John Bolton Rocks

It is being reported that the U.S. and France have reached an agreement on a draft Security Council resolution* calling for a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah. Ordinarily, I would think this a horrible thing, but on balance this one might actually do some lasting good.

The draft, sent to the entire Security Council for consideration, "calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations."

Hezbollah has made the withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Lebanon the criterion for halting their operations (both terrorist and military), but the resolution does not call for this. Thus, either Hezbollah defies the cease-fire resolution, and Israel continues its assaults upon Hezbollah; or Hezbollah abides by the conditions of the cease-fire as laid out in the resolution and loses face as a result of its failure to follow through on its promise "to fight to the last bullet and to the last breath" to drive Israeli forces from Lebanon.

*It still has to be adopted, butthere is no reason at this point to think it won't be.

The West's Civilian Fetish

Jim Geraghty wonders whether we aren't becoming desensitized to civilian casualties. Speaking for myself, I know I've become somewhat desensitized to them, and I imagine quite a few others have as well. What's more, I don't think this is an entirely negative development. Certainly since Vietnam, and arguably since the end of World War II, the number of civilian casualties has been the almost exclusive moral barometer by which the actions of Western militaries are judged. This combined with the West's unwillingness to take casualties of any sort has put civilians in grave danger. Unprincipled foes place legitimate military targets behind civilian shields to either protect them from attack or try to gain the moral high ground (many times with the complicity of Western media) if they are attacked. Furthermore, terrorist organizations attempt to force political or military concessions from the West by deliberately attacking civilian targets, and they have been successful far too many times, most recently on 3/11 when the train stations in Madrid were bombed.

Both of these tactics are used because they seem to work, and as long as the West continues to emphasize civilian causalties above all else, they will continue to be employed to great effect by terrorists in Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, and beyond. Only when these tactics are shown to be ineffective will they cease to be used, and while we should always deplore and punish the deliberate killing of civilians (as opposed to killing civilians unavoidably in strikes on legitimate military targets) by those on our side, our becoming demonstrably desensitized to civilian casualties essentially renders these tactics ineffective because their effectiveness rests not on actually taking and holding territory, but on the reactions of populations to their tactics. If the populations of countries view the deaths of civilians in wartime with the shrug of a shoulder, terrorist tactics are thus rendered ineffective, and they will be forced to do things like actually take and hold territory. This plays into the hands of traditional militaries like those of the United States and Israel and, just as importantly, makes civilians low-value targets once again.

Hail Mary

Even though I think the United States and its allies were right to overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a democratic state in Iraq, and I continue to support our efforts there, I've always harbored doubts as to whether the United States would be able to build a democratic Middle East that could last more than, say, ten years after the United States military ceased to be the guarantor of the new democratic order. Nothing I've seen has alleviated my doubts,* and I've wondered whether the United States should continue to expend blood and treasure on democratizing the Middle East. A government elected by its citizens is merely the capstone of a successful democracy. More important is a robust civil society dedicated to individual liberty, meritocracy and the rule of law under a government strong enough to maintain order and obliged to control itself. Without these, I can't see democracy succeeding in the Middle East. Is this effectively being built in Iraq? Only time will tell, but the cosnervative in me says that you can't completely remake a society overnight, or even over the course of a few years. Add to this the problem of rebuilding a civil society all but wiped out by a totalitarian dictator, and things only look bleaker. Still, despite the monumental task at hand, I am once again convinced that democratization of the Middle East is the only way to save the West from the doom that threatens to descend upon it.

Fjordman has written a piece for The Brussels Journal about the demographic situation facing the developed world. Essentially, he argues that mass-immigration from failed states is threatening to bring about the end of most European societies because these immigrants come from failed states and bring with them the cultures of these failed states which then threaten to become major political and cultural driving forces in the countries to which these immigrants immigrate. Ultimately, he concludes that European elites lack the will to do anything about this and that this will lead either to extreme civil unrest or the collapse of Europe or both. Now, the United States can't compel Europe to deal with its immigration problem. Heck, it can't even deal with its own immigration problem. Instead, the United States is promoting the ideal of democracy and individual liberty to the failed states that most threaten the West in order create the incentive for those who would otherwise leave their country in search of material well-being to remain and seek their fortunes in their own lands. This was and is supposed to be a way to stop terrorism at its source, but it also looks like the only way save Europe from itself.

It's a long shot, a Hail Mary, but I can't see any better alternatives at this point.

