
societies that do not tolerate such things, the
fact that they are still commonly practiced in
some parts of the world is almost
unimaginable.
In ancient times, including eras described in
the Bible, both polygamy and child marriage
were widely accepted. The practices were
largely influenced by the shorter human
lifespan (depending on one’s location, life
expectancy may have been between 20 and
40 years), as well as the high incidence of
women dying during childbirth. However, as
the centuries passed medical technology and
better nutrition extended the human life span
and made childbirth much safer. And so the
overwhelming majority of societies
(particularly those influenced by Judaism and
Christianity) outlawed marriage before
puberty and marriage to more than one wife.
Such practices remain widespread, however,
in some Muslim countries as well as the Sahel
region of Africa (the semi-arid strip just
below the Sahara), where experts estimate
half of all women live in polygamous
households. Furthermore, according to the
relief organization UNICEF, many African
countries still have shockingly high rates of
child marriage. In Niger, 75 percent of girls
are married before the age of 18. In Chad, it’s
72 percent and in Mali 71 percent, while well
over half of girls marry as children in the
Central African Republic and Mozambique.
UNICEF estimates that at least 70,000 child
brides die each year due to childbearing
complications.
Nor are such practices necessarily fading
away. This year, Kenyan President Uhuru
Kenyatta signed the Marriage Act of 2104,
which stated, “Marriage is the voluntary
union of a man and a woman whether in a
monogamous or polygamous union registered
under the Act.” The legislature removed a
clause from the bill which would have
required that the first wife approve of any
subsequent wives her husband took.
Although the debate in the United States is
currently focused on whether the institution
of marriage properly includes homosexual
relationships, the practices of polygamy and
child marriage in other parts of the world
highlight that a society’s definition of
marriage forms the foundation for its values.
Societies that accept polygamy and child
marriage dehumanize women and children.
Societies with “flexible” definitions of
marriage also have very malleable definitions
of “right” and “wrong.” As Jillian Keenan
argued last year in Slate, “The definition of
marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual
marriage is no better or worse than
homosexual marriage, marriage between two
consenting adults is not inherently more or
less “correct” than marriage among three (or
four, or six) consenting adults.”
Some critics have scoffed at the notion that
redefining marriage will lead to polygamy in
the West, noting that places like Kenya still
carry strong legal penalties for
homosexuality. Since polygamy and child
marriage are “traditional” in some parts of
Africa, they feel they would be justifiable
under the same reasoning that we
“traditional marriage” advocates use to
defend our cause. But the wonderful thing
about denying moral relativism is that I don’t
have to pretend that all traditions are equally
valid. I can embrace the (largely Western)
tradition of marriage as the lifelong union of
one man and one woman, while rejecting the
traditions of foot binding, female genital
mutilation and polygamy.
The reason I have spent so much of my time
and energy fighting for traditional marriage
is that I know it to be the best possible way to
arrange society. For five thousand years of
human civilization, it did not provide the
only model for family structure, but it
consistently provided the best environment to
raise children as well as the most just and
humane arrangement for women, which
brings out the best in men. That may sound
to some like cultural imperialism, but I
believe if more societies defined marriage
exclusively as the union of one man and one
woman, then men, women and children
would all be better off.
MARRIAGE AND THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY.
Jeff Jacoby
Thousands of Americans will rally in
Washington, D.C., at a March for Marriage on
Thursday in support of "the simple and
beautiful message," to quote Brian Brown ,
that "marriage between one man and one
woman is unique and critical for our
society." Brown is president of the National
Organization for Marriage, the event's lead
sponsor.
Don't he and his supporters know that they're
on the Wrong Side of History?
These days, of course, anyone who publicly
opposes same-sex marriage can expect to be
scorned in many quarters as a bigot or
reviled as an ignoramus . No Democrat with
serious political ambitions would dare to
agree with Brown's traditional point of view.
In some places the same is increasingly true
of Republicans .
Yet until about 10 minutes ago, in historical
terms, the traditional understanding of
marriage as the complementary union of
male and female was anything but
controversial. Brown's "simple and beautiful
message," now seen as so threatened that it
needs to be defended at Washington rallies,
was about as mainstream a position as there
was in American life.
"Marriage has got historic, religious, and
moral content that goes back to the beginning
of time," said Hillary Clinton in 2000 , "and I
think a marriage is, as a marriage has always
been, between a man and a woman." Even
after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court ruled that legal objections to same-sex
marriage were irrational, many liberals stood
pat. Leading Democratic presidential
candidates in 2004 — John Kerry , John
Edwards ,Joseph Lieberman, Dick Gephardt —
ran as gay-marriage opponents. So did
Clinton and Barack Obama in 2008.
Has there ever been an issue so elemental on
which the tide turned so swiftly?
Same-sex marriage is now lawful in more
than one-third of the states, and the US
Supreme Court ruled last year that such
marriages must be recognized by the federal
government. In recent months a flurry of
lower-court rulings have struck down state
bans on same-sex marriage. And there are
predictions of a Supreme Court ruling next
year that will knock over the remaining
dominoes, legalizing gay marriage in all 50
states .
Overnight, same-sex marriage has gone from
all-but-unthinkable to all-but-unstoppable. So
what do those marchers in Washington think
they're going to accomplish? Don't they have
better things to do with their lives than fight
for a cause that, if not yet entirely lost, is
surely down for the count?
Why don't they wake up and smell the
historical inevitability?
It would certainly be easier to make peace
with the new order, especially considering
the aggressiveness and hostility that many
"marriage equality" activists deploy against
those who oppose gay marriage.
Then again, much the same could have been
said a century ago to those who insisted — in
the depths of Jim Crow — that the cause of
civil rights and racial fairness was worth
fighting for. They too must have heard with
regularity that they were on the "wrong side
of history." The promise of Reconstruction
was long gone. In much of the country, black
enfranchisement was a dead letter. The
Supreme Court had ruled 7-1 in Plessy v.
Ferguson that racial segregation — "separate
but equal" — was constitutional. The
president of the United States was a white
supremacist on whose watch black employees
were fired from government positions, and
public facilities in Washington were
segregated.
Honorable voices argued that blacks had no
realistic option but to make the best of bad
situation. But there were others who insisted
that the lost spirit of abolitionism could be
revived, that Jim Crow could be fought and
eventually overturned, that "separate but
equal" was based on a falsehood and would
ultimately prove untenable. They founded the
NAACP in 1909, launching a movement that
would eventually transform America.
Gay activists see their crusade for same-sex
marriage as another civil-rights battle. It's a
false analogy. Jim Crow deprived black
Americans of rights they were already
entitled to — rights enshrined in the 14th and
15th Amendments, then stolen away after
Reconstruction. But gay marriage does not
restore lost rights; it redefines "marriage" to
mean something wholly unprecedented in
human society.
History is littered with causes and beliefs that
were thought at one point to be historically
unstoppable, from the divine right of kings to
worldwide Marxist revolution . In the relative
blink of an eye, same-sex marriage has made
extraordinary political and psychological
gains. It is on a roll, winning hearts and
minds as well as court cases. No wonder it
seems to so many that history's verdict is in,
and same-sex marriage is here to stay.
Maybe it is.
Or maybe a great national debate about the
meaning of marriage is not winding down,
but just gearing up. And maybe those
marchers in Washington, with their "simple
and beautiful message," will prove to be not
bitter-enders who didn't know when to quit,
but defenders of a principle that history,
eventually, will vindicate.
Thousands of Americans will rally in
Washington, D.C., at a March for Marriage on
Thursday in support of "the simple and
beautiful message," to quote Brian Brown ,
that "marriage between one man and one
woman is unique and critical for our
society." Brown is president of the National
Organization for Marriage, the event's lead
sponsor.
Don't he and his supporters know that they're
on the Wrong Side of History?
These days, of course, anyone who publicly
opposes same-sex marriage can expect to be
scorned in many quarters as a bigot or
reviled as an ignoramus . No Democrat with
serious political ambitions would dare to
agree with Brown's traditional point of view.
In some places the same is increasingly true
of Republicans .
Yet until about 10 minutes ago, in historical
terms, the traditional understanding of
marriage as the complementary union of
male and female was anything but
controversial. Brown's "simple and beautiful
message," now seen as so threatened that it
needs to be defended at Washington rallies,
was about as mainstream a position as there
was in American life.
"Marriage has got historic, religious, and
moral content that goes back to the beginning
of time," said Hillary Clinton in 2000 , "and I
think a marriage is, as a marriage has always
been, between a man and a woman." Even
after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court ruled that legal objections to same-sex
marriage were irrational, many liberals stood
pat. Leading Democratic presidential
candidates in 2004 — John Kerry , John
Edwards ,Joseph Lieberman, Dick Gephardt —
ran as gay-marriage opponents. So did
Clinton and Barack Obama in 2008.
Has there ever been an issue so elemental on
which the tide turned so swiftly?
Same-sex marriage is now lawful in more
than one-third of the states, and the US
Supreme Court ruled last year that such
marriages must be recognized by the federal
government. In recent months a flurry of
lower-court rulings have struck down state
bans on same-sex marriage. And there are
predictions of a Supreme Court ruling next
year that will knock over the remaining
dominoes, legalizing gay marriage in all 50
states .
Overnight, same-sex marriage has gone from
all-but-unthinkable to all-but-unstoppable. So
what do those marchers in Washington think
they're going to accomplish? Don't they have
better things to do with their lives than fight
for a cause that, if not yet entirely lost, is
surely down for the count?
Why don't they wake up and smell the
historical inevitability?
It would certainly be easier to make peace
with the new order, especially considering
the aggressiveness and hostility that many
"marriage equality" activists deploy against
those who oppose gay marriage.
Then again, much the same could have been
said a century ago to those who insisted — in
the depths of Jim Crow — that the cause of
civil rights and racial fairness was worth
fighting for. They too must have heard with
regularity that they were on the "wrong side
of history." The promise of Reconstruction
was long gone. In much of the country, black
enfranchisement was a dead letter. The
Supreme Court had ruled 7-1 in Plessy v.
Ferguson that racial segregation — "separate
but equal" — was constitutional. The
president of the United States was a white
supremacist on whose watch black employees
were fired from government positions, and
public facilities in Washington were
segregated.
Honorable voices argued that blacks had no
realistic option but to make the best of bad
situation. But there were others who insisted
that the lost spirit of abolitionism could be
revived, that Jim Crow could be fought and
eventually overturned, that "separate but
equal" was based on a falsehood and would
ultimately prove untenable. They founded the
NAACP in 1909, launching a movement that
would eventually transform America.
Gay activists see their crusade for same-sex
marriage as another civil-rights battle. It's a
false analogy. Jim Crow deprived black
Americans of rights they were already
entitled to — rights enshrined in the 14th and
15th Amendments, then stolen away after
Reconstruction. But gay marriage does not
restore lost rights; it redefines "marriage" to
mean something wholly unprecedented in
human society.
History is littered with causes and beliefs that
were thought at one point to be historically
unstoppable, from the divine right of kings to
worldwide Marxist revolution . In the relative
blink of an eye, same-sex marriage has made
extraordinary political and psychological
gains. It is on a roll, winning hearts and
minds as well as court cases. No wonder it
seems to so many that history's verdict is in,
and same-sex marriage is here to stay.
Maybe it is.
