The Iraq Issue

Blair and Bush are finally conceding that they made some mistakes in Iraq. The de-Baathification of the government led to a large number of angry people with guns while reducing the effectiveness of any army the US and UK help them put together (as every extensively trained Iraqi is disenchanted with us due to the de-Baathification). They admit that removing Hussein from power was not what was needed to spark a democratic Iraq and that they needed a plan before having gone into the country. Politically-wise, this concession helps them stop the bleeding by appealing to the sympathy of the voters. However, now that they have admitted to the mistakes, they need to start doing something to fix Iraq.

First of all, we need to admit this is not going to be a short term situation. We are stuck there. If we leave now (or soon), all we do is show the Middle East that we do not much care for them and that we entered Iraq for all the reasons they think we entered for: oil, imperialism, war against Islam, etc. As such, I agree we need to train Iraqi forces, but that does not mean our troops are leaving very soon (I see at least 3-4 years more there). But the sudden rush to increase Iraqi forces has been incredibly bad: widespread corruption, uniformed death squads, etc. are consequences that come to mind. We need to take our time - even artificially sown democracy does not rise overnight.

Second, we need to focus more on the humanitarian aspect of our invasion of Iraq. We killed a few tens of thousands of Iraqis and displaced probably even more. It is unsurprising that we do not have a positive image in their eyes. As such, we need to bring in NGOs to aid in rebuilding people's lives. This would mean a huge relief fund built especially for NGOs within the Coalition of the Willing who are willing to go into Iraq and help people settle down again. That could be anything from physically helping them rebuild their houses, help them setup educational facilities from elementary school to secondary institutions, help them establish local governance, etc. The list goes on and on. It will cost a lot and there will be a lot of failed attempts, but, I think, this is the most important part of any long-term improvement of Iraq.

Finally, if our efforts in Iraq are to succeed, we have to alter perceptions of America and American actions in the Middle East (as explained by ex-Secretary Albright). A large part of why al Qaeda succeeds in recruiting new terrorists is that Muslim youth feel that America is an evil entity desirous of the end of Islam. Of course that is untrue, but al Qaeda is able to spin everything that the US does into a large-scale assault on Islam. We need to correct that perception. To do so will involve not just a PR campaign but also a campaign of positive action involving massive efforts to improve relations between Muslims (within and outside the US) and the rest of the population. Bringing NGOs into Iraq could be considered a part of this effort, but it should be the best fleshed out part, because I truly believe it is the most important one.

I imagine there are tons of other aspects to Iraq that I have not thought about yet. However, in my eyes, the aforementioned three would go a long way to improving what is, at this point, an utter and absolute mess.

(I realize this is a rather liberal point of view on the whole Iraq issue. Although I imagine most people reading this will be rather liberal, if anyone can think of any other improvements for Iraq, I would be interested to know them (liberal or conservative).)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali - Human Rights vs. Tolerance

Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, member of the Dutch Parliament, was recently found to have falsified her refugee information when she arrived in the Netherlands in 1992. I just heard a radio interview with her on WNYC about her new book The Caged Virgin. Her views on Islam, as I see them, are influenced by her earlier interactions with the religion: her grandmother performed a circumcision (FGM) on her when she was six years old and then her father attempted to marry her off to a distant cousin when she was twenty-two. In all, she has not had a particularly positive relationship with Islam and Muslims.

That is why, while I may agree with her that certain tenets in Islam are contrary to western liberal thought, it is unfair to say that we should not be tolerant of apparently intolerant cultures (as she says in her interview on WNYC). Protection of female rights and cultural tolerance, while closely entwined in her context, are not the same issue. Religious tolerance stems from an idea of cosmopolitanism that is a strongly-held tenet of western liberalism and female rights belong to the idea of universal human rights, also a major aspect of liberalism.

Ms. Hirsi Ali, as far as I can tell, wishes to do away with cultural tolerance to preserve human rights. I would propose we follow something of a middle path, one that will neither ignore human rights nor eschew cultural tolerance. Within countries that hold the same set of beliefs, ie western liberal countries (I daresay the US may not be one with our recent anti-abortion legislations), we protect the human rights of individuals, be they citizens, residents, visitors, or refugees, against any malefactors. After all, if a group of people wishes to practice their cultural traditions, it must ensure that the beliefs of that culture do not clash with the policies of the nation in which they have chosen to reside. However, outside this set of nations, our government pursues a policy of cosmopolitanism - governmental agents and agencies do nothing that will offend the residents of nations outside the group outlined earlier.

However, that does not restrict NGOs from carrying on their own campaigns for human rights, campaigns such as those discouraging child marriages and female genital mutilations and encouraging the use of sexual contraceptives. As long as the NGOs are not coercive in their tactics and merely attempting to educate and equip people with the knowledge and tools to improve their lives, they are within their bounds. On the other side, we must allow NGOs from other nations access to our populace. They must be able to educate and equip any members of our population who agree with what they are saying. Again, their actions must be limited to non-coercive tactics that do not violate the laws of our nations, much like NGOs from our nations cannot violate the laws of their nations.

