Pro-Death Bona Fides

In a strange twist, Republican candidates now must seemingly prove their pro-death bona fides to the Tea Party extremist base.  In the last two Republican debates the crowd has made it clear that death is preferable to life, eye-for-an-eye-tooth-for-a-tooth is preferable to love thy neighbor and blessed-are-the-peacemakers and good-samaritanism and so forth.  (Videos below)

He's Dead

This is a follow up to Andrew's great picture earlier.  I laugh every time.

Also, if you that initial thrill has worn off the bin Laden situation and you want to think a little more about it, here are a couple good things to read.

Osama Bin Laden is dead

I think this image sums up the last couple of years quite nicely:

http://i.imgur.com/KDssc.jpg

OBL's death may be largely symbolic, but the symbolism is powerful. The thugs that are Al-Qaeda have stolen the focus for too many years from the billions of peaceful Muslims in the world. If nothing else, I'm hoping his death will undo that supreme injustice.

Constitutional Over-Correction: Extreme States' Rights

Utah's very own baby-faced tea-party senator, and self-styled Constitutional scholar, Mike Lee, recently held forth that, of all things, child labor laws are unconstitutional.  I guess I'm more sad than anything.  Sad because we have completely stopped thinking through issues and ideas carefully.  Rhetoric rules.

The best way I can describe what is going on is with a car analogy, which I understand is worn and cliche but I am nothing if not worn and cliche.  So, you are driving along on a road trip and you are eating a Wendy's spicy chicken sandwich and you look down for a second to rearrange the wrapping for your next bite and when you look up you are drifting into oncoming traffic.  The natural reaction is to jerk the wheel back.  But this is how rollovers happen, by over-correction.  The proper response is to course-correct more smoothly.

A Culture of War

Glenn Greenwald has documented the increased desire of America to bomb Yemen.  Jeffrey Goldberg has documented the increased American desire to bomb Iran.  President Obama has committed to escalating the unwinnable war in Afghanistan.  Even though we are told that the combat mission in Iraq is coming to a close, there are still 50,000 troops there and combat will likely continue for a long time.  Meanwhile, experts are warning America that our reaction against the inaccurately-named "ground zero mosque" is fueling extremists.

We are caught in a self-defeating cycle.  Some Islamic extremists hate America and want to hurt us.  So America takes military action against Muslims.  So more Muslims hate America and want to harm us.  So America does something else against Muslims.  So they are more enraged and hate us more.  So we react again.  And so on.  If one didn't know any better one might be inclined to think that we are purposefully created conditions that would justify our ongoing military presence in the Middle East.  But that would be silly.

In any case, we can either let this go on indefinitely until we have an all-out world war on our hands or we can step back and try to regain our sanity and perspective by trying out the role of peacemaker for a while.  We can either be a country that is more and more reliant on a massive military-industrial complex or we can choose to disentangle ourselves from foreign intrigue as George Washington presciently advised.

Frankly, though, I find it slightly terrifying how many people in America support escalating our military presence in the Muslim world.  They are positively gleeful at the thought of bombing Afghanistan, and Iraq, and Iran, and Yemen, oh and Pakistan.  I don't want to live in a world where war is the preferred way to solve our difficult international problems, but that's where we're headed if we don't start actively opposing it.

Religious Freedom and the Ground Zero Mosque

The Eleventh Article of Faith states: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

I stated in my last post that my evolving three pillars of Things I Care About The Most In Politics are peace, a healthy sustainable environment, and moral/religious agency.  I think if we safeguard these three things we can live in a pretty great world for a long time.  Of course the three are intimately intertwined.  War is usually based on scarcity of resources (the environmental aspect) or religious conflict.  If we could focus on cleaning up our religious conflicts and our environment, sustainable peace would surely follow.

Unfortunately, there are many right here in America who want to restrict the religious freedom of anyone that worships different than they do, thus creating more conflict and less peace.  The latest and most public incarnation of this bigotry is the uproar over the plans to build a mosque and Muslim information center a few blocks from ground zero.

The opponents of this mosque truly believe that those who died on 9/11 would be dishonored by the mere fact that Muslims would have a place of worship so near ground zero.  The only way this thinking makes sense is if you believe that all Muslims are responsible for the actions of al Qaeda and the extremist factions that want to harm the United States.  This is, of course, absurd and bigoted.

The Thirst For War

Al Qaeda is gaining momentum in the Arabian peninsula, and in particular in Yemen. Underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab confessed to being trained by al Qaeda in Yemen. As a result there is a growing sentiment among many conservatives that we should be preparing to launch a military campaign in Yemen. War.

I do not understand this insatiable desire to be at war. Dick Cheney continually complains that Pres. Obama refuses to admit that we are at war (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Dick Cheney has an honesty problem). Many conservatives fear that if liberals do not regularly admit to and discuss being at war with Islamic extremists that the extremists will destroy America. The assumption underlying this rhetoric is that war is the only way to make America safe.

