The Christmas Spirit

Crossposted from My Left Wing


I was raised a vaguely defined Methodist, but I haven't been a member of a church congregation since I was about thirteen and I finally convinced my mother to let me stop going to Sunday School when the size of my class dropped to two. Forty-some years later, as a self avowed pragmatist, atheist, and secular humanist, I'm pretty much disgusted with organized religion in its many incarnations. I have, however, come to the point of enjoying the Christmas spectacle from the perspective of bemused detachment.

I can't stand the commercialization of the season and I've given up buying gifts for anyone (my wife still indulges her coworkers and our relatives, but is kind enough to tell me when "we" are done with our Christmas shopping). I'm happy to wish my friends, associates and acquaintances "Happy Holidays," "Merry Christmas," or, more likely, "the same to you," if they bestow a greeting on me first.

Mostly, though, I am perplexed by the hypocrisy of Americans in general, and our leaders in government and business in particular, at this time of year. I'm getting used to the neo-cons wrapping themselves in the flag and the mall merchants blasting Christmas Music at me since before Halloween, but the inevitable vision of THEBABYJESUS™ wrapped in an American flag and lying in a manger surrounded by rich white men is a little unsettling. More to the point, during this season of quiet reflection, I have been puzzling, once again, over the role of religion in politics just like the rest of you. And wondering:

Greed and arrogance.

Fear and hatred.

Lies, fraud and pockets full of payoffs.

Is this any way to run a country?

Whether it's the US or Iraq?

What would Jesus really do?*

*You know, the Jesus from Sunday School - the Lord's Prayer, the Golden Rule, Love Thy Neighbor - not the Jesus who apparently tells Dubya to kill innocent men, women, and children halfway around the world and to give tax breaks to the filthy rich - that must be some other Jesus, for Chrissake!

Speaking of the role of religion, or rather sacrilege, in politics, the following article has been making its way around the blogosphere in some apparently legitimate sites and, while its tone is overwhelmingly negative regarding the prospects for any sort of peacable solution to the crisis in Iraq, it does come to the conclusion that US armed forces should just get the hell out of there, so I guess it's not totally without merit. At least it gives us a starting point to discuss some of the underlying assumptions of the myths he purports to rebut.

Six brutal truths about Iraq

COMMENTARY | December 11, 2006

General William Odom, one of the earliest advocates of an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, attacks some of the mythologies that are interfering with an honest debate about how to proceed in the Middle East and says the media have failed to recognize dramatic changes in the region.

By William E. Odom

diane@hudson.org

Mythologies about the war in Iraq are endangering our republic, our rights, and our responsibilities before the world. The longer we fail to dispel them, the higher price we will pay. The following six truths, while perhaps not self-evident to the American public, are nevertheless conspicuously obvious to much the rest of the world.

Truth No. 1:
No "deal" of any kind can be made among the warring parties in Iraq that will bring stability and order, even temporarily.

Ever since the war began to go badly in the summer of 2003, a mythology has arisen that a deal among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds could bring peace and stability to Iraq. First, the parliamentary elections were expected to be such a breakthrough. When peace and stability did not follow, the referendum on a constitution was proclaimed the panacea. When that failed, it was asserted that we just had not yet found the proper prime minister. Even today, the Iraq Study Group is searching for this holy grail. It doesn't exist.

Truth No. 2:
There was no way to have "done it right" in Iraq so that U.S. war aims could have been achieved.
Virtually every new book published on the war, especially Cobra II, Fiasco, and State of Denial, reinforce the myth - the illusion - that we could have won the war; we just did not plan properly and fight the war the right way. The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and most other major newspapers have consistently filled their opinion pages with arguments and testimonials to support that myth. (Professor Eliot Cohen of Johns Hopkins University offers the most recent conspicuous reinforcement of this myth in the Wall Street Journal, December 7, 2006.)

The fragmentation of the country, civil war, and the rise of outside influence from Iran, Syria, and other countries - all of these things might have been postponed for a time by different war plans and occupation polices. But failure would have eventually raised its ugly head. Possibly, some of the variables would be a bit different. For example, if the Iraqi military had not been dissolved and if most of the Baathist Party cadres not been disenfranchised, the Sunni factions, instead of the Shiites, probably would have owned the ministry of interior, the police, and several unofficial militias. The Shiites, in that event, would have been the insurgents, abundantly supplied by Iran, indiscriminately killing Sunni civilians, fighting the U.S. military forces, blowing up the power grid, and so on.