I believe that such practices will reduce the objections that people like Ms. Hirsi Ali may have against cultural tolerance. I realize that she feels she has suffered a lot of intolerance at the hands of a culture that we are tolerating, but eschewing tolerance would destroy western liberalism far more quickly and assuredly than any amount of repeated attacks by outside cultures.

References:

Ms. Hirsi Ali's May 5, 2006 Interview with Brian Lehrer on WNYC
Ayaan Hirsi Ali - Wikipedia article

Update:

An interesting epilogue: Upon leaving the Dutch Parliament, Ms. Hirsi Ali is going to the United States, where she will be joining a conservative think tank, American Enterprise Institute - slightly confusing, considering her stated allegiance to western liberal thought.

US - Iran: Actions and Reactions

People's reactions to the recent situation in Iran has me rather confused and slightly angry. People around me keep criticizing the United States for its handling of the situation. As far as I can see, we have done nothing yet that is "wrong" even in the most idealistic sense of the word. All we have done so far is gone to the United Nations to see if we can impose sanctions on Iran if they continue forward with their nuclear program without the oversight of international inspectors. We have also tried to downplay the importance of President Ahmadinejad's letter to President Bush, but that is also not something immediately condemnable. What is it then that people find wrong?
Upon continued discussion, it seems that one point of contention is the sanctions America is trying to impose on the Iranian people. After all, what did the people of Iran do against the United States? But, let us consider what exactly economic sanctions are. Saying that the US will impose economic sanctions against Iran means that, in some form, the United States will reduce trade between companies established in the US and companies established in Iran. Some people say that is unfair. But how is it fair for the US government to stack up the interests of Iran against the interests of the United States and decide in favor of Iranian interests? As the economic sanctions seem to be a tactic to improve American security interests, then by all means, it seems perfectly fair to impose. Furthermore, by requesting the same sanctions at the United Nations, we are merely asking other nations to join us in reducing their trade with Iran. The other delegates should only do so if they also think that economic sanctions are in the interests of their respective nations. Moreover, they are absolutely free to not impose such sanctions - the United States is not strong-arming anyone to do anything by bringing the matter to the United Nations. This is one of the few times that the United States is doing something that comes close to resembling a sane plan of action and to see people deriding it makes no sense. We should applaud such actions by this administration and hope for more of the same rather than the cowboy-blundering we have seen in the past.
Also, some people claim that President Ahmadinejad's letter is not being received as the immense diplomatic gesture that it is. While I would agree that the administration does not seem to be reacting to it quite as I, a private individual, would, it seems almost needless to say that the letter is certainly getting far more attention than is being shown to the public. That is to say, the United States is certainly aware that this is the first, direct, written communication between Iran and the United States since 1979 and it is surely being given due attention. It does seem rather coincidental that the letter comes right at the eve of a decision within the United Nations regarding sanctions upon Iran. However, rather than speaking to the nuclear program for which the sanctions are being considered, the letter focuses on the blunders of George W. Bush as a leader. Ahmadinejad writes of the failure of western liberal democracy and invited the US to try fundamentalism as a form of government. While I am the first to admit that President Bush's actions in the past 6 years have been rather short of stellar, it is unclear to me that converting to a fundamentalist government will, in any way, resolve all the issues that have arisen during his presidency. If anything, moving away from religious fervor, to which President Bush is sadly inclined, might in fact be a better way to resolve some of the issues and prevent future ones. But, coming back to the timing of the letter, it is clear that it was written not to the president of the United States, but to the leaders, diplomats, and citizens of the nations considering the sanctions against Iran being suggested by the United States. Ahmadinejad's ploy seems rather obvious; by questioning the actions, motives, and general image of leader of the country leading the campaign to impose sanctions, he wishes to reduce the overall perceived need for the sanctions.
For the first time in six years, I don't feel absolutely ashamed by the actions taken by my country. To see people condemn them simply because they were taken by someone we do not necessarily like is wrong and, honestly, somewhat scary. We should analyze each situation on its own merits and decide what we think of it as individuals rather than merely toeing our respective party lines.