This assumption is wrong. The United States government, even under the Bush administration, and other independent sources have all concluded that our wars with and occupations of Islamic nations is the single greatest factor in creating anti-American extremists. We often hear that these extremists hate America for its freedoms and ideals, which is generally not the case. They hate America for its wars and occupation of Muslim nations and lands. This is not necessarily a reason for America to act differently, but it should absolutely be treated seriously.

If we followed the conservative hawks' desire to start a war with Yemen, it would do more harm than good. It would create more terrorists than it would destroy. It would stretch our military even more and put Americans abroad in even more risk. And then Al Qaeda would simply pack up and move to a new country. And we can't just start a new war with every nation that harbors terrorists, we do not have unlimited resources. When America became sufficiently blase about Yemen, like we have about Afghanistan, the extremists would move back in, like they have in Afghanistan. This is a conflict that simply cannot be won through war.

And let's not forget the human side. Most of us are so detached from actual war that we have no idea what it actually means for the nations we attack. I know I don't. But take a look at this article and this photo essay about Yemen and its citizens from Foreign Policy magazine. These are real people living normal lives who harbor no ill-will towards America. These are people whose homes, families, and ways of life would be forever shattered by a misguided attack by America. It was the same for Afghans and and Iraqis. That is not to say that war is never justified, but, again, we have to take it into account.

As members of the church we should be even more acutely aware of these issues. Do we really believe that Muslims are sons and daughters of God? Do we really believe that the Gospel is universal? Can we reconcile these beliefs with disdain for Arabs, disparagement of Islam, and a thirst for war? Protection of America against terrorists is certainly not mutually exclusive to the Gospel, but the way in which we go about it and the emotions and motivations that propel us should be carefully evaluated.

Trying Terrorists in Civil Court

The latest evidence proffered by conservative ideologues that Pres. Obama is anti-American and that America is being ruined is the announcement that certain detainees from Guantanamo Bay will be tried in civil courts for the 9/11 attacks. Chief among them is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of 9/11.

The reasons for conservative outrage go like this, I think:

1. These men do not deserve the privilege of the American court system. To try them in our court system would be to defile that system.

2. It is dangerous to bring these terrorists to American soil because it would invite further terrorist attacks.

3. The government would have to give up its secrets in court in order to prosecute them effectively.

4. It would be a media circus and too great a strain on our court system.

As to number one, I agree. He does not deserve due process of law. Neither did Timothy McVeigh or Jeffrey Dahmer. These types of men do not deserve the rights and privileges of due process of law. But in America this is how we do it. In America we are a nation of laws, due process, objectivity, and justice. We have a Constitution to protect us from mob rule and decisionmaking based on emotion, hatred, half-truths, rumors, and the like. It is fundamentally American, and the right thing to do, to drag these terrorists through the court system and show the world that America does things the Right Way.

Number two is, I believe, a scare tactic. There have been no other terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11, despite the fact that they have tried. We are more alert now than ever, and I believe that we are safer now than ever. I don't believe that we are more at risk having these few terrorists locked up in America than we did having them locked up 100 miles south of Florida in Cuba.

Number three is probably not going to happen to begin with, but reveals something about ourselves in any case. The government has a long standing exemption from regular discovery rules for national security secrets. They will not give away information that could be used to harm America, our troops, or our citizens. But really what we are worried about is the embarrassing stuff that could come out as a result of this trial. The torture, the poor conditions, the poor decisionmaking, and all the other skeletons in our closet regarding how we have prosecuted the war on terror.

Part of the reason I support this move by the Obama Administration is because it will lead to more openness about how we've been doing things and it will shed some light on some of our actions that we should not be proud of. Hopefully we'll come out of this a stronger nation with more desire to be just, open, and supportive of human rights than before. They will convict these terrorists no matter how embarrassing some of the details may be, so I hope we end up doing a little soul-searching along the way.

Number four is trivial and doesn't matter to me. It will be a media circus. It will strain the courts. Compared to how important it is to get this right, and show America to be just and strong and confident, those concerns mean little.

It has been well documented (I get my information from Glenn Greenwald: see here, here, here, and here, who in turn gets his information from the Pentagon, Gen. McChrystal, and others) that the imprisonment of Muslims suspected of terrorism without any sort of due process of law is a key recruiting tool for Islamic extremists. The mistreatment of extremists in our custody is driving more extremism. We have to put a stop to this, and it is within our power to do so. Muslim extremists, it is true, will never "like" us, but that is besides the point. We don't need friends, we just need to take the edge off that seething anger that drives manageable dislike to terrorism.

Trying these extremists in civil court, including KSM, is the right thing to do both for ourselves internally as a nation and our security worldwide.