*However, the Iraqi insurgency may turn out to be just what is needed to instill long-term faith in the Iraqi government.

Whose Side Is He On?

It appears that Mohammed El-Baradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has sidelined one of his his nuclear inspectors at the reqwuest of Iran. Apparently, he found things the regime in Tehran didn't want him to find, and so Tehran asked El-Baradei to remove him from the IAEA inspection team responsible for inspecting Iran's nuclear activities and forbid him access to documents pertaining to said activities. El-Baradei complied.

It's possible that I'm overreacting, but it seems to me that this kills any possiblity for an acceptable solution being reached through current diplomatic efforts. If Tehran can get El-Baradei to remove inspectors who get too close to discovering something Tehran doesn't want them to find, then either the Iran will acquire nuclear weapons, or the United States and selected allies will have to act outside the U.N. to prevent this happening, thus increasing the likelihood of a military altercation between the United States and Iran. This is because, absent clear evidence that Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear power*, Russia and China have no incentive to act to bring the Iranian crisis to a resolution, and the U.N. cannot take concrete action** without assent from Russia and China, who have automatic vetoes on the Security Council.


*It's possible that Russia and China have decided that Iran having nuclear weapons is in their best interest as it creates more problems for the U.S. and more opportunities for them to increase their own influence. Heck, Russia may figure that a war between the United States and Iran helps them because it will drive up the price of oil, meaning more oil for Russia. China could also take advantage of the situation may invading Taiwan and increasing its influence in East and Southeast Asia.

**There's been a fair amount of talk about how the U.N. Security Council is ready to take concrete action against Iran should it refuse the package of incentives offered by Europe in exchange for abandoning its uranium enrichment program. The problem is that there is no talk of what such action would be. Would it be a strongly worded resolution condemning Iran and calling on them to give up their enrichment program? A strongly worded resolution condemning Iran and calling on them to give up their program with the threat of "grave consequences" should they fail to comply? Would it involve economic sanctions? Surgical air strikes? A full-scale invasion? There are so many possibilities that the simple threat of "concrete action" in the Security Council is an empty one unless "concrete action" is clearly defined and demonstrably harsh.

Never Buy Your Airline Tickets in France

France has just imposed a tax on airline tickets "to help the world's poor." Leaving aside the question of whether foreign aid programs work (They don't. Just look at Palestine.), this policy violates the principle that the duty of a government is to serve its people. However, this policy also strikes me as following naturally (though not necessarily inevitably) from a belief in international progressivism. According to the progressive philosophy, it is the responsibility of the state to improve society. Furthermore, the justness of society is not determined so much by the conduct of its people as by the policies of the state (irrespective of their effectiveness or their unintended consequences). It thus follows that the state becomes the chief moral agent* in a society, as opposed to the individual. If the state is the chief moral agent, then, in a globalized world, the state becomes responsible for helping other states make their societies more just, as opposed to individuals from wealthier societies helping those from impoverished ones through altruism or businesses investing in these poor communities and providing economic opportunities for them. And if the state is responsible for providing aid to poorer states, then there is no reason it cannot tax its people for just such a purpose. It's not as if they have the duty to provide for themselves and their families: The state has already taken care of that. Thus, people have no right to their own money because spending it cannot possibly fulfill any moral imperative.

This policy is a reductio ad absurdum of progressivism, and it illustrates why I cannot embrace it as a morally serious political philosophy.

*Getting back to my debate with Josh, it is this enshrinement of the state as the chief moral agent, as opposed to the individual, which renders Progressivism incompatible with Christianity, in my view.

The Problem With Having Opinions

Is that some times they slip out when they shouldn't. Josh picked up on this in my previous post and has run with it. Specifically, he has exploited my description of the ultimate Progressive political objective as a utopian state. While I believe this to be correct (and I'm guessing Josh does as well), it is not self-evident that this is the case. Ultimately, the the Progressive aim is to establish a just society. Therefore, in order to establish whether Progressivism can be deemed consistent with Christianity (or any religion, for that matter), the following questions must first be answered:

1) What is a just society?
2) What powers should the state be entrusted to establish and maintain such a society?
3) With what powers can the state be entrusted to establish and maintain such a society?
4) What is the impact of overthrowing long-standing traditions in an attempt to establish such a society?

There are probably others as well, but these will do for a start. While questions of human nature and theology can legitimately come into play here, these questions are questions of political philosophy.