Or maybe a great national debate about the
meaning of marriage is not winding down,
but just gearing up. And maybe those
marchers in Washington, with their "simple
and beautiful message," will prove to be not
bitter-enders who didn't know when to quit,
but defenders of a principle that history,
eventually, will vindicate.
IRS EMAIL SCANDAL
Jonah Goldberg
"Congressional investigators are fuming over
revelations that the Internal Revenue Service
has lost a trove of emails to and from a
central figure in the agency's tea party
controversy."
That's the opening sentence of the Associated
Press story on the IRS's claim that it lost an
unknown number of emails over two years
relating to the agency's alleged targeting of
political groups hostile to the president.
But note how the AP casts the story: The
investigators -- Republican lawmakers -- are
outraged.
Is it really so hard to imagine that if this were
a Republican administration, the story
wouldn't be the frustration of partisan critics
of the president? It would be all about that
administration's behavior. With the
exception of National Journal's Ron Fournier,
who called for a special prosecutor to bypass
the White House's "stonewalling," and former
CBS correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, it's hard
to find a non-conservative journalist who
thinks this is a big deal.
Let's back up for a moment. In 2013, IRS
official Lois Lerner planted a question from
an audience member at an American Bar
Association meeting. She used her answer to
apologize for -- and favorably spin -- the
agency's actions, and then later claimed that
the apology came as an unprompted response
to a question.
Lerner laid the blame for the inappropriate
targeting of tea party and other groups to a
few low-level bureaucrats in Cincinnati. That
was a lie. Senior officials in the IRS knew and
helped to coordinate the effort. She said she
only heard about the problem when tea party
groups protested. The targeting, in fact, had
already been under internal and external
investigation.
In short, Lerner worked hard at denying her
agency's tactics on applications for nonprofit
status from groups deemed to be hostile to
the president's agenda. According to IRS
officials' congressional testimony, agents
were told to "be on the lookout" for groups
that "criticized how the government is being
run." Lerner even joked to colleagues that she
should get a job at Obama's activist group
Organizing for Action.
President Obama insists he didn't know about
any of this until he was briefed on it the way
he's briefed on so many issues: from news
reports. Nevertheless, we've since learned
that White House officials were aware
earlier.
Lerner, who was forced to resign, took the
Fifth Amendment rather than clear the air.
In the June issue of Commentary, Noah
Rothman notes that the mainstream media
initially treated the IRS story as a very big
deal. ABC's Terry Moran dubbed it a "truly
Nixonian abuse of power by the Obama
administration." But as Rothman notes, the
media were just as quick to buy the story that
this was a minor bureaucratic screw-up being
whipped up into what the president called yet
another "phony scandal."
More recently, Obama proclaimed there was
not even a "smidgen" of corruption at the IRS,
despite the fact his administration's own
investigations are still underway. Obama's
assurance seemed good enough for most of
the media.
This is one of the great public relations
turnaround stories of all time. Liberal groups
successfully spun the incident as a well-
intentioned mistake by a government agency
trying to deal with a deluge of new
applications from right-wing crazies let loose
by the Supreme Court's Citizens United
decision. The "real" story was -- again --
Republican overreach.
Never mind that there was no evidence for
such an "uptick" in applications -- Lerner's
word. Indeed, evidence suggests that Lerner
went looking for that evidence as an excuse
for abuses she had already undertaken.
So now the IRS claims that a computer crash
has irrevocably erased pertinent emails (an
excuse I will remember when I am audited).
National Review's John Fund reports that the
IRS manual says backups must exist. If emails
-- which exist on servers, clouds and
elsewhere -- can be destroyed this way,
someone should tell the NSA that there's a
cheaper way to encrypt data.
The storied City News Bureau of Chicago
famously lived by the motto "If your mother
tells you she loves you, check it out." The
bureau closed down several years ago.
Perhaps that kind of skepticism died with it.
"Congressional investigators are fuming over
revelations that the Internal Revenue Service
has lost a trove of emails to and from a
central figure in the agency's tea party
controversy."
That's the opening sentence of the Associated
Press story on the IRS's claim that it lost an
unknown number of emails over two years
relating to the agency's alleged targeting of
political groups hostile to the president.
But note how the AP casts the story: The
investigators -- Republican lawmakers -- are
outraged.
Is it really so hard to imagine that if this were
a Republican administration, the story
wouldn't be the frustration of partisan critics
of the president? It would be all about that
administration's behavior. With the
exception of National Journal's Ron Fournier,
who called for a special prosecutor to bypass
the White House's "stonewalling," and former
CBS correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, it's hard
to find a non-conservative journalist who
thinks this is a big deal.
Let's back up for a moment. In 2013, IRS
official Lois Lerner planted a question from
an audience member at an American Bar
Association meeting. She used her answer to
apologize for -- and favorably spin -- the
agency's actions, and then later claimed that
the apology came as an unprompted response
to a question.
Lerner laid the blame for the inappropriate
targeting of tea party and other groups to a
few low-level bureaucrats in Cincinnati. That
was a lie. Senior officials in the IRS knew and
helped to coordinate the effort. She said she
only heard about the problem when tea party
groups protested. The targeting, in fact, had
already been under internal and external
investigation.
In short, Lerner worked hard at denying her
agency's tactics on applications for nonprofit
status from groups deemed to be hostile to
the president's agenda. According to IRS
officials' congressional testimony, agents
were told to "be on the lookout" for groups
that "criticized how the government is being
run." Lerner even joked to colleagues that she
should get a job at Obama's activist group
Organizing for Action.
President Obama insists he didn't know about
any of this until he was briefed on it the way
he's briefed on so many issues: from news
reports. Nevertheless, we've since learned
that White House officials were aware
earlier.
Lerner, who was forced to resign, took the
Fifth Amendment rather than clear the air.
In the June issue of Commentary, Noah
Rothman notes that the mainstream media
initially treated the IRS story as a very big
deal. ABC's Terry Moran dubbed it a "truly
Nixonian abuse of power by the Obama
administration." But as Rothman notes, the
media were just as quick to buy the story that
this was a minor bureaucratic screw-up being
whipped up into what the president called yet
another "phony scandal."
More recently, Obama proclaimed there was
not even a "smidgen" of corruption at the IRS,
despite the fact his administration's own
investigations are still underway. Obama's
assurance seemed good enough for most of
the media.
This is one of the great public relations
turnaround stories of all time. Liberal groups
successfully spun the incident as a well-
intentioned mistake by a government agency
trying to deal with a deluge of new
applications from right-wing crazies let loose
by the Supreme Court's Citizens United
decision. The "real" story was -- again --
Republican overreach.
Never mind that there was no evidence for
such an "uptick" in applications -- Lerner's
word. Indeed, evidence suggests that Lerner
went looking for that evidence as an excuse
for abuses she had already undertaken.
So now the IRS claims that a computer crash
has irrevocably erased pertinent emails (an
excuse I will remember when I am audited).
National Review's John Fund reports that the
IRS manual says backups must exist. If emails
-- which exist on servers, clouds and
elsewhere -- can be destroyed this way,
someone should tell the NSA that there's a
cheaper way to encrypt data.
The storied City News Bureau of Chicago
famously lived by the motto "If your mother
tells you she loves you, check it out." The
bureau closed down several years ago.
Perhaps that kind of skepticism died with it.
ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT MEDIA FORAY
Austin Bay
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant's
bloody media foray into northern Iraq adds
another international dimension to Syria's
thoroughly internationalized civil war.
It is also a direct political challenge to the
Obama administration, one so stark that
unless the Administration acts decisively,
nations world wide that rely on U.S. security
support will severely question American
reliability.
"Media foray" is more apt than invasion, but
first internationalization.
Iran and Russia internationalized Syria's civil
war to save their own brutal cliques. Arab
Spring threatened authoritarians everywhere.
Tunisia's crony state fell quickly. Egypt's
oligarchy buckled. Libya's dictator faced
NATO-supported rebels. So Tehran and
Moscow rushed to the aid of their Syrian
client. Syria would be the dictators' political
firebreak where repression succeeded.
By fall 2011 Syria had become a war of
attrition, politically and militarily, and it
stayed that way until August 2013.
U.S. president Barack Obama told the Assad
regime that attacking the Syrian populace
with chemical weapons constituted a "red
line." Like, bad stuff would happen if Assad
used gas. On August 21, 2013, Assad's forces
murdered over 1,000 civilians with a rocket-
delivered nerve-gas attack. The Obama
administration responded with ... dithering.
Sunni militants opposed to the Assad regime
established bases in eastern Syria. Syria's
chaos, the porosity of a desert border and the
Iraqi state's unbridled cronyism provided
ISIL with an opportunity to re-energize
extreme Sunni Islamist militants dismayed by
Osama bin Laden's departure from planet
Earth. Hey, that is the propaganda pitch.
Eastern Syria and western Iraq will be the
core of the ISIL's new Global Caliphate. In
2001, bin Laden's caliphate core began in
Afghanistan. Bin Laden is dead, but the
grandiose utopian promise of a religious cure
for cultural fossilization and political failure
seduces the vulnerable souls of too many
alienated (and young) Muslim men.
Though it damns 12 years of calculated
Obama "political optics," Dick Cheney and
Donald Rumsfeld were right when they said
defeating militant Islamism would be a very
long struggle that had to be sustained by
action.
The strategic goal of ISIL's Iraq media foray
is global headlines that magnify ISIL's power
and question international resolve (especially
U.S. resolve) to confront the jihadi challenge.
If it sounds like 9/11's media goal, well, it is.
Strategypage.com called ISIL's attack "a mile-
wide and an inch deep." Why? "Right now the
local support for ISIL is just not there,"
Strategy Page reported June 16, though "the
Islamic radicalism that created centuries of
Islamic terrorism survives."
Bin Laden's al-Qaida was an information
power; it could not win on the battlefield.
ISIL does not have the fighters to sustain
attrition battles with Iraqi forces. Bribes to
crooked military and police officers have
spurred its successes. Sunni Arab tribes in
Iraq's Anbar Province have legitimate
grievances with Nouri al-Maliki's crony-
ridden Baghdad government, but Strategy
Page argued their support for ISIL's
internationalists is tepid.
The U.S. is the necessary actor; the ISIL
knows it, even if the Obama administration
doesn't.
The U.S. can meet ISIL's challenge by
returning to 2010. In 2010, the Iraqi security
forces, supported and mentored by the U.S.,
had inflicted a military and political defeat
on the various Sunni terror groups and
Iranian-backed Shia militant militias that had
attacked their nation.
In February 2010, on "Larry King Live" no
less, a grinning Vice President Joe Biden
proclaimed that Iraq "could be one of the
great achievements of this administration."
Wow. Less than three years after Sen. Harry
Reid (D., Global Caliphate.) declared the war
lost, and less than three years after then-Sen.
Barack Obama -- with his usual fierce moral
urgency -- opposed the Bush administration's
military surge, Obama's veep takes credit for
victory. Hey, doubters -- check the videotape.
At the strategic level, the U.S. and Iraq must
negotiate a new Status of Forces Agreement.
To stabilize, Iraqis need confidence; a long-
term U.S. security presence inspires
confidence.
At the military operational level: Iraqi forces
need U.S. airpower, now. They need U.S.
special operations forces teams to coordinate
air strikes and tap U.S. intelligence assets.
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant's
bloody media foray into northern Iraq adds
another international dimension to Syria's
thoroughly internationalized civil war.
