Category: Old Dish

Here’s a classic Rumsfeld quote, regarding the abuse and torture of detainees under his command:

“To date there have been approximately 370 criminal investigations into the charges of misconduct involving detainees” since Sept. 11, 2001.

Now recall that that’s a defense of his record. The real question is: if a defense secretary has presided over a military detention system in which 370 separate criminal investigations of prisoner abuse have taken place, what on earth is he still doing in his job?

Yes! Someone who actually paints has been shortlisted for the British art establishment’s famed Turner prize. The artist has actually been known to paint … flowers!

“‘The Dutch people won against this crazy constitution,’ said Tiny Kox, a member of the small Socialist Party, which was pivotal in the campaign opposing ratification.” – New York Times today.

There are many disagreements I have with this column by Charles Krauthammer. But let me just point out one. Charles posits two forms of “imposition of values” on society. One is by secularists; and one by Christians. Here’s a quote that suggests the dichotomy as he sees it:

It seems perfectly O.K. for secularists to impose their secular views on America, such as, say, legalized abortion or gay marriage. But when someone takes the contrary view, all of a sudden he is trying to impose his view on you. And if that contrary view happens to be rooted in Scripture or some kind of religious belief system, the very public advocacy of that view becomes a violation of the U.S. constitutional order.

It seems to me that this is the wrong formulation, and already concedes something that should not be conceded. Christianism – politicized Christianity – argues for the imposition of one religion’s values over the entire society. So, in this context, it would forbid gay couples from getting civil marriages or unions and prevent pregnant women from seeking an abortion. Secularism is not the polar opposite. Secularism allows Christians, and any other religious faith, to affirm religious values, live exactly as they see fit, and avoid such moral outrages as abortion and gay civil unions in their own lives, if they so wish. All secularism does is say that as a political matter, there will be as much government neutrality as possible because the government should represent all citizens; that the Church and the state shall coexist, but independently of each other. Secularism is not only compatible with aggressive and proud Christian faith; in practice, secularism has fostered that faith. The polar opposite of Christianism, in contrast, would be a government that actively suppresses religious faith, discriminates against Christianity and forbids Christians from practising their way of life. No one is proposing that. I’m really concerned that secularism is slowly becoming tainted with the same brush as “liberalism.” But secularism is the great modern achievement of Christianity and of Western freedom. It is an honorable tradition, integral to the entire concept of Western liberty. The difference between secularism and Christianism, to put it bluntly, is that one side is happy to let people make their own moral choices; and one side isn’t. So who exactly is imposing on whom?

Two pieces of analysis to grapple with the seemingly growing insurgency in Iraq. I say “growing” because, as Steve Chapman points out,

Fatalities from car bombings and suicide bombings have soared five-fold since November. Attacks on U.S. forces have been running at 70 a day, double the rate in March and April.

Steve proposes reducing U.S. troop levels to undermine the political appeal of the insurgency. But wouldn’t that withdrawal merely empower the insurgency? It would certainly demoralize the Iraqi government, such as it is. A more persuasive case is made in the NYT, arguing for a more thorough re-training of Iraqi military commanders – by taking them for long periods to the U.S. I have to say that sounds more sensible to me. Even then, however, we need to be thinking in terms of around a decade of major commitment. Have we made that case to the American people? Have we prepared for it? To my mind, one measure of the administration’s seriousness is its plans for the military. We obviously need more manpower to deal with Iraq and any other serious crises. And yet Rumsfeld is opposed. I guess when you believe that the insurgency is in “its last throes,” you don’t need to reach for more radical solutions. What we have, I fear, is an administration in a cocoon of its own denial. That denial was intensified by the two elections last November and last January. I just hope it unravels soon.

The military desperately needs soldiers. It even more desperately needs good soldiers. But this wounded serviceman who won a Purple Heart in Iraq and was eager to return was discharged today. The reason? He’s gay. None of his fellow soldiers minded. But policy must be upheld. Only gay liars are allowed in the military. Even if you win a Purple Heart, honesty and integrity violate the military code.

“They will do everything they can to disrupt the process up to those elections in January because they know that once you’ve got a democratically elected government in place that has legitimacy in the eyes of the people of Iraq, they’re out of business. That will be the end of the insurgency.” – vice president Dick Cheney, October 28, 2004.

One analysis of the Dutch referendum result: They are the Knights that say “Nee!”

“With regard to your description of the mosque suicide bombing: Even though your horror and disgust over this and similar terrorist incidents is understandable, I think when you deny this act is a product of religious fanaticism and instead ascribe it to some kind of reified “evil”, you run the risk of relieving both individuals and religious and political institutions of responsibility. No, this is precisely religious fanaticism. Suicide bombings are hardly the first time that religious fanaticism has brought horror to the world. Look at history. Look at European history. Look at Catholic history. Look at Nazism and Communism, which denied religion but acted as religions. One could make a good case for the fact that fanaticism is the core problem of humanity, the outward symptom of our deepest psychological and spiritual dilemma. Calling it “pure, nihilist evil” lets us off too light, lets it get away and scuttle off into the darkness again. It is not pure, nihilist evil; it is precisely religious fanaticism, and precisely what we need to recognize and acknowledge as a universal human issue if we ever intend to take responsibility for it and grow beyond it. Don’t give it a place to hide by reifying it or blaming it on the perpetrator of the day. This shadow belongs to all of us. Drag it front and center and make us look at it.”

I take the point. My point, perhaps artlessly made, is that this is a kind of religion which does not do justice to the genuine article. No true Muslim can believe that suicide and mass murder in a religious place is religiously mandated or permissible. This distortion, this pride, is an evil that can occur under any totalist philosophy, including atheist totalitarianisms, as well as religions. But someone who truly struggles to understand God cannot arrive at the kind of moral certainty and extremism of al Qaeda. They have substituted man for God, as the Catholic church has done at various points in its history, and as other nominally Christian bigots have also done, in coopting the Bible to justify any number of hatreds and pathologies over the centuries. Where religion ends and evil begins is an interesting question, of course. How can something that does so much good be turned to so much evil? My own tentative view is that this moment arrives whenever human beings really do believe they have achieved certainty about the great unknowables. That certainty masks itself as revelation or authority but is in fact an abandonment of the humility that is the mark of genuine faith. You see that certainty in the Islamists and, to a far lesser extent, in the Christianists. And at some point such certainty becomes evil. With al Qaeda, that happened a long time ago.

“I think we may well have some kind of presence there over a period of time. The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.” – vice-president Dick Cheney. You’ll either be relieved or terrified by this statement by Mr Cheney. Relieved if you think he has a grip on the situation; terrified if you think it shows he has no idea what is going on in Iraq (or in the military’s own detention facilities, for that matter). But at least he has given us a clear marker for the future that we can hold him to.