I'm not going to back away from my opinion that Progressivism is utopian, and if I am right, Josh is correct to say that Progressivsm cannot be legitimately reconciled with Christianity (assuming Christianity is true, something both Josh and I do). However, the religious Progressive, particularly the Christian Progressive has a way out. He may well concede that there is no way man can bring aout this just society on his own, but just as God works through man with all of his imperfections, so can he work through the state with all of its imperfections to bring about a just society. Of course, this almost renders politics irrelevant. After all, God could also work through a ficus plant with all of its imperfections to bring about a just society. Still, this cannot be seen as the conclusive answer to the argument of the religious Progressive, merely a witty retort to make his argument seem silly.

No, when it's all said and done, the compatibility of Progressivism with Christianity depends on the answer to my first question: What is a just society? I reject Progressivism as uptopian because I find what I understand to be its vision of a just society to be sorely lacking. I regard it a fantasy to believe that a Progressive society can be equated with a just society. It is only because I recognize my fallibility that I allow for the possibility that I am wrong.

Also, I don't think it reasonable to conclude that the NSP dismisses the Scriptures as a source of authority. There are clearly members of the NSP who think Scripture should be a legitimate source authority and those who think it shouldn't, and there is no way to tell from the article in "The New York Times" which faction, if any, represents the majority opinion.

And, on another point of agreement, I also do not see the NSP coming out against abortion or homosexual "marriage", or anything of the sort. Hence, I can't see them becoming much more than an Amen Corner for the secular left.

Is the Religious Left Doomed to Failure?

Over at Ingalls' Inklings, Josh takes aim at a conference of the Network of Spiritual Progressives.
It's a post that hits the ball out of the park. Unfortunately, he knocked it foul. The main reason for this is he comes at it from the wrong perspective, and in so doing misses the raisson d'etre of the NSP.

In the Fall 2002 issue of "The Public Interest", Professors Louis Bolce and Gerald De Maio published an article entitled "Our Secularist Democratic Party". This article laid out how secularists had become the dominant force in Democratic politics over the past 30-40 years. This led to large numbers of religious people leaving the Democrat Party for the Republican Party, causing what has been termed the Democrats' "religion problem". It is this problem that the Network of Spiritual Progressives (NSP) is looking to solve. Ultimately, the vagueness of the term "believer" is not a problem because the distinction the NSP is not so much concerned with religious consistency as with creating a broad public understanding that Progressivism is not equivalent to radical secularism. In other words, being religious (whether you're Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Zoroastrian, whatever) is not inconsistent with being a progressive.

Fundamentally, the NSP is a political organization (though it is unfair to say that its members place their faith in politics), and it is thus primarily concerned with ends. Furthermore, it is a coalition, so people's reasons for espousing the ends of the organization will not be consistent across individuals within the organization. The mebers of the NSP may have come from different places, but they are looking to get to the same place. That is enough to establish a working coalition. In this case, the NSP wants to establish a "Religious Left" to stand against the "Religious Right", and this is where they go wrong. In order to be a viable political faction, as opposed to mere window dressing, the NSP needs to establish itself as a reasonable alternative to the secular left. To achieve this, they must demonstrate the ability to influence the political direction of the left, particualrly on such issues as abortion and homosexual "marriage". Failing to do this, it seems to me inevitable that they will be seen as little more than an Amen Corner for the secular left, not a viable alternative to the Religious Right, so called.

Ironically enough, Josh also commits the same offense of vagueness for which he excoriates the NSP when he says that "Progress by definition implies deviation from the status quo." Progress does not imply a deviation from the status quo, it necessitates it. What's more, to progress is to move forward toward a certain objective. Progressivism has always sought movement toward a utopian state, largely defined in terms of material well-being for the masses, especially the lower classes and has viewed the state as the engine of progress toward this. Does this objective lead to "a fuller embodiment of Christian values and truths* in the world"? Does it contradict Christian values and truths? Ultimately, these questions cannot be settled without evaluating the means advocated and their consequences for all affected by them, something Josh refuses to do.

Also, I think Josh reads too much into "the pervasive use of 'we,' our,' and 'I.' The quotes used by the author in the article represent the judgments of the reporter and editor as to what was important to the story. It may be that this was a correct assesment, but it may also be that the reporter missed the point or was distorted what happened in seeking to create the impression of division.

*I would also caution Josh about appending adjectives to the word truth. Truth is truth is truth. There is no such thing as a uniquely Christian truth, Muslim truth, Wiccan truth, or atheist truth. There are things beliefs held as true by these different groups, but they are either true or false. They aren't true for one group and false for another. This is the religious subjectivism against which he has warned.