It is also a direct political challenge to the
Obama administration, one so stark that
unless the Administration acts decisively,
nations world wide that rely on U.S. security
support will severely question American
reliability.
"Media foray" is more apt than invasion, but
first internationalization.
Iran and Russia internationalized Syria's civil
war to save their own brutal cliques. Arab
Spring threatened authoritarians everywhere.
Tunisia's crony state fell quickly. Egypt's
oligarchy buckled. Libya's dictator faced
NATO-supported rebels. So Tehran and
Moscow rushed to the aid of their Syrian
client. Syria would be the dictators' political
firebreak where repression succeeded.
By fall 2011 Syria had become a war of
attrition, politically and militarily, and it
stayed that way until August 2013.
U.S. president Barack Obama told the Assad
regime that attacking the Syrian populace
with chemical weapons constituted a "red
line." Like, bad stuff would happen if Assad
used gas. On August 21, 2013, Assad's forces
murdered over 1,000 civilians with a rocket-
delivered nerve-gas attack. The Obama
administration responded with ... dithering.
Sunni militants opposed to the Assad regime
established bases in eastern Syria. Syria's
chaos, the porosity of a desert border and the
Iraqi state's unbridled cronyism provided
ISIL with an opportunity to re-energize
extreme Sunni Islamist militants dismayed by
Osama bin Laden's departure from planet
Earth. Hey, that is the propaganda pitch.
Eastern Syria and western Iraq will be the
core of the ISIL's new Global Caliphate. In
2001, bin Laden's caliphate core began in
Afghanistan. Bin Laden is dead, but the
grandiose utopian promise of a religious cure
for cultural fossilization and political failure
seduces the vulnerable souls of too many
alienated (and young) Muslim men.
Though it damns 12 years of calculated
Obama "political optics," Dick Cheney and
Donald Rumsfeld were right when they said
defeating militant Islamism would be a very
long struggle that had to be sustained by
action.
The strategic goal of ISIL's Iraq media foray
is global headlines that magnify ISIL's power
and question international resolve (especially
U.S. resolve) to confront the jihadi challenge.
If it sounds like 9/11's media goal, well, it is.
Strategypage.com called ISIL's attack "a mile-
wide and an inch deep." Why? "Right now the
local support for ISIL is just not there,"
Strategy Page reported June 16, though "the
Islamic radicalism that created centuries of
Islamic terrorism survives."
Bin Laden's al-Qaida was an information
power; it could not win on the battlefield.
ISIL does not have the fighters to sustain
attrition battles with Iraqi forces. Bribes to
crooked military and police officers have
spurred its successes. Sunni Arab tribes in
Iraq's Anbar Province have legitimate
grievances with Nouri al-Maliki's crony-
ridden Baghdad government, but Strategy
Page argued their support for ISIL's
internationalists is tepid.
The U.S. is the necessary actor; the ISIL
knows it, even if the Obama administration
doesn't.
The U.S. can meet ISIL's challenge by
returning to 2010. In 2010, the Iraqi security
forces, supported and mentored by the U.S.,
had inflicted a military and political defeat
on the various Sunni terror groups and
Iranian-backed Shia militant militias that had
attacked their nation.
In February 2010, on "Larry King Live" no
less, a grinning Vice President Joe Biden
proclaimed that Iraq "could be one of the
great achievements of this administration."
Wow. Less than three years after Sen. Harry
Reid (D., Global Caliphate.) declared the war
lost, and less than three years after then-Sen.
Barack Obama -- with his usual fierce moral
urgency -- opposed the Bush administration's
military surge, Obama's veep takes credit for
victory. Hey, doubters -- check the videotape.
At the strategic level, the U.S. and Iraq must
negotiate a new Status of Forces Agreement.
To stabilize, Iraqis need confidence; a long-
term U.S. security presence inspires
confidence.
At the military operational level: Iraqi forces
need U.S. airpower, now. They need U.S.
special operations forces teams to coordinate
air strikes and tap U.S. intelligence assets.
MYANMAR'S NATIONAL CENSUS: FUELING ETHNIC CRISES
Aparupa Bhattacherjee
Research Officer, SEARP, IPCS
The nationwide census that was carried out from March
to May 2014 in Myanmar was an essential step in the
country’s preparation for the 2015 general elections.
The previous census was held 31 years ago in 1983,
under the military junta government. Thus, a new
census was essential. However, the census-conducting
process and the subsequent results may lead to the
already volatile social situation in Myanmar flaring up.
The census process has therefore led to severe criticism
of the government both from within and outside the
country.
Why is Myanmar’s 2014 census controversial? Why is
the process aggravating existing tensions in the
country’s society?
The Ethno-linguistic Mosaic of Myanmar's Society
The Myanmarese society is divided into several ethnic
and linguistic groups. Some ethnic groups belong to
specific regions – such as the Shan community of the
Shan province, the Kachin community of Kachin
province, and the Karen community of Karen province, to
name a few. These people are therefore referred to as
taingyinthar (literally sons of the geographical division)
in the Burmese language. These groups are further
divided into several other sub-groups. Sub-divisions
exist on the basis of clans, villages, languages, religious
groups, and other criteria. As a result, there are several
individuals who identify themselves with more than one
identity. For instance, an ethnic Kachin can also be a
’Maru’ or ’Rawang’ choosing their church groups.
Furthermore, internal migration and inter-ethnic
marriages have resulted in the blending of several ethnic
identities. Such a mix has led to the formation of
perceived identities. An ethnic a Karen by birth might
not identify himself/herself as Karen but with the
identity that the person has gained through marriage/
residence in a region for a long time – generating a
perceived identity. Children born of alliance between
people from two different ethnic groups might identify
themselves with both the ethnic groups, and or to the
region they have settled in.
The Census Fuel to the Ethnic Fire
The 2014 census has either failed to recognise the
complexity of the ethno-linguistic fabric of the
Myanmarese society or has tried to oversimplify it. The
census form allows a person to choose only one ethnic
identity. This has invited confusion and anger among
the citizenry due to the aforementioned reasons. This
issue will have political implications, given how many
supporters of ethnic political parties might choose their
sub-groups instead of their overarching ethnic identity in
the forms. This will affect the strength of the ethnicity-
based political parties.
Furthermore, the 2014 census form, like the one in 1983,
identifies 135 taingyinthar ethnic groups; and each
group is further divided into different categories.
However, different ethnic groups with no connections
have carelessly been clubbed together under one ethnic
group. For example, several groups in Shan provinces –
such as the Palaung, Lahu and Intha – are listed as
sub-groups of the Shan ethnic group; but they are
neither similar to the Shan group not to each other.
This carelessness has agitated the ethnic groups.
Additionally, the ongoing conflict in Kachin and Shan
provinces has disallowed the census from being
conducted in the whole of the former, and parts of the
latter. The conflict between the Kachin Independence
Army and the Tatmadaw has resulted in some residents
migrating to China and some having to shift to
Internally Displaced People’s (IDP) camps. This hence
fuels fears that that the census will be unfair. This has
also been inferred as ploy by the government that
comprises mainly of ethnic Barmars to misrepresent
percentage of the minorities. This will also lead to the
over-representation of the Barmars who are already the
majority 60 per cent (according to the previous census)
and the under-representation of those ethnic groups
whose members have either migrated to neighbouring
countries or settled in the IDP camps.
Several non-ethnic groups in Myanmar, such as the
Panthay Muslims, Gurkhas, people of Indian origin, and
those others who have lived in the country for centuries
and are in large numbers, did not find a mention in the
form. They had to register themselves either in the
‘others’ category or according to the country of their
origin – thus angering these groups. The situation is
the same for the Rohingyas. Earlier, in March,
Naypyidaw announced the prohibition on using the term
‘Rohingya’ and made them register as ‘Bengalis’ in the
census form. This action not only denied the Rohingyas
their identity but also ratified the Buddhist radicals’
demand that the term Rohingya should not be included
in the census form.
Ominous Implications
The census result that is scheduled to be declared in
early 2015 might lead to the further violence. According
to the previous census, there were only four per cent
Muslims in Myanmar, and any increase in this
percentage may lead to escalation of violence by
Buddhist radicals. Moreover, the result may also
highlight the gradual process of the ethnic cleansing of
the Rohingya people. A national census is essential for
the comprehensive development of every country.
However, in Myanmar, it appears to be ringing the
warning bells.
Research Officer, SEARP, IPCS
The nationwide census that was carried out from March
to May 2014 in Myanmar was an essential step in the
country’s preparation for the 2015 general elections.
The previous census was held 31 years ago in 1983,
under the military junta government. Thus, a new
census was essential. However, the census-conducting
process and the subsequent results may lead to the
already volatile social situation in Myanmar flaring up.
The census process has therefore led to severe criticism
of the government both from within and outside the
country.
Why is Myanmar’s 2014 census controversial? Why is
the process aggravating existing tensions in the
country’s society?
The Ethno-linguistic Mosaic of Myanmar's Society
The Myanmarese society is divided into several ethnic
and linguistic groups. Some ethnic groups belong to
specific regions – such as the Shan community of the
Shan province, the Kachin community of Kachin
province, and the Karen community of Karen province, to
name a few. These people are therefore referred to as
taingyinthar (literally sons of the geographical division)
in the Burmese language. These groups are further
divided into several other sub-groups. Sub-divisions
exist on the basis of clans, villages, languages, religious
groups, and other criteria. As a result, there are several
individuals who identify themselves with more than one
identity. For instance, an ethnic Kachin can also be a
’Maru’ or ’Rawang’ choosing their church groups.
Furthermore, internal migration and inter-ethnic
marriages have resulted in the blending of several ethnic
identities. Such a mix has led to the formation of
perceived identities. An ethnic a Karen by birth might
not identify himself/herself as Karen but with the
identity that the person has gained through marriage/
residence in a region for a long time – generating a
perceived identity. Children born of alliance between
people from two different ethnic groups might identify
themselves with both the ethnic groups, and or to the
region they have settled in.
The Census Fuel to the Ethnic Fire
The 2014 census has either failed to recognise the
complexity of the ethno-linguistic fabric of the
Myanmarese society or has tried to oversimplify it. The
census form allows a person to choose only one ethnic
identity. This has invited confusion and anger among
the citizenry due to the aforementioned reasons. This
issue will have political implications, given how many
supporters of ethnic political parties might choose their
sub-groups instead of their overarching ethnic identity in
the forms. This will affect the strength of the ethnicity-
based political parties.
Furthermore, the 2014 census form, like the one in 1983,
identifies 135 taingyinthar ethnic groups; and each
group is further divided into different categories.
However, different ethnic groups with no connections
have carelessly been clubbed together under one ethnic
group. For example, several groups in Shan provinces –
such as the Palaung, Lahu and Intha – are listed as
sub-groups of the Shan ethnic group; but they are
neither similar to the Shan group not to each other.
This carelessness has agitated the ethnic groups.
Additionally, the ongoing conflict in Kachin and Shan
provinces has disallowed the census from being
conducted in the whole of the former, and parts of the
latter. The conflict between the Kachin Independence
Army and the Tatmadaw has resulted in some residents
migrating to China and some having to shift to
Internally Displaced People’s (IDP) camps. This hence
fuels fears that that the census will be unfair. This has
also been inferred as ploy by the government that
comprises mainly of ethnic Barmars to misrepresent
percentage of the minorities. This will also lead to the
over-representation of the Barmars who are already the
majority 60 per cent (according to the previous census)
and the under-representation of those ethnic groups
whose members have either migrated to neighbouring
countries or settled in the IDP camps.