A different U.S. occupation plan might have changed the course Iraq has taken to civil war and fragmentation, but it could have not prevented that outcome.

Truth No. 3:
The theory that "we broke it and therefore we own it," with all the moral baggage it implies, is simply untrue because it is not within U.S. power to "fix it."
The president's cheerleaders in the run-up to the war now use this theory to rationalize our continued presence in Iraq, and in that way avoid admitting that they share the guilt for the crime of breaking Iraq in the first place.

Truth No. 4:
The demand that the administration engage Iran and Syria directly, asking them to help stabilize Iraq, is patently naïve or cynically irresponsible until American forces begin withdrawing - and rapidly - so that there is no ambiguity about their complete and total departure.
Effective negotiations will be possible, even with Iran, but only after the U.S. withdraws. And such negotiations must be based on a candid recognition that Iran will come out of this war with a much enhanced position in the Middle East. Until these realities are acknowledged, the planning staffs in the White House, the Pentagon, and the State Department will not begin addressing the most important tasks awaiting them in confronting the post-Iraq War world.

First among them is how to help the Arab Gulf states cope with a stronger Iran, one that has territorial claims on the Arab side of the Gulf. Second is dealing with the increased threat to Israel that comes from the U.S. defeat in Iraq, its own recent misguided war against Hezbollah, looming instability in Lebanon, and the large number of experienced al Qaeda cadres produced by the war in Iraq. Moreover, as the Sunni-Shiite split in the Arab world spreads from Iraq into neighboring Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain, not to mention Lebanon, the United States will be facing a dynamic it has little power to limit.
These new challenges will not be manageable by the United States alone. Europe will have to join with the United States in meeting them. American neocons who have sought to split the United States from Europe, as well as Europeans who tilt excessively in favor the Palestinians, will have to change their tunes if Israel is to survive the upheaval that the U.S. and the Israeli governments so eagerly perpetrated.

The media have not begun to recognize and explain the dramatic changes catalyzed in the Middle East by the war in Iraq. Most editors are not even willing to contemplate them, preferring to pretend they do not exist, probably because they bear some responsibility for creating them.

Truth No. 5:
The United States cannot prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
The only sure way to stop Iran's program is to invade with ground troops and occupy the country indefinitely. Both Iran and North Korea learned from Israel's bombing of the Iraqi nuclear facilities and have hardened their own to make bombing only marginally effective at best. Having squandered ground force capabilities in Iraq, the U.S. does not have sufficient forces to invade Iran, even if that made sense. And bombing would produce all the undesirable consequences of that action but not the most desirable one. Yet the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and other newspapers editorialize as if this is not so.

Truth No. 6:
It is simply not possible to prevent more tragic Iraqi deaths in Iraq.
Many pundits and politicians - particularly those who howled for the invasion of Iraq in 2002 and 2003 -- posture about human rights abuses that will occur if U.S. troops are withdrawn rapidly. The way to have avoided moral responsibility for these abuses was not to invade in the first place. At present, U. S. military forces in Iraq merely facilitate arrests and executions by Shiite officials in the police and some army units. These, of course, are mainly in reaction to the Baathist-led insurgency. This struggle will continue, with or without U.S. forces present, although the forms and tactics of the struggle will change after U.S. forces withdraw. An earlier withdrawal, one or two years ago, would probably have allowed this struggle to be fought to a conclusion by now. Our well-meaning efforts to prevent blood baths are more likely causing them to be bigger, not smaller.

The Iraq Study Group's recommendations could be used to dispel these myths and prompt a rapid withdrawal, but it remains to be seen if either the president and his aides or the Congress can or will use them for that purpose. The "one last big try" aspect of the recommendations, if pursued vigorously, will just make the final price the catastrophe higher. The media, by dispelling the foregoing list of myths, could make that less likely.


(Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University. He was Director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988. From 1981 to 1985, he served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army's senior intelligence officer. From 1977 to 1981, he was Military Assistant to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski.)