Act of War or Just Another Crime?

In a piece for OpinionJournal.com, former FBI director Louis Freeh lays recounts his experience heading up the investigation into the bombing of the Khobar Towers in 1996. Prior to reading this piece I was 95% certain that Iran had had a hand in the attack. Now I'm absolutely certain they were responsible for it. The men who carried out the attack were acting as surrogates of the Iranian government, which ordered the attack and provided training and funds for the attack. This was an act of war by the government of Iran against the United States. There are simply no two ways about it. So why are the Mullahs still in power in Iran? Why were they not overthrown in 1979, when the American embassy was seized (another act of war)? Or when Hezbollah (Iran's terrorist group) bombed the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983? Why haven't their military meddlings in Iraq (providing weapons and funds to insurgents, among other things) invited swift and severe reprisals? Why do we choose to ignore what is in front of our face and seek a diplomatic solution with an enemy for whom the only acceptable diplomatic solution is our complete surrender with some economic benefits thrown in for good measure?

Now, I'm not necessarily advocating going to war with Iran, but it looks more and more to me like that's what it's going to take, and if that's what it's going to take, the United States is going to have to be the major force taking care of business, largely because both theoretically and practically we're the only ones who can. Britain and Australia would come with us, I think. I could also see Poland and some of the other smaller members of the Iraq coalition joining in as well. Heck, I could even see Canada getting involved now that they've got a decent Prime Minister who seems to understand that concrete action accomplishes more than endless, vacuous negotiation.

As I've said before, I don't think invading Iran and overthrowing the Mullahs is necessarily the answer, but in order for any of the other alternatives (either a reasonable diplomatic resolution or revolution from within) to be successful, the legitimate threat of force has to present. The United States doesn't have to be overly belligerent or bellicose, but it does have to make clear that failure to reach an acceptable solution will result in the demise of the current Iranian regime. The Iranians have no reservations about waging war against us. It's about time we changed that.

That's All We Need

The New York Times is reporting (a couple of years late in my opinion) on the increasing cooperation between Iran and Syria. Needless to say, this strikes me as being pretty much a non-story. Both Iran and Syria have been meddling in Iraq in attempts to undermine the effort to establish a legitimate, democratic government in Iraq allied with the U.S. Syria has been the major conduit by which al Qaeda operatives have entered Iraq, and Iran has provided funds and weapons to insurgents. Furthermore, there has been a fair amount of cooperation between the two countries where groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah are concerned.

However, there is one paragraph in the story that I think worthy of a story in and of itself:

Arab governments once hostile to Iran have begun to soften their public posture after decades of animosity toward Tehran. President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt met Iran's national security chief, Ali Larijani, in Cairo recently, and Saudi Arabia's foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, visited Tehran this month and declared the two nations to be good friends. In addition, Iranian officials recently sent messages of friendship to every Persian Gulf state.

This paragraph raises, in my mind, serious questions about why these Arab governments are choosing to extend olive branches to Iran now. Obviously, they are engaging Iran diplomatically for prudential reasons. It is also reasonable to conclude that they believe Iran to be pursuing nuclear weapons. After all, if Iran were merely pursuing nuclear power plants it would not alter the political landscape in the Middle East sufficiently for these governments to feel the need to be firmly on Iran's good side.

That's not quite what worries me, though. It is possible that these Arab governments are making nice with Iran simply to make sure they have all of their bases covered no matter how the Iran-vs-the West nuclear showdown plays out, but I don't think so. My reading of this is that these Arab nations have taken stock of the positions of Iran and the West and the actions each side is taking and have concluded that the West's attempts at a diplomatic solution will fail and Iran will acquire nuclear weapons because not even the United States, let alone the EU-3 and the UN, have the will to do what is necessary to prevent Iran developing them.

The Fundamental Irrationality of Soccer

Though I've always preferred American sports, I do enjoy watching and playing soccer, but I may have to reconsider. The Weekly Standard has published an article arguing that playing soccer is contrary to human nature because the use of hands is forbidden, and, more importantly, the head is used as a club. Much as I hate to say it, he's got a point. I may just to rethink my opinion of . . . What's that? WHAM!!!

Soccer is the most beautiful and ingenious sport ever contrived by man, requiring the most athleticism, intelligence and natural talent. Life is meaningless without soccer, just a black hole of nothingness, a dreary abyss of chaos. Soccer is order and goodness and truth. The universe only makes sense when viewed through the prism of soccer.