Several non-ethnic groups in Myanmar, such as the
Panthay Muslims, Gurkhas, people of Indian origin, and
those others who have lived in the country for centuries
and are in large numbers, did not find a mention in the
form. They had to register themselves either in the
‘others’ category or according to the country of their
origin – thus angering these groups. The situation is
the same for the Rohingyas. Earlier, in March,
Naypyidaw announced the prohibition on using the term
‘Rohingya’ and made them register as ‘Bengalis’ in the
census form. This action not only denied the Rohingyas
their identity but also ratified the Buddhist radicals’
demand that the term Rohingya should not be included
in the census form.
Ominous Implications
The census result that is scheduled to be declared in
early 2015 might lead to the further violence. According
to the previous census, there were only four per cent
Muslims in Myanmar, and any increase in this
percentage may lead to escalation of violence by
Buddhist radicals. Moreover, the result may also
highlight the gradual process of the ethnic cleansing of
the Rohingya people. A national census is essential for
the comprehensive development of every country.
However, in Myanmar, it appears to be ringing the
warning bells.
MODI'S THIMPU VISIT: DEEPENING INDIA-BHUTAN RELATIONS
Roomana Hukil
Research Officer, IRES, IPCS
In his maiden foreign visit as premier, Prime Minister
Narendra Modi, recently went to Bhutan to strengthen
development cooperation and further enhance economic
ties. Although there are no big agreements on the anvil,
the prime minister's short visit marks his high regard
for the South Asian neighbourhood over the extended
international community. Prime Minister Modi stated
that India and Bhutan are 'made for each other',
considering the historical and traditional linkages
between the two.
Why is Bhutan Vital for India Today?
The visit to Bhutan exemplifies India’s strategic effort to
enhance cooperation with the country. Nepal, Sri Lanka
and Bangladesh were the other countries that were
considered for the prime minister’s first foreign tour.
However, trans-boundary issues and bilateral concerns
hindered the PM from visiting the aforementioned
places.
India and Bhutan have shared the friendliest ties in the
past years when compared to India’s other South Asian
neighbours. The country’s economies are closely related
to each other despite pressure and resistance from
powerful countries. China, for instance, has been trying
to win Bhutan over and reduce India’s growing
influence. However, Bhutan has made a conscious effort
to avoid taking any decision contrary to India’s national
interests, which India is cognisant of. Significantly, fuel
subsidies to Bhutan were temporarily rolled back by
India in 2013. Although the decree was later revoked,
the roll-back somewhat soured bilateral relations. The
PM’s visit may help to bring these ties back on track.
Both India and Bhutan are interdependent States. India
is Bhutan’s largest trading partner (99 per cent imports
and 90 per cent exports), and Bhutan is an important
partner because India’s economy significantly relies on
Bhutan for hydropower, besides other socio-political and
economic overlaps. Bhutan is set to be a major source
of power for India in the upcoming years. India is
expected to reap dividends worth US$2 billion by
investing in the construction of three hydro-electric
projects in Bhutan with a combined installed capacity of
1400 megawatts (MW) and from three other projects,
totalling 3000 MW.
Moving Beyond Rhetoric
Power sector engagement has been the primary avenue
for India and Bhutan in taking their relationship forward.
Power diplomacy with Bhutan has been India’s most
successful story. However, there is a deepening divide
within Bhutan on India that is hindering bilateral
relations.
Besides offering to intensify cooperation on the
hydropower front, Modi emphasised the essence of
greater educational contacts and stated that India will
double the present number of scholarships for the
Bhutanese in India, worth approximately US$ 3 million.
Modi stated that India will also assist Bhutan in the
setting up of a digital library that will provide access to
over two million books and periodicals. He also
inaugurated the Supreme Court building that was built
with Indian aid. The PM promised to help Bhutan in its
science and technology sector. He noted that India's
satellite technology was a model that could be used by
Bhutan. Besides this, he encouraged a sports meet to
enhance people-to-people contact in the region.
The India-Bhutan hydropower cooperation is a classic
example of successful bilateral cooperation; however,
the two countries face a range of other challenges that
have been straining the ties. The PM’s recent visit did
make a strategic mark because he covered most of the
short and long-term issues that point towards further
development and cooperation between the two States.
However, a vital factor that was left out of the PM’s
agenda was the Siliguri corridor in India. The area is
vital for India as it is the sole link between the Indian
mainland and the Northeast. The Chumbi Valley that
connects Bhutan, India and the China border is of
immense geostrategic importance to the three nations
for trade and commerce.
The Indian delegation should have sought to address
the Siliguri corridor since road and railway connectivity
is a major hindrance that disengages the border states
in this region. A free trade agreement between India,
China, Bhutan, Nepal and Bangladesh is another
promising avenue that was not articulated in the
meeting.
The PM is set to lay the foundation stone of the 600
MW Kholongchu hydropower project, however, his visit
exemplifies that India does not regard Bhutan’s
hydroelectric sector as the prime vantage point for
future India–Bhutan relations. Both India and Bhutan
comprehend that trust and public diplomacy are the
primary leverages that can take the relationship forward.
Research Officer, IRES, IPCS
In his maiden foreign visit as premier, Prime Minister
Narendra Modi, recently went to Bhutan to strengthen
development cooperation and further enhance economic
ties. Although there are no big agreements on the anvil,
the prime minister's short visit marks his high regard
for the South Asian neighbourhood over the extended
international community. Prime Minister Modi stated
that India and Bhutan are 'made for each other',
considering the historical and traditional linkages
between the two.
Why is Bhutan Vital for India Today?
The visit to Bhutan exemplifies India’s strategic effort to
enhance cooperation with the country. Nepal, Sri Lanka
and Bangladesh were the other countries that were
considered for the prime minister’s first foreign tour.
However, trans-boundary issues and bilateral concerns
hindered the PM from visiting the aforementioned
places.
India and Bhutan have shared the friendliest ties in the
past years when compared to India’s other South Asian
neighbours. The country’s economies are closely related
to each other despite pressure and resistance from
powerful countries. China, for instance, has been trying
to win Bhutan over and reduce India’s growing
influence. However, Bhutan has made a conscious effort
to avoid taking any decision contrary to India’s national
interests, which India is cognisant of. Significantly, fuel
subsidies to Bhutan were temporarily rolled back by
India in 2013. Although the decree was later revoked,
the roll-back somewhat soured bilateral relations. The
PM’s visit may help to bring these ties back on track.
Both India and Bhutan are interdependent States. India
is Bhutan’s largest trading partner (99 per cent imports
and 90 per cent exports), and Bhutan is an important
partner because India’s economy significantly relies on
Bhutan for hydropower, besides other socio-political and
economic overlaps. Bhutan is set to be a major source
of power for India in the upcoming years. India is
expected to reap dividends worth US$2 billion by
investing in the construction of three hydro-electric
projects in Bhutan with a combined installed capacity of
1400 megawatts (MW) and from three other projects,
totalling 3000 MW.
Moving Beyond Rhetoric
Power sector engagement has been the primary avenue
for India and Bhutan in taking their relationship forward.
Power diplomacy with Bhutan has been India’s most
successful story. However, there is a deepening divide
within Bhutan on India that is hindering bilateral
relations.
Besides offering to intensify cooperation on the
hydropower front, Modi emphasised the essence of
greater educational contacts and stated that India will
double the present number of scholarships for the
Bhutanese in India, worth approximately US$ 3 million.
Modi stated that India will also assist Bhutan in the
setting up of a digital library that will provide access to
over two million books and periodicals. He also
inaugurated the Supreme Court building that was built
with Indian aid. The PM promised to help Bhutan in its
science and technology sector. He noted that India's
satellite technology was a model that could be used by
Bhutan. Besides this, he encouraged a sports meet to
enhance people-to-people contact in the region.
The India-Bhutan hydropower cooperation is a classic
example of successful bilateral cooperation; however,
the two countries face a range of other challenges that
have been straining the ties. The PM’s recent visit did
make a strategic mark because he covered most of the
short and long-term issues that point towards further
development and cooperation between the two States.
However, a vital factor that was left out of the PM’s
agenda was the Siliguri corridor in India. The area is
vital for India as it is the sole link between the Indian
mainland and the Northeast. The Chumbi Valley that
connects Bhutan, India and the China border is of
immense geostrategic importance to the three nations
for trade and commerce.
The Indian delegation should have sought to address
the Siliguri corridor since road and railway connectivity
is a major hindrance that disengages the border states
in this region. A free trade agreement between India,
China, Bhutan, Nepal and Bangladesh is another
promising avenue that was not articulated in the
meeting.
The PM is set to lay the foundation stone of the 600
MW Kholongchu hydropower project, however, his visit
exemplifies that India does not regard Bhutan’s
hydroelectric sector as the prime vantage point for
future India–Bhutan relations. Both India and Bhutan
comprehend that trust and public diplomacy are the
primary leverages that can take the relationship forward.
INDIA'S NORTHEAST: AN AGENDA FOR DoNER
Ruhee Neog
Senior Research Officer, NSP, IPCS
In interviews conducted post his appointment as the
head for the Ministry for the Development of the
Northeastern Region (DoNER), General (Retd) VK Singh
identified certain areas for the “overall development” of
the Northeast. This article will seek to discuss and give
substance to two of these areas, which have thus far
been mentioned preliminarily, and suggest a third.
The very first priority, which is probably already in the
works, must of course be a review of the performance of
the ministry - whether it has been able to fulfil its remit,
and most crucially, where it might have gone wrong.
This is primarily because the goals of the ministry are
going to roughly be the same as before, and the
changes will most likely be in the processes employed –
not the ‘what’ but the ‘how’. An assessment therefore
will be of immense help in identifying how past mistakes
can be avoided and in structuring the list of priorities.
Connectivity and Economic Growth
Connectivity is essential for trade, and trade for
economic growth. For this, comprehensive backward
and forward links with the rest of India and across the
region’s massive international borders are essential.
Currently, connectivity on all three counts - between the
Northeast states, with the rest of India, and abroad – is
dismal.
General Singh also holds the portfolio of Minister of
State of External Affairs, which is very interesting
because the development of the Northeast necessitates
to a large part the proper implementation of India’s
Look East Policy (LEP). There have long been
complaints about how, in the enthusiasm for the LEP’s
success, the Northeast would merely be a spectator of
the development that would pass through it without
necessarily doing any good to the region itself. The dual
role that General Singh has taken on is therefore a
welcome move, and it is hoped that this would lead to
the DoNER and the Ministry for External Affairs (MEA)
working complementarily where required.
In terms of cross-border trade, the trade conducted at
Moreh in Manipur and Tamu in Myanmar is instructive.
It is noted that while the essential institutions are in
existence, their performance leaves a lot to be desired.
For instance, Moreh has both Land Customs and
Currency Exchange Centres, but they are under-staffed
and do not function well. Additionally, despite there
being a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between
Myanmar and India, which is meant to ensure that
taxation occurs only in a company’s country of
permanent residence, tax irregularities continue to
persist. Business is therefore sought to be conducted
through seaports in Kolkata, Mumbai and Singapore,
even though a land access point with (theoretically)
hugely reduced transport costs is available.