What is the difference between wearing a fur coat and eating a grilled chicken sandwich? Both actions require the termination of animal life; both are not necessary (one could wear a down coat or eat a tofu burger). However, I resist placing them on the same plane of acceptability. Eating a chicken sandwich just does not feel as inappropriate as wearing a fur coat.
In order to continue this discussion, it is imperative to establish what I find inappropriate in eating a grilled chicken sandwich or wearing a fur coat. The taking of another animal's life for my own whims is the crux of the impropriety. I do not feel that my desire of the hour should allow me to abet the death of a fellow member of the animal kingdom. Why? Because it gives me far more power in terms of life and death than I would wish anyone to have, regardless of whether that person is or is not me.
Then, how is eating a chicken better than wearing a fur coat? Is it merely an issue of class warfare? That is, am I just angry that only rich people can afford a fur coat and, thus, for me, the fur coat has become an outward symbol of the unnecessary, overly decadent, and, perhaps, personally unattainable, lifestyle of the ridiculously rich? The answer to that is, simply put, no. The more complex answer is that I have no problems with the other things rich people do: purchase clothing at expensive stores, have meals at delightfully extravagant restaurants, establish offshore bank accounts to shelter their income from US taxation, the list goes on. Seriously, none of the above bother me; I take them all as part and parcel of the total richness package. You can have your expensive dinner, but then you also have to deal with the problem of placing your money somewhere it won't "leak". So, based on the above, I can safely say that I do not see myself as a class warrior.
If not class warfare, what is it? Could it be some sort of instinctual feeling that meat=food whereas fur!=clothing? Do I find some weird hunter-gatherer rationalization every time I see people eating meat which is lacking for the fur-wearers? That is an interesting supposition. It certainly fits with another fact I have not mentioned yet: I find wearing leather shoes/boots rather acceptable. Could it be that I have some inherited memory of my ancestors wearing leather foot coverings and eating meat off the skewer that allows me to continue in my non-vegetarian, leather-boot-wearing ways? The answer to that, I think, is no. Fur must have been worn rather often during the days of the hunter-gatherers. While not a social statement regarding one's status, fur did keep one warm, even during the ice age. So, to assert that fur was less a part of my hunter-gatherer ancestry than leather shoes would be a false statement. Therefore, it is not an instinctual feeling that allows me to eat meat but not wear fur.
Ultimately, it comes down to economy and respect. That is, a fur coat does not seem as economical in its solution to the problem it addresses as meat or a leather boot. Less abstractly speaking, a hunk of meat goes much further to resolve the issue of a lack of protein in one's diet than any other form of protein available to me: lentils, tofu, etc. (certainly, I could bring in the issue of aesthetics and point out how horrible tofu tastes, but that would defeat my argument). In much the same way, a leather boot will outlast almost any other form of extreme weather shoe wear by a long shot because, and this is rather unsurprising, it is made out of the stuff that animals wore to protect them from the elements their entire lives - skin. Fur, on the other hand, could be replaced by all sorts of "more economical" warmth-preserving objects: woolen coats, down jackets, goose feather parkas, even leather jackets. I say even leather jackets because leather is an animal product, one that kills the animal, despite which it is better than fur because it is more economical than a fur coat. How so? It takes far fewer total animal lives to synthesize a leather jacket as compared to a fur coat. So far, I have only talked about the economy aspect of the issue. But the leather jacket comparison brings in the respect aspect. It shows respect for the sacrifice of the animal lives being made for one's warmth/nutrition/etc to minimize the overall effect one's life has on other animals. That is, the less animals I kill to continue functioning the better. Of course, I could become a vegetarian, but, in my thinking, that detracts from the economy side of the equation. Thus, a careful balance of economy and respect may explain why eating meat and not buying fur clothing seem perfectly consistent to me.
Do I ultimately buy this ultimate explanation of my stated moral dillema? I would have to say yes. Sure, there are other ways of explaining why fur is wrong (ie, anal electrocutions, wire cages, psychological anguish, overall cuteness of chinchillas, etc), but really, all those are just appeals to any emotional attachment one may have to small furry animals. Also, many of those same reasons (the ones in parentheses just above) would also apply to eating meat and it will be a cold day in hell before I give up on the fine taste of a leg of lamb... Cheers.

Yesterday, I went to a modern music concert. Usually, I find something that turns me off the group. But that was not the case yesterday. Try as I might, the ensemble seemed to be doing everything in a striving for perfection. Their composition and performance both yearned for a ... no, an expression of ideas. While everyone is always doing that, I am usually not convinced by it. Yesterday was different, I felt they were reaching for perfect expression. I don't know, I just appreciated their efforts. What's more interesting was that I wanted to leave as soon as the music was done. I didn't want to ask questions, hob-nob with the performers or the composers, or sip some wine while everyone else did that. I couldn't have that. The music had shown me the pure, noble side of these people and, I knew, if I stayed any longer, my perception of them would invariably become stained by their personalities, behaviour, speech patterns, etc. It already started happening as I was trying to make my exit. I noticed their choices of alcohol, their conversations with each other, etc. I really wanted to leave. So badly did I desire it that I couldn't wait for the elevator - I walked down the stairs to avoid waiting with others for the elevator.
Upon ruminating further with a friend, I decided that there are two sides to people - their personalities and their visions. I've found personalities are a much more subjective issue - they can be great but not appeal to me or they can be really shitty and totally win me over. It's so subjective that I'm sort of afraid to subject the visions of people to their personalities. If I've only experienced their visions, I would be wont to know who they are - my perception of those people is as high as it can get. Meeting those people will not only reduce my consideration of them but also, sadly, of their vision. That's ultimately why I left as quickly as I did. That is all.