Extreme Right-Wing Strategy Fails, At Least This Once

I think it is dangerous to put too much stock into these really off-year elections. There are so few that the national infortainment machine puts excess weight on each. The governorships in Virginia and New Jersey went from Democrat to Republican. Independents in those states that voted for Pres. Obama, and who, in exit polls, still supported the president, voted for the Republican governor. Not a great sign for Democrats, but really a small sample size.

The other race that, for me at least, was the most interesting was the special election in NY-23. In that race you started out with Democrat Bill Owens, Republican Dede Scozzafava, and Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman. Scozzafava is a moderate, which conservative ideologues and purists did not appreciate, to the point that they drove her right out of the race. Palin, Bachmann, Fred Thompson, Dick Armey, and the unholy trio of Beck-Limbaugh-Hannity all publicly supported the extreme conservative Hoffman over their party's moderate candidate. Scozzafava dropped out and urged her supporters to vote for the Democrat, Bill Owens.

Like I said, it is dangerous to put too much weight on single races like this, but this really felt like a war between the purity v. big-tent conservatives to see who would take control of the party. And the purity group won. They are pushing moderates out left and right. They are anointing extreme right-wingers to lead the party.

So what happened in that race, to the seat that has been solidly Republican since the Civil War? The Democrat won.

An ideologically pure, kick-out-the-extremists political party cannot be a national power, whether conservative or liberal. If the Republican party is intent on purging itself of moderates then it will continue to fail like it has for the past few years. I understand that some people in the party want to stick to their extreme-right agenda. They should be perfectly free to do so. But that does not mean they should alienate other moderate conservatives from their party. There is room for both. The Democrats are now the party that attracts moderate voices because they are a "big-tent" party. Just look at how much power the Blue Dogs have. There is no corresponding moderate bloc of Congresspeople among Republicans.

So we should not put too much emphasis on these few races, but that doesn't mean we can't learn something from them. And one thing we can learn is that pure ideology at the expense of more widespread appeal is a strategy for failure.

Combating Extremism Abroad

There is a debate going on about how America should use information, propaganda, and humanitarian aid to combat extremism abroad. Reversing the tide of extremism worldwide is now the number one foreign policy goal of the Obama administration, and an important part of meeting that goal is to use information and diplomacy.

But Washington seems divided about whether to spread information and goods (such as messages of peace, mosquito nets, and bottled water) as overtly American or using the voice of the local people. In other words, is it in our best interests to advertise America as providing these goods and services and education, or would we see more positive results if those things were perceived to be coming from local organizations.

The argument for America stepping back and letting local voices speak for tolerance and peace, as opposed to our government making that case, is fairly persuasive. For one, America has a terrible reputation overseas right now, and anything coming out of Washington is viewed with skepticism and distrust. Pres. Obama is taking steps to mend broken fences, but it will take time. Often, then, people that would otherwise benefit from goods or see the virtues of our message of peace and democracy will reject it outright simply out of disdain for our country. There is therefore a threat of fostering more extremism through our perceived "meddling."

More fundamentally, however, it is important for people to hear the message of peace and tolerance from their peers. It resonates more. It seems to me that democracy and peace are more stable and long-lasting if they come from an organic process, like the American revolution, as opposed to coming by force, like in Iraq. When a nation takes ownership for its own destiny and raises up a generation of brave, freedom-loving patriots, its peace and freedom will be all the sweeter. America can nurture this organic process, but probably shouldn't be forcing it.

The other point is that it is more important for us to foster dislike of extremists than love for America. The point is to make America and Americans abroad safer, not to be everyone's best buddy. If we can be successful in encouraging nations such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, and the Sudan to reject extremists within their border, then perhaps a closer relationship with America will be a positive side-effect. But the goal is for those nations to voluntarily reject extremism, intolerance, and war.

One of the signs that more is needed to be done is the closing of the temple in Aba, Nigeria. This is a country that for years was one of the more stable African countries. There has recently been increased violence, however, even in the safe neighborhoods like the one the temple is in. Perhaps if America had been focusing on emergent nations such as Nigeria, that showed signs of enduring peace and freedom, instead of focusing efforts on a war with Iraq, we might have avoided Nigeria's deterioration.

Finally, I want to point people again to the talk by Elder Oaks, "World Peace." I think it provides excellent insight into how we, as members of the church, can promote peace. Sometimes it seems overwhelming to me. There are so many huge problems in the world that seem unsolvable. But Elder Oaks makes a simple statement: "The blessings of the gospel are universal, and so is the formula for peace: keep the commandments of God. War and conflict are the result of wickedness; peace is the product of righteousness."

Obviously we can't demand that America adopt the Gospel as its primary foreign policy tool. The Obama administration is doing what it can by promoting peace and stability behind the scenes. But we should be doing what we can, as members of the church, by living and spreading the Gospel. There are members of the church in hundreds of nations, and I really believe that where even a few members live the Gospel in an otherwise oppressive nation, peace and freedom can follow.