Another major problem is air connectivity. Proposals for
Greenfield airports in the Northeast have been bandied
about but come to naught, with the exception of the
airport at Pakyong, Sikkim, and the future of an Open
Skies Policy as introduced by the ASEAN-India Aviation
Cooperation Framework, which could be a trade
multiplier, is uncertain.
Infrastructure Facilitation and Investment Promotion
The problem here is not of insufficient funds but that of
funds not funnelling through to their targeted
beneficiaries.
The most practicable investment model for the
Northeast is the Public Private Partnership (PPP) model.
However, it is difficult to chart a clear trajectory in the
advancements that have apparently been made, and
political imperatives often mean that these projects
extend indefinitely beyond their deadline or come to a
halt altogether with declarations of being revived at
some point in the future. The lethargic implementations
of ambitious plans and inter-state politicking have held
these projects back.
Image Management and Accountability
The popular perception of DoNER in the Northeast is
more negative than positive. It is seen as a region-
specific ministry whose perspective is unfortunately
informed more by the Centre, from which it emerges,
rather than the region whose interests it seeks to
represent. Added to this is its lacklustre performance
and apparent inaction, which has much to do with the
lack of public dissemination of information.
The deficiency in public knowledge of the DoNER’s
activities becomes especially important in light of the
reactions to DoNER’s new avatar. In particular, much
has been said about the appointment of a former Army
man, General (Retd) VK Singh, as the Minister in charge
of this portfolio. Many have expressed their concerns
about the practice of looking at the Northeast through a
‘combative’, military lens. To quell such misgivings, it
becomes imperative for the ministry to corroborate its
work to safeguard the interests of the region through
active and regular dissemination of information.
Controlled transparency would allow accountability,
which in turn would help inspire regional confidence in
DoNER’s workings.
What can be most unambiguously said about this
change of guard is that above all else, DONER needed
an injection of fresh blood. Whether this will be to the
detriment of the region or its gain cannot be deduced in
the first few days of the new ministry’s existence.
Senior Research Officer, NSP, IPCS
In interviews conducted post his appointment as the
head for the Ministry for the Development of the
Northeastern Region (DoNER), General (Retd) VK Singh
identified certain areas for the “overall development” of
the Northeast. This article will seek to discuss and give
substance to two of these areas, which have thus far
been mentioned preliminarily, and suggest a third.
The very first priority, which is probably already in the
works, must of course be a review of the performance of
the ministry - whether it has been able to fulfil its remit,
and most crucially, where it might have gone wrong.
This is primarily because the goals of the ministry are
going to roughly be the same as before, and the
changes will most likely be in the processes employed –
not the ‘what’ but the ‘how’. An assessment therefore
will be of immense help in identifying how past mistakes
can be avoided and in structuring the list of priorities.
Connectivity and Economic Growth
Connectivity is essential for trade, and trade for
economic growth. For this, comprehensive backward
and forward links with the rest of India and across the
region’s massive international borders are essential.
Currently, connectivity on all three counts - between the
Northeast states, with the rest of India, and abroad – is
dismal.
General Singh also holds the portfolio of Minister of
State of External Affairs, which is very interesting
because the development of the Northeast necessitates
to a large part the proper implementation of India’s
Look East Policy (LEP). There have long been
complaints about how, in the enthusiasm for the LEP’s
success, the Northeast would merely be a spectator of
the development that would pass through it without
necessarily doing any good to the region itself. The dual
role that General Singh has taken on is therefore a
welcome move, and it is hoped that this would lead to
the DoNER and the Ministry for External Affairs (MEA)
working complementarily where required.
In terms of cross-border trade, the trade conducted at
Moreh in Manipur and Tamu in Myanmar is instructive.
It is noted that while the essential institutions are in
existence, their performance leaves a lot to be desired.
For instance, Moreh has both Land Customs and
Currency Exchange Centres, but they are under-staffed
and do not function well. Additionally, despite there
being a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between
Myanmar and India, which is meant to ensure that
taxation occurs only in a company’s country of
permanent residence, tax irregularities continue to
persist. Business is therefore sought to be conducted
through seaports in Kolkata, Mumbai and Singapore,
even though a land access point with (theoretically)
hugely reduced transport costs is available.
Another major problem is air connectivity. Proposals for
Greenfield airports in the Northeast have been bandied
about but come to naught, with the exception of the
airport at Pakyong, Sikkim, and the future of an Open
Skies Policy as introduced by the ASEAN-India Aviation
Cooperation Framework, which could be a trade
multiplier, is uncertain.
Infrastructure Facilitation and Investment Promotion
The problem here is not of insufficient funds but that of
funds not funnelling through to their targeted
beneficiaries.
The most practicable investment model for the
Northeast is the Public Private Partnership (PPP) model.
However, it is difficult to chart a clear trajectory in the
advancements that have apparently been made, and
political imperatives often mean that these projects
extend indefinitely beyond their deadline or come to a
halt altogether with declarations of being revived at
some point in the future. The lethargic implementations
of ambitious plans and inter-state politicking have held
these projects back.
Image Management and Accountability
The popular perception of DoNER in the Northeast is
more negative than positive. It is seen as a region-
specific ministry whose perspective is unfortunately
informed more by the Centre, from which it emerges,
rather than the region whose interests it seeks to
represent. Added to this is its lacklustre performance
and apparent inaction, which has much to do with the
lack of public dissemination of information.
The deficiency in public knowledge of the DoNER’s
activities becomes especially important in light of the
reactions to DoNER’s new avatar. In particular, much
has been said about the appointment of a former Army
man, General (Retd) VK Singh, as the Minister in charge
of this portfolio. Many have expressed their concerns
about the practice of looking at the Northeast through a
‘combative’, military lens. To quell such misgivings, it
becomes imperative for the ministry to corroborate its
work to safeguard the interests of the region through
active and regular dissemination of information.
Controlled transparency would allow accountability,
which in turn would help inspire regional confidence in
DoNER’s workings.
What can be most unambiguously said about this
change of guard is that above all else, DONER needed
an injection of fresh blood. Whether this will be to the
detriment of the region or its gain cannot be deduced in
the first few days of the new ministry’s existence.
INDIA-PAKISTAN: THE MFN-NDMARB DEBACLE
Sushant Sareen.
Senior Fellow, Vivekananda International Foundation.
In the irrational exuberance that is invariably on display
in the media every time leaders of India and Pakistan
meet, the subtlety of some of the signals that are sent
out is often lost. Something similar happened after the
Indian Foreign Secretary briefed the media about the
meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi with his
Pakistani counterpart who, along with other South Asian
leaders, had been invited to the swearing-in ceremony of
the new Indian government. The media latched on to
the words ‘the two countries could move immediately
towards full trade normalisation…’ and went overboard
in talking about the prospects of Indo-Pak trade taking-
off. But in the process they missed the significant rider
that India had put, viz. ‘…on the basis of the September
2012 roadmap’. This rider effectively reopens the entire
trade deal between India and Pakistan and nullifies the
agreement that had been reached between the
Manmohan Singh government and Nawaz Sharif
government in February 2014. The message that the
Modi government seemed to be sending was that it will
not accept the constant shifting of the goalposts on the
trade issue by Pakistan.
The first big breakthrough on the trade front came in
2011 after India withdrew its objection to the trade
concessions offered by the EU to Pakistan as part of an
aid package to help Pakistan get over the damage
caused by the 2010 mega-flood.
Apparently, India’s ‘gesture’ was part of a back room
deal with Pakistan which, in return for India withdrawing
its objections at WTO, agreed to a roadmap to open
trade and grant India the Most Favoured Nation (MFN)
status in a time-bound manner. The way India looked at
it, the damage caused to India’s exports by the EU
package for Pakistan would be adequately
compensated, both politically and economically, by the
fillip that India-Pakistan trade would receive as a result
of a trade agreement between the two countries.
Following negotiations between the then Pakistan
People’s Party-led government in Pakistan and the
United Progressive Alliance-2 government in India, a
roadmap was agreed in 2012. Under this roadmap, in a
time bound manner Pakistan would first replace the
positive list of tradable items with a negative list. This
would be followed by according full MFN status to
India. Some items would remain on the sensitive list
and this list would steadily be pared down. Pakistan’s
concerns about non-tariff barriers and trade access
were also addressed and three trade-related agreements
were struck. But Pakistan reneged on the roadmap and
apart from replacing the positive list with a negative list,
there was no further movement.
After the Nawaz Sharif government assumed office, a
new round of negotiations commenced between the two
countries. By February 2014, a new deal was worked
out which significantly altered the terms of trade
engagement. Instead of the MFN status, Pakistan now
offered a ‘Non-Discriminatory Market Access on
Reciprocal Basis’ (NDMARB). While this new
arrangement gave everything that India would get under
MFN, it was not quite MFN. This was a bilateral trading
arrangement as opposed to MFN which is a multilateral
arrangement under the WTO. Because this was a
bilateral arrangement, Pakistan was free to walk out of
it if it felt it did not serve its interests or if the gains it
anticipated from trading with India were not according
to expectation. Pakistan’s commerce minister said so in
a number of interviews he gave after striking this
agreement with his then Indian counterpart, Anand
Sharma. Since it was a bilateral arrangement, the
dispute resolution mechanism under this arrangement
would not be under WTO rules, which in turn meant that
whims and fancies of Pakistan's real rulers (who
thankfully scuttled this deal) would continue to impinge
and impose themselves on the bilateral trade.
Frankly, the February 2014 deal was an unequal bargain
loaded almost entirely in Pakistan’s favour. Sectors in
which India enjoyed a comparative advantage were
blocked while those which were of interest to Pakistan
were made part of the deal. There was no give by
Pakistan on other issues of interest to India, such as
transit rights to Afghanistan and beyond. While Pakistan
agreed to opening up trade via Wagah, this again served
Pakistan more than India. After all, if Pakistan expected
to increase its exports to India by an estimated $ 2
billion and wanted its Punjab to benefit from trade with
India, then opening Wagah was a no brainer.
Additionally, Pakistan wanted India to open banking
channels and liberalise visas but was unwilling to
address India’s serious concerns on export of terrorism
into India. The unkindest cut of all was that, in spite of
the fact that on practically every issue, it was India and
not Pakistan that has made concessions, Pakistan
waved the trade deal as a major concession that they
have given to India to kick-start the normalisation
process!
While negotiating the trade deal with Pakistan, the India
probably forgot that political or diplomatic dividend that
accrues on account of trade between two countries that
don’t share the best of relations is, or should be, at
best a by-product and not the primary motive of
normalising trade. When concessions are given which
tend to introduce distortions by undermining the
comparative and competitive advantage of one country
to protect the inefficient sectors of another country then
the logic of trade is turned on its head. India's biggest
is that it mixed politics with trade; and that was hardly
a sensible thing to do especially since the political
benefit remained iffy and the trade benefit was marginal.
Even if trade with Pakistan increased by 100%, it would
be less than 1% of India’s total foreign trade.
Fortunately, despite the extremely favourable terms
offered by India, the Pakistan army prevented the
Nawaz Sharif government from grabbing the deal.
With a new government in India, it appears that the best
possible deal that Pakistani could get is no longer on
offer, and trade negotiations will have to restart,
practically from square one.
Senior Fellow, Vivekananda International Foundation.