E-mail: diane@hudson.org

niemanwatchdog.org
joshualandis.com

I'm not ready to give up on the prospect of negotiating a reasonable settlement of the Iraq civil war (See Oxymoron 101). I understand Mr. Odom's conclusion that peace and harmony among the Shia, Sunni, and Kurd populations in Iraq is impossible - it certainly seems unlikely, at best. However, we of the Myopia of the Western World need look no further than our own ignorant generalizations to see that those peoples can and do live peacefully in close proximity to each other; we just need to figure out how good the fences have to be to make good neighbors of the various Iraqis, just like their peace-loving cousins, the Iranian Shiites and the Saudi Sunnis (Ain't no mountain high enough? Ain't no river wide enough?). Hell, Dubya didn't even realize that all Arabs weren't the same until someone tried to hold an election in Iraq - before that, there were just the oil-rich Arabs and the rest. Of course, pushing for a military solution that includes any chance of a US "victory" is like pouring fuel on the fire - but then, there's no fuel like an old fuel.

First and foremost, we need to open diplomatic relations with all of the stakeholders in Iraq and the neighboring countries. Talk works. Of course, whatever I can say has been said before. Here's an idea. Think before you speak. Listen. Learn. Treat those who would do you harm as human beings.

Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them? - Abraham Lincoln

It is easy enough to be friendly to one's friends. But to befriend the one who regards himself as your enemy is the quintessence of true religion. The other is mere business. - Mohandas Gandhi

If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies. - Moshe Dayan

They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. - Isaiah 2:4

The Plan? Okay, first you invite the "insurgents" to sit down and air their grievances against the occupying forces from the world's biggest superpower. Then, you negotiate a cease-fire while you plan the withdrawal of American military forces and their replacement with an international peace-keeping force. Finally, using the examples of Japan and Germany, you convince the Iraqis (Sunni, Shia, and Kurd alike) that losing a war to the USA can be more profitable than getting in bed with Al Qaeda. Have we learned nothing from post World War II Germany? Vietnam? Bosnia? Northern Ireland? South Africa? the Cold War?

Or are we condemned to repeat our violent and bloody history halfway around the world? Are we not the nation built on the backs and blood of slaves and Natives? Why do we still celebrate Columbus Day? What was the Boston Tea Party if not an act of terrorism? Manifest destiny led us to slaughter countless black, brown, red, and yellow strangers in the name of democracy. We hosted the bloodiest Civil War known to man (both sides). We saved the "free" world from Hitler through conventional warfare, yet we became the first and only nation in history to use nuclear weapons to defeat the Japanese (was it acceptable to decimate Hiroshima and Nagasaki because the Japanese were somehow less "American" than the Germans, or less white, or less Christian? racial profiling, anyone? What would Virgil Goode think?).

As cited by Bob Woodward in State of Denial - Dubya's own father, back in [pre-9/11] 1999, said to a room full of Gulf War veterans:

Had we gone into Baghdad - we could have done it. You guys could have done it. You could have been in there in 48 hours. And then what? Which sergeant, which private, whose life would be at stake in perhaps a fruitless hunt in an urban guerilla war to find the most secure dictator in the world? Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power - America in an Arab land - with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous.

And despite Bush Sr's admonition, we were led to believe that we could "liberate" Iraq by force of Shock and Awe (not "terror," mind you, just everyday "shock" and "awe").

What do we have to lose if we try a little more talk, and a lot less shock? Should we do unto others as we would have them do unto us? Or, in other words:

Christianity - All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets. ~ Matthew 7:1

Confucianism - Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state. ~ Analects 12:2

Buddhism - Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. ~ Udana-Varga 5,1

Hinduism - This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you. ~ Mahabharata 5,1517

Islam - No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself. ~ Sunnah

Judaism - What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary. ~ Talmud, Shabbat 3id

Taoism - Regard your neighbor's gain as your gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss. ~ Tai Shang Kan Yin P'ien

Zoroastrianism - That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself. ~ Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5
(Thanks to teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html)

Get it? Talk, stop fighting, rebuild. Then maybe we will have nothing to fear but fear itself. If we don't talk, we won't stop fighting.

Oh, I'm sorry, it's all been said before.

Never mind.

Peace on Earth. Good will toward men. And women.

And so, I'm offering this simple phrase
To kids from one to ninety-two
Although its been said
Many times, many ways
Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas to You!
~ Mel Torme