In the irrational exuberance that is invariably on display
in the media every time leaders of India and Pakistan
meet, the subtlety of some of the signals that are sent
out is often lost. Something similar happened after the
Indian Foreign Secretary briefed the media about the
meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi with his
Pakistani counterpart who, along with other South Asian
leaders, had been invited to the swearing-in ceremony of
the new Indian government. The media latched on to
the words ‘the two countries could move immediately
towards full trade normalisation…’ and went overboard
in talking about the prospects of Indo-Pak trade taking-
off. But in the process they missed the significant rider
that India had put, viz. ‘…on the basis of the September
2012 roadmap’. This rider effectively reopens the entire
trade deal between India and Pakistan and nullifies the
agreement that had been reached between the
Manmohan Singh government and Nawaz Sharif
government in February 2014. The message that the
Modi government seemed to be sending was that it will
not accept the constant shifting of the goalposts on the
trade issue by Pakistan.
The first big breakthrough on the trade front came in
2011 after India withdrew its objection to the trade
concessions offered by the EU to Pakistan as part of an
aid package to help Pakistan get over the damage
caused by the 2010 mega-flood.
Apparently, India’s ‘gesture’ was part of a back room
deal with Pakistan which, in return for India withdrawing
its objections at WTO, agreed to a roadmap to open
trade and grant India the Most Favoured Nation (MFN)
status in a time-bound manner. The way India looked at
it, the damage caused to India’s exports by the EU
package for Pakistan would be adequately
compensated, both politically and economically, by the
fillip that India-Pakistan trade would receive as a result
of a trade agreement between the two countries.
Following negotiations between the then Pakistan
People’s Party-led government in Pakistan and the
United Progressive Alliance-2 government in India, a
roadmap was agreed in 2012. Under this roadmap, in a
time bound manner Pakistan would first replace the
positive list of tradable items with a negative list. This
would be followed by according full MFN status to
India. Some items would remain on the sensitive list
and this list would steadily be pared down. Pakistan’s
concerns about non-tariff barriers and trade access
were also addressed and three trade-related agreements
were struck. But Pakistan reneged on the roadmap and
apart from replacing the positive list with a negative list,
there was no further movement.
After the Nawaz Sharif government assumed office, a
new round of negotiations commenced between the two
countries. By February 2014, a new deal was worked
out which significantly altered the terms of trade
engagement. Instead of the MFN status, Pakistan now
offered a ‘Non-Discriminatory Market Access on
Reciprocal Basis’ (NDMARB). While this new
arrangement gave everything that India would get under
MFN, it was not quite MFN. This was a bilateral trading
arrangement as opposed to MFN which is a multilateral
arrangement under the WTO. Because this was a
bilateral arrangement, Pakistan was free to walk out of
it if it felt it did not serve its interests or if the gains it
anticipated from trading with India were not according
to expectation. Pakistan’s commerce minister said so in
a number of interviews he gave after striking this
agreement with his then Indian counterpart, Anand
Sharma. Since it was a bilateral arrangement, the
dispute resolution mechanism under this arrangement
would not be under WTO rules, which in turn meant that
whims and fancies of Pakistan's real rulers (who
thankfully scuttled this deal) would continue to impinge
and impose themselves on the bilateral trade.
Frankly, the February 2014 deal was an unequal bargain
loaded almost entirely in Pakistan’s favour. Sectors in
which India enjoyed a comparative advantage were
blocked while those which were of interest to Pakistan
were made part of the deal. There was no give by
Pakistan on other issues of interest to India, such as
transit rights to Afghanistan and beyond. While Pakistan
agreed to opening up trade via Wagah, this again served
Pakistan more than India. After all, if Pakistan expected
to increase its exports to India by an estimated $ 2
billion and wanted its Punjab to benefit from trade with
India, then opening Wagah was a no brainer.
Additionally, Pakistan wanted India to open banking
channels and liberalise visas but was unwilling to
address India’s serious concerns on export of terrorism
into India. The unkindest cut of all was that, in spite of
the fact that on practically every issue, it was India and
not Pakistan that has made concessions, Pakistan
waved the trade deal as a major concession that they
have given to India to kick-start the normalisation
process!
While negotiating the trade deal with Pakistan, the India
probably forgot that political or diplomatic dividend that
accrues on account of trade between two countries that
don’t share the best of relations is, or should be, at
best a by-product and not the primary motive of
normalising trade. When concessions are given which
tend to introduce distortions by undermining the
comparative and competitive advantage of one country
to protect the inefficient sectors of another country then
the logic of trade is turned on its head. India's biggest
is that it mixed politics with trade; and that was hardly
a sensible thing to do especially since the political
benefit remained iffy and the trade benefit was marginal.
Even if trade with Pakistan increased by 100%, it would
be less than 1% of India’s total foreign trade.
Fortunately, despite the extremely favourable terms
offered by India, the Pakistan army prevented the
Nawaz Sharif government from grabbing the deal.
With a new government in India, it appears that the best
possible deal that Pakistani could get is no longer on
offer, and trade negotiations will have to restart,
practically from square one.
17 Jun 2014
PRISONERS EXCHANGE: OBAMA VS GEORGE WASHINGTON
Last week, I spoke about how President
Barack Obama justified his prisoner swap of
five senior Taliban leaders for U.S. Army Sgt.
Bowe Bergdahl by saying former military
leaders and presidents, including George
Washington, have engaged in prisoner of war
exchange, too.
Obama's exact words were: "This is what
happens at the end of wars. That was true for
George Washington; that was true for
Abraham Lincoln; that was true for FDR;
that's been true of every combat situation --
that at some point, you make sure that you try
to get your folks back. And that's the right
thing to do."
From that statement alone, I revealed how
Obama's made grievous errors in judgment
by concluding that 1) the war is over and 2)
he was engaging in a prisoner exchange like
George Washington -- to take just a single
example among his list of stellar leaders.
What Obama didn't tell you regarding
Washington and prisoner exchange during
the Revolutionary War is that both countries
-- England and the U.S. -- exchanged
prisoners of war because both had "few
facilities to accommodate large numbers of
prisoners," according to the Mount Vernon
Ladies' Association, whose mission it is "to
preserve, restore, and manage the estate of
George Washington to the highest standards
and to educate visitors and people throughout
the world about the life and legacies of
George Washington."
As far as buying Americans back from
captivity at the price of enemy combatants,
Obama needs to follow the example of Gen.
Washington, who "made sure that no states
holding military prisoners should trade a
British soldier for an American citizen.
Washington believed that this would have
legitimized the British capture of more
citizens, most of whom were largely
defenseless."
Though no one is minimizing the
understandable elation of Bergdahl's family
over his release, George Washington would
not have traded for him, because he didn't
believe in trading prisoners of war until after
the war was in fact over, treaties were signed
and hostilities ceased, lest he risk the capture
of further American people for ransom.
Here are my two additional grievances with
Obama's prisoner of war exchange:
3) As the commander in chief, George
Washington wouldn't have completely
undermined the very heart and soul of the
military as Obama did with his prisoner
exchange, especially in light of how it is a
cardinal sin in military culture to abandon
one's post and platoon during war.
A little over a week ago, The Washington Post
reported, "Ralph Peters, a retired lieutenant
colonel and intelligence officer, wrote in
National Review that a 'fundamental culture
clash' exists between the president's team
and those in the armed forces, as reflected by
(national security adviser Susan) Rice's
remarks on Bergdahl's honor."
"Both President Obama and Ms. Rice seem to
think that the crime of desertion in wartime
is kind of like skipping class," Peters wrote.
"They have no idea of how great a sin
desertion in the face of the enemy is to those
in our military. The only worse sin is to side
actively with the enemy and kill your
brothers in arms. This is not sleeping in on
Monday morning and ducking Gender Studies
101."
Maybe a key here as to why Obama could so
easily discard military code and culture is he
really doesn't regard America's battleground
in the world as a war on terror in the first
place.
Remember the 2009 explanative memo from
the White House to Pentagon staff members
via the Defense Department that said that
"this administration prefers to avoid using
the term 'Long War' or 'Global War on
Terror.' Please use 'Overseas Contingency
Operation'"?
Of course, while the White House plays with
semantics, our courageous U.S. military
personnel are continuing to fight and die on
the battlefield. While the war diminishes in
Obama's fairy tale mind, he just gifted the
real war on terror and the Taliban with their
greatest boost in years.
4) George Washington would not have
emboldened America's greatest enemies
around the world and put at greater risk not
only U.S. military personnel but also
American citizens by increasing their
captivity value in the eyes of our enemies.
And what are the odds that Obama had
another political ulterior motive for prisoner
exchange -- namely, the turning of the
American mind and media from his Veterans
Affairs battlefield? For his "never waste a
crisis"-saturated administration, is this
hypothesis really a stretch?
On June 5, veteran newsman and CEO of
WorldNetDaily Joseph Farah wrote in a
column titled "What Motivates Obama?": "Is it
possible that part of the calculated political
motivation underlying Obama's decision was
just that -- getting the VA out of the nation's
headlines? At first glance, it seems counter-
intuitive: Can you escape one scandal by
creating another? The answer is, of course.
It's called the old 'wag the dog' strategy."
The bottom line, as President Obama recently
said to cadets at the United States Military
Academy, is that "for the foreseeable future,
the most direct threat to America, at home
and abroad, remains terrorism."
Yet his actions as commander in chief say just
the opposite. Indeed, last June, he said
America needed to draw down its war footing
and bring it to an end.
The truth is that Obama is too conciliatory a
leader to be the commander in chief of the
greatest military force in human history. He
says terrorism is the "most direct threat to
America" to cadets yet calls the war on terror
an overseas contingency operation.
He doesn't even know how to announce
victory. He confessed to ABC News in 2009,
"I'm always worried about using the word
'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this
notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and
signing a surrender to MacArthur."
So how does one add up the following Obama
conclusions? 1) The war, which is not really a
war at all, is over, so much so that we're
exchanging the release of final prisoners of
war. 2) Victory won't be announced, yet the
end of combat missions and the withdrawal
of American troops have been.
There can be only one conclusion, at least in
Obama's mind: America has lost the war on
terror, particularly in the Middle East.
Facts unfortunately point to the tragic event
that Sgt. Bergdahl went AWOL on his post
and platoon. But even worse, facts point to
the catastrophic event that President Obama
just went AWOL as our commander in chief.
And George Washington is rolling in his
grave.
Barack Obama justified his prisoner swap of
five senior Taliban leaders for U.S. Army Sgt.
Bowe Bergdahl by saying former military
leaders and presidents, including George
Washington, have engaged in prisoner of war
exchange, too.
Obama's exact words were: "This is what
happens at the end of wars. That was true for
George Washington; that was true for
Abraham Lincoln; that was true for FDR;
that's been true of every combat situation --
that at some point, you make sure that you try
to get your folks back. And that's the right
thing to do."
From that statement alone, I revealed how
Obama's made grievous errors in judgment
by concluding that 1) the war is over and 2)
he was engaging in a prisoner exchange like
George Washington -- to take just a single
example among his list of stellar leaders.
What Obama didn't tell you regarding
Washington and prisoner exchange during
the Revolutionary War is that both countries
-- England and the U.S. -- exchanged
prisoners of war because both had "few
facilities to accommodate large numbers of
prisoners," according to the Mount Vernon
Ladies' Association, whose mission it is "to
preserve, restore, and manage the estate of
George Washington to the highest standards
and to educate visitors and people throughout
the world about the life and legacies of
George Washington."
As far as buying Americans back from
captivity at the price of enemy combatants,
Obama needs to follow the example of Gen.
Washington, who "made sure that no states
holding military prisoners should trade a
British soldier for an American citizen.
Washington believed that this would have
legitimized the British capture of more
citizens, most of whom were largely
defenseless."
Though no one is minimizing the
understandable elation of Bergdahl's family
over his release, George Washington would
not have traded for him, because he didn't
believe in trading prisoners of war until after
the war was in fact over, treaties were signed
and hostilities ceased, lest he risk the capture
of further American people for ransom.
Here are my two additional grievances with
Obama's prisoner of war exchange:
3) As the commander in chief, George
Washington wouldn't have completely
undermined the very heart and soul of the
military as Obama did with his prisoner
exchange, especially in light of how it is a
cardinal sin in military culture to abandon
one's post and platoon during war.
A little over a week ago, The Washington Post
reported, "Ralph Peters, a retired lieutenant
colonel and intelligence officer, wrote in
National Review that a 'fundamental culture
clash' exists between the president's team
and those in the armed forces, as reflected by
(national security adviser Susan) Rice's
remarks on Bergdahl's honor."
"Both President Obama and Ms. Rice seem to
think that the crime of desertion in wartime
is kind of like skipping class," Peters wrote.
"They have no idea of how great a sin
desertion in the face of the enemy is to those
in our military. The only worse sin is to side
actively with the enemy and kill your
brothers in arms. This is not sleeping in on
Monday morning and ducking Gender Studies
101."
Maybe a key here as to why Obama could so
easily discard military code and culture is he
really doesn't regard America's battleground
in the world as a war on terror in the first
place.
Remember the 2009 explanative memo from
the White House to Pentagon staff members
via the Defense Department that said that
"this administration prefers to avoid using
the term 'Long War' or 'Global War on
Terror.' Please use 'Overseas Contingency
Operation'"?
Of course, while the White House plays with
semantics, our courageous U.S. military
personnel are continuing to fight and die on
the battlefield. While the war diminishes in
Obama's fairy tale mind, he just gifted the
real war on terror and the Taliban with their
greatest boost in years.
4) George Washington would not have
emboldened America's greatest enemies
around the world and put at greater risk not
only U.S. military personnel but also
American citizens by increasing their
captivity value in the eyes of our enemies.
And what are the odds that Obama had
another political ulterior motive for prisoner
exchange -- namely, the turning of the
American mind and media from his Veterans
Affairs battlefield? For his "never waste a
crisis"-saturated administration, is this
hypothesis really a stretch?
On June 5, veteran newsman and CEO of
WorldNetDaily Joseph Farah wrote in a
column titled "What Motivates Obama?": "Is it
possible that part of the calculated political
motivation underlying Obama's decision was
just that -- getting the VA out of the nation's
headlines? At first glance, it seems counter-
intuitive: Can you escape one scandal by
creating another? The answer is, of course.
It's called the old 'wag the dog' strategy."
The bottom line, as President Obama recently
said to cadets at the United States Military
Academy, is that "for the foreseeable future,
the most direct threat to America, at home
and abroad, remains terrorism."
Yet his actions as commander in chief say just
the opposite. Indeed, last June, he said
America needed to draw down its war footing
and bring it to an end.
The truth is that Obama is too conciliatory a
leader to be the commander in chief of the
greatest military force in human history. He
says terrorism is the "most direct threat to
America" to cadets yet calls the war on terror
an overseas contingency operation.
He doesn't even know how to announce
victory. He confessed to ABC News in 2009,
"I'm always worried about using the word
'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this
notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and
signing a surrender to MacArthur."
So how does one add up the following Obama
conclusions? 1) The war, which is not really a
war at all, is over, so much so that we're
exchanging the release of final prisoners of
war. 2) Victory won't be announced, yet the
end of combat missions and the withdrawal
of American troops have been.
There can be only one conclusion, at least in
Obama's mind: America has lost the war on
terror, particularly in the Middle East.
Facts unfortunately point to the tragic event
that Sgt. Bergdahl went AWOL on his post
and platoon. But even worse, facts point to
the catastrophic event that President Obama
just went AWOL as our commander in chief.
And George Washington is rolling in his
grave.
A BITTER AFTER TASTE
The news from Iraq that Islamic terrorists
have now taken over cities that American
troops liberated during the Iraq war must
have left an especially bitter after-taste to
Americans who lost a loved one who died
taking one of those cities, or to a survivor
who came back without an arm or leg, or with
other traumas to body or mind.
Surely we need to learn something from a
tragedy of this magnitude.
Some say that we should never have gone into
Iraq in the first place. Others say we should
never have pulled our troops out when we
did, leaving behind a weak and irresponsible
government in charge.
At a minimum, Iraq should put an end to the
notion of "nation-building," especially nation-
building on the cheap, and to the glib and
heady talk of "national greatness"
interventionists who were prepared to put
other people's lives on the line from the
safety of their editorial offices.
Those who are ready to blame President
George W. Bush for everything bad that has
happened since he left office should at least
acknowledge that he was a patriotic
American president who did what he did for
the good of the country -- an assumption that
we can no longer safely make about the
current occupant of the White House.
If President Bush's gamble that we could
create a thriving democracy in the Middle
East -- one of the least likely places for a
democracy to thrive -- had paid off, it could
have been the beginning of a world-changing
benefit to this generation and to generations
yet unborn.
A thriving free society in the Muslim world,
and the values and example that such a
society could represent, might undermine the
whole hate-filled world terrorist movement
that is seeking to turn back civilization to a
darker world of centuries past.
But creating such a society, if it is possible at
all, cannot be done on the cheap, with
politicians constantly calling for us to
announce to the world -- including our
enemies -- when we are going to leave. The
very idea is silly, but everything silly in not
funny.
We haven't yet announced when we are
going to pull our troops out of Germany or
Japan, and World War II was over more than
60 years ago. Turning those militaristic
countries around was one of the great
achievements in human history. Their
neighboring countries have been able to
enjoy a peace and security that they had not
known for generations.
Perhaps what was achieved in Germany and
Japan made it seem that we might achieve
something similar in Iraq. But "the greatest
generation" that had fought and survived the
horrors of war around the world was under
no illusion that trying to turn our defeated
enemies around would be easy, quick and
cheap.
Creating democracy in Germany and Japan
was a goal, but not a fetish. Creating a stable
and viable government amid the ruins and
rubble of war was the first priority and a
major responsibility. You cannot create
instant democracy like you are making
instant coffee.
There are prerequisites for a free society, and
the foundations of democracy cannot be built
on chaotic conditions with widespread
uncertainty and fear. To hold elections for
the sake of holding elections is to abdicate
responsibility for the sake of appearances.
The biggest danger is that you will create a
government that will work at cross purposes
to everything you are trying to achieve -- a
government you cannot rein in, much less
repudiate, without destroying your own
credibility as representatives of democracy.
That has happened in both Iraq and
Afghanistan.
By contrast, in both Germany and Japan
power was turned over to elected officials at
such times and in such degree as conditions
seemed to indicate. Eventually, both countries
resumed their roles as sovereign nations. But
we didn't publish a timetable.
Today, with terrorists threatening to at least
fragment Iraq, if not take it over, it is a
sobering thought that Barack Obama and his
key advisers have a track record of having
been wrong about Iraq and other foreign
policy issues for years, going back before they
took office -- and no track record of learning
from their mistakes.
have now taken over cities that American
troops liberated during the Iraq war must
have left an especially bitter after-taste to
Americans who lost a loved one who died
taking one of those cities, or to a survivor
who came back without an arm or leg, or with
other traumas to body or mind.
Surely we need to learn something from a
tragedy of this magnitude.
Some say that we should never have gone into
Iraq in the first place. Others say we should
never have pulled our troops out when we
did, leaving behind a weak and irresponsible
government in charge.
At a minimum, Iraq should put an end to the
notion of "nation-building," especially nation-
building on the cheap, and to the glib and
heady talk of "national greatness"
interventionists who were prepared to put
other people's lives on the line from the
safety of their editorial offices.
Those who are ready to blame President
George W. Bush for everything bad that has
happened since he left office should at least
acknowledge that he was a patriotic
American president who did what he did for
the good of the country -- an assumption that
we can no longer safely make about the
current occupant of the White House.
If President Bush's gamble that we could
create a thriving democracy in the Middle
East -- one of the least likely places for a
democracy to thrive -- had paid off, it could
have been the beginning of a world-changing
benefit to this generation and to generations
yet unborn.
A thriving free society in the Muslim world,
and the values and example that such a
society could represent, might undermine the
whole hate-filled world terrorist movement
that is seeking to turn back civilization to a
darker world of centuries past.
But creating such a society, if it is possible at
all, cannot be done on the cheap, with
politicians constantly calling for us to
announce to the world -- including our
enemies -- when we are going to leave. The
very idea is silly, but everything silly in not
funny.
We haven't yet announced when we are
going to pull our troops out of Germany or
Japan, and World War II was over more than
60 years ago. Turning those militaristic
countries around was one of the great
achievements in human history. Their
neighboring countries have been able to
enjoy a peace and security that they had not
known for generations.
Perhaps what was achieved in Germany and
Japan made it seem that we might achieve
something similar in Iraq. But "the greatest
generation" that had fought and survived the
horrors of war around the world was under
no illusion that trying to turn our defeated
enemies around would be easy, quick and
cheap.
Creating democracy in Germany and Japan
was a goal, but not a fetish. Creating a stable
and viable government amid the ruins and
rubble of war was the first priority and a
major responsibility. You cannot create
instant democracy like you are making
instant coffee.
There are prerequisites for a free society, and
the foundations of democracy cannot be built
on chaotic conditions with widespread
uncertainty and fear. To hold elections for
the sake of holding elections is to abdicate
responsibility for the sake of appearances.
The biggest danger is that you will create a
government that will work at cross purposes
to everything you are trying to achieve -- a
government you cannot rein in, much less
repudiate, without destroying your own
credibility as representatives of democracy.
That has happened in both Iraq and
Afghanistan.
By contrast, in both Germany and Japan
power was turned over to elected officials at
such times and in such degree as conditions
seemed to indicate. Eventually, both countries
resumed their roles as sovereign nations. But
we didn't publish a timetable.
Today, with terrorists threatening to at least
fragment Iraq, if not take it over, it is a
sobering thought that Barack Obama and his
key advisers have a track record of having
been wrong about Iraq and other foreign
policy issues for years, going back before they
took office -- and no track record of learning
from their mistakes.
UKRAINE GAS TALKS BREAKS DOWN
Ukraine gets half of the natural gas it uses
from Russia. However, it's not an evenly
distributed half. Ukraine needs far more gas
in winter, and far less in Summer. Ukraine
has enough gas now to last until September.
Politics being politics, resolution of the
dispute could be another two months away
before anyone panics. Thus, it should be no
surprise that Russian Gas Payment Talks Fail .
Ukraine risks the cutoff of natural-gas
supplies from Russia after overnight talks
to resolve a pricing dispute between the
two countries ended without a deal less
than eight hours before a payment
deadline.
Ukraine must pay $1.95 billion to partially
settle its debt to the Russian-owned
natural gas exporter OAO Gazprom for
past deliveries by 10 a.m. Moscow time
today, said Sergei Kupriyanov, a company
spokesman, by phone. He said the
deadline won’t be waived.
“The Russian side has stated that if there
will be no upfront payment, it will start
limiting gas,” said Ukraine Energy
Minister Yuri Prodan.
Russian negotiators rejected a compromise
proposal by the European Union,
according to EU Energy Commissioner
Guenther Oettinger, who has been
involved in the trilateral talks since they
started in May.
The EU, dependent on Russian gas piped
through Ukraine for about 15 percent of its
supplies, is trying to broker a deal to
maintain shipments amid the fuel
payments conflict. In Ukraine, government
forces and rebels claiming allegiance to
Russia continue to clash in the east of the
country.
“For the moment our Russian partners
didn’t accept my proposal,” Oettinger said.
“We have no common understanding.”
Ukraine was ready to accept the EU
proposal of a price range between $300
and $385 per 1,000 cubic meters, still
above the $286.5 that the country paid in
the first quarter, Kobolyev said today.
Gazprom’s final offer was $385, the
company said last week.
Ukraine, which relies on Gazprom (GAZP)
for about half its gas, is able to survive
without Russian fuel until the middle of
September as its current gas consumption
almost matches domestic output due to low
seasonal demand and the stalling of
production at its chemical plants in the
east, according to a Concorde Capital, a
Kiev, Ukraine-based investment company.
The last paragraph above explains all you
need to know. The setup in Ukraine is quite
like debt ceiling negotiations in the US,
typically solved at the last moment with
huffing and puffing and overblown reporting
of consequences if a deal is not reached.
Given that Russia needs the income and
Ukraine and Europe needs the gas, the odds
of a deal "in due time" are at least 95%.
from Russia. However, it's not an evenly
distributed half. Ukraine needs far more gas
in winter, and far less in Summer. Ukraine
has enough gas now to last until September.
Politics being politics, resolution of the
dispute could be another two months away
before anyone panics. Thus, it should be no
surprise that Russian Gas Payment Talks Fail .
Ukraine risks the cutoff of natural-gas
supplies from Russia after overnight talks
to resolve a pricing dispute between the
two countries ended without a deal less
than eight hours before a payment
deadline.
Ukraine must pay $1.95 billion to partially
settle its debt to the Russian-owned
natural gas exporter OAO Gazprom for
past deliveries by 10 a.m. Moscow time
today, said Sergei Kupriyanov, a company
spokesman, by phone. He said the
deadline won’t be waived.
“The Russian side has stated that if there
will be no upfront payment, it will start
limiting gas,” said Ukraine Energy
Minister Yuri Prodan.
Russian negotiators rejected a compromise
proposal by the European Union,
according to EU Energy Commissioner
Guenther Oettinger, who has been
involved in the trilateral talks since they
started in May.
The EU, dependent on Russian gas piped
through Ukraine for about 15 percent of its
supplies, is trying to broker a deal to
maintain shipments amid the fuel
payments conflict. In Ukraine, government
forces and rebels claiming allegiance to
Russia continue to clash in the east of the
country.
“For the moment our Russian partners
didn’t accept my proposal,” Oettinger said.
“We have no common understanding.”
Ukraine was ready to accept the EU
proposal of a price range between $300
and $385 per 1,000 cubic meters, still
above the $286.5 that the country paid in
the first quarter, Kobolyev said today.
Gazprom’s final offer was $385, the
company said last week.
Ukraine, which relies on Gazprom (GAZP)
for about half its gas, is able to survive
without Russian fuel until the middle of
September as its current gas consumption
almost matches domestic output due to low
seasonal demand and the stalling of
production at its chemical plants in the
east, according to a Concorde Capital, a
Kiev, Ukraine-based investment company.
The last paragraph above explains all you
need to know. The setup in Ukraine is quite
like debt ceiling negotiations in the US,
typically solved at the last moment with
huffing and puffing and overblown reporting
of consequences if a deal is not reached.
Given that Russia needs the income and
Ukraine and Europe needs the gas, the odds
of a deal "in due time" are at least 95%.
IRAQ IS ON ITS OWN!
"It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the
great task remaining before us -- that from
these honored dead we take increased
devotion to that cause for which they gave the
last full measure of devotion -- that we here
highly resolve that these dead shall not have
died in vain..." (The Gettysburg Address)
No life is more wasted than one lost in vain.
After the U.S. military battled heroically to
liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein's
dictatorship and to eliminate the possibility
that it might become a staging area for
terrorist attacks, the Obama administration
has created a vacuum now being filled by the
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), an al-
Qaida affiliate, which has overrun Mosul and
Fallujah, cities liberated by American
soldiers. ISIS now threatens Baghdad.
The administration's nonpolicy policy
proclaiming the war over, has given ISIS a
green light to establish another terrorist state
in the Middle East. Following the withdrawal
of U.S. forces from Afghanistan, al-Qaida will
likely have two states from which it can plan
and execute new assaults on America, Israel,
Britain and other "infidel" nations. Having
declared the war(s) over and al-Qaida "on the
run," President Obama responds with empty
rhetoric about his national security team
studying what to do, then leaves for a trip
that will end on a golf course in Palm
Springs.
Vice President Biden once called Iraq one of
the president's "great achievements."
On Friday, the president announced the U.S.
would not send military forces back to Iraq
unless the Iraqi government finds a way to
bridge sectarian differences. Even then, he
suggested, military power alone won't bring
stability to the country. Basically, the
president said, "Iraq, you're on your own."
Imagine what the families of dead and
wounded U.S. soldiers think about the sudden
resurgence of al-Qaida in Iraq. They were
told their sons and daughters died in a noble
cause. According to "The Costs of War
Project" at Brown University's Watson
Institute for International Studies, "The wars
begun in 2001 have been tremendously
painful for millions of people ... each
additional month and year of war adds to
that toll." The Rock River Times writes,
"Coalition deaths in Iraq totaled more than
4,700, with the United States sustaining more
than 4,480 deaths through the Iraq War's
official end Dec. 15, 2011. More than 32,000
other U.S. troops were wounded in Iraq,
while more than 134,000 Iraqi civilians were
killed during the course of the official war."
The monetary cost is in the trillions of
dollars. Are we now saying, "Never mind"?
The U.S. has no serious counterintelligence
operation in Iraq, because it refuses to
perceive a commensurate threat from a
global enemy or to see the deadly purpose
and scope of this enemy. It does not
appreciate the scale of the upheaval among
the world's 1.3 to 1.6 billion Muslims, and
the money, motives, power and near-total
information control held by the Islamists who
are committed to the destruction of their
enemies and the subordination, forced
conversion and re-education of those they
allow to live. The jihadists in Iraq recently
looted $429 million from Mosul's central
bank, according to the regional governor,
making them possibly the richest terrorist
group ever.
Our focus under this administration is
unimaginatively constrained largely to the
Middle East, but the growing threat of Islamic
terrorism is not just there. The Islamist
infiltration of schools in Birmingham,
England, is an example for what is to come
there and in the U.S. if they are not stopped.
The administration and much of the media
try to separate "fanatical Muslims" from
"peaceful" ones, but the distinction is
meaningless when the fanatics have the
weapons and are willing to die for their
cause.
This war for the future of the planet is not
over and is unlikely to be for generations to
come. While it's true we can't be the
policemen of the world, we can be its
prisoners in a world ruled by Islamic
fundamentalists. If Western nations don't
combine to use their moral, monetary,
religious, intelligence and, yes, military
power to stop this onslaught against freedom,
we will lose it and never get it back.
Withdrawal from this war is a policy of
surrender. What we need is a unified
approach to fighting Islamic extremism by us
and other allied nations. What we need is a
policy that works.
great task remaining before us -- that from
these honored dead we take increased
devotion to that cause for which they gave the
last full measure of devotion -- that we here
highly resolve that these dead shall not have
died in vain..." (The Gettysburg Address)
No life is more wasted than one lost in vain.
After the U.S. military battled heroically to
liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein's
dictatorship and to eliminate the possibility
that it might become a staging area for
terrorist attacks, the Obama administration
has created a vacuum now being filled by the
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), an al-
Qaida affiliate, which has overrun Mosul and
Fallujah, cities liberated by American
soldiers. ISIS now threatens Baghdad.
The administration's nonpolicy policy
proclaiming the war over, has given ISIS a
green light to establish another terrorist state
in the Middle East. Following the withdrawal
of U.S. forces from Afghanistan, al-Qaida will
likely have two states from which it can plan
and execute new assaults on America, Israel,
Britain and other "infidel" nations. Having
declared the war(s) over and al-Qaida "on the
run," President Obama responds with empty
rhetoric about his national security team
studying what to do, then leaves for a trip
that will end on a golf course in Palm
Springs.
Vice President Biden once called Iraq one of
the president's "great achievements."
On Friday, the president announced the U.S.
would not send military forces back to Iraq
unless the Iraqi government finds a way to
bridge sectarian differences. Even then, he
suggested, military power alone won't bring
stability to the country. Basically, the
president said, "Iraq, you're on your own."
Imagine what the families of dead and
wounded U.S. soldiers think about the sudden
resurgence of al-Qaida in Iraq. They were
told their sons and daughters died in a noble
cause. According to "The Costs of War
Project" at Brown University's Watson
Institute for International Studies, "The wars
begun in 2001 have been tremendously
painful for millions of people ... each
additional month and year of war adds to
that toll." The Rock River Times writes,
"Coalition deaths in Iraq totaled more than
4,700, with the United States sustaining more
than 4,480 deaths through the Iraq War's
official end Dec. 15, 2011. More than 32,000
other U.S. troops were wounded in Iraq,
while more than 134,000 Iraqi civilians were
killed during the course of the official war."
The monetary cost is in the trillions of
dollars. Are we now saying, "Never mind"?
The U.S. has no serious counterintelligence
operation in Iraq, because it refuses to
perceive a commensurate threat from a
global enemy or to see the deadly purpose
and scope of this enemy. It does not
appreciate the scale of the upheaval among
the world's 1.3 to 1.6 billion Muslims, and
the money, motives, power and near-total
information control held by the Islamists who
are committed to the destruction of their
enemies and the subordination, forced
conversion and re-education of those they
allow to live. The jihadists in Iraq recently
looted $429 million from Mosul's central
bank, according to the regional governor,
making them possibly the richest terrorist
group ever.
Our focus under this administration is
unimaginatively constrained largely to the
Middle East, but the growing threat of Islamic
terrorism is not just there. The Islamist
infiltration of schools in Birmingham,
England, is an example for what is to come
there and in the U.S. if they are not stopped.
The administration and much of the media
try to separate "fanatical Muslims" from
"peaceful" ones, but the distinction is
meaningless when the fanatics have the
weapons and are willing to die for their
cause.
This war for the future of the planet is not
over and is unlikely to be for generations to
come. While it's true we can't be the
policemen of the world, we can be its
prisoners in a world ruled by Islamic
fundamentalists. If Western nations don't
combine to use their moral, monetary,
religious, intelligence and, yes, military
power to stop this onslaught against freedom,
we will lose it and never get it back.
Withdrawal from this war is a policy of
surrender. What we need is a unified
approach to fighting Islamic extremism by us
and other allied nations. What we need is a
policy that works.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)