Sorry to be out of touch

I am not sure if anyone missed me, but I am sorry I have left my blog go so fallow for the past seven months.   Perhaps it was the impact of the major change going on where I work as a defense contractor.  During this period, US Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) was "disestablished" as one of the twelve major DoD so-called Unified Commands as an early budget reduction or "efficiencies" measure.  After closing down its superstructure of General Officers and most of its staff, only certain parts of the Command were allowed to remain and were each assigned to other DoD entities.   As it happens, I worked in the J7 or Training Directorate, which was continued,  and we are now under the Joint Chiefs of Staff as part of the Joint Staff's J7.    So as some would say, I "survived" JFCOM's demise.  Some might even call it a promotion.  No doubt the dust still has not settled on JFCOM.   There is new leadership in the J7 and a restructuring, lots of moving of offices and new initiatives.  However, the fundamental work of the training arm, the only Joint Trainers in the US military, continues on in pretty much the same way as it did before.   Nobody who did make it through the "transition" feels totally secure in their position.   After all the state of the economy and high unemployment do not lend themselves for people to take their jobs for granted now, if they ever foolishly did.   People are working hard to demonstrate their value added to the new organization.   The big buzz word of the transition was that we would be an organization which functioned on a "demand signal."    In other words, the fate of the organization and everyone in it, especially contractors, would be based on how much of its services were requested by its "customers," in most cases referring to its regional Combatant Commands.  So far, the demand signal has been strong.  Nonetheless, any reorganization introduces a set of uncertainties, as old structures and functions are reassessed and evaluated for their contributions to the overall effort.  So, I would say, so far so good, and I do hope to write more frequently in my blog now that our work has become somewhat normalized.   See you soon!

The Civil War Around Us

These days I am watching Ken Burns' "Civil  War" series on PBS and seeing Abraham Lincoln's picture on the front page of "Time" magazine.    OK, we are celebrating the 150th anniversary of the beginning of the Civil War, an appropriate time to remember that important and horrible event in US history.   But there is another spectre hovering over this country.  "Time" asked if the Civil War is over.  That refers strictly to the matter of if Americans agree on the causes of the war, and the broad denial that race was its central or perhaps its only cause.

But is all this focus on the Civil War also a wake up call to our present dilemmas.   The country almost stopped last night until minutes before a government shutdown, an agreement was struck by reluctant Democrats and Republicans to keep the government going.  Underlying this near collapse of our government, were deep seated and building conflicts within the body politic of our nation which threaten even wider rifts and more severe consequences.     Are we on the brink of a new Civil War? 

I don't want to be cute or provocative.   I believe a case can be made that our country is entering a great divide.  The divisions are over: yes, race, class, regions, cultural beliefs, ignorance, immigration, globalization, economics and foreign policy goals.

Although we were mostly all proud that we had elected the first African American President (actually he is biracial and he did not come from slaves but the marriage of an African foreign student with an American woman), in truth, from the very beginning of his Presidency, he was under attack for being a secret Muslim, not born in the United States (incredibly even Donald Trump has now gotten on this issue) and for being a "community organizer," all of which could be considered code words for his race, as is the term "Obamacare."  

We have an unusual class divide buiding, not between the rich and the poor, but between the very rich who run corporate America (not all of them, certainly but enough of them, and certainly characterized by the Koch brothers) who are stoking the fires of attack on the President and his policies, and sectors of the white working and lower middle classes that are joined in opposing big government and in some cases  any government at all.   The solid middle and upper middle classes, organized workers, minorities and the intellectual, cultural and enlightened business elites are arrayed against them.

Unfortunately, we remain divided along lines similar to that of the original Civil War:  South against North, Coastal America against the hinterland;  we now call it Red and Blue States.  Demographic shifts have made these boundaries less precise and in some cases we now have swing states, that shift back and forth at least in electoral contests.  One of these is my own state of Virginia.   I only had to go down the street to the corner where we have a few village stores to find Johnny Reb tee shirts (actually that store was destroyed last year in a tornado.)  

We are deeply divided culturally.   Our constitution provides for a clear separation of church and state, yet there are those who wish to impose their own religious beliefs on others.  This applies primarily to women's reproductive rights and gay rights, but also to what is taught in the classroom about things like sex education, history and evolution.  Increasingly, the religious right is imposing its beliefs on the rest of the country.  They have become increasingly powerful, organized and media-savvy.    There is still a legacy of the 60s, which is reflected in many of the beliefs of the Baby Boomers, who lived through that period of cultural awakening and sexual and freedom.

The ignorance gap is something not often explored and I am not simply saying that there are people who are intelligent or stupid.   I am speaking more about people who rely on science versus those who depend solely in belief.  This applies particularly to the debates about evolution and stem cell research.   This is something that goes back to the days of the Scopes Trial and persists today.  Our capacity to survive on this planet is most linked to our ability to apply science to the problems that confront humanity, but efforts to hold back scientific discovery, knowledge and implementation will continue to make this effort difficult.

We are an immigrant society, par excellence, yet we are divided over immigration.  We occupied a good part of Mexico.  We filled our cities with immigrants from Europe and more recently from the rest of the world.  We continue to depend on immigrants to do work that most American-born citizens would not care to do.    Yet there is a whole group of Americans who fear immigration.  Because of this, we have more, not less illegal immigration because our politicians cannot agree on a orderly immigration policy.   No matter what we try, we cannot stop immigration, only slow it down at a great cost.  People will lie on their visa applications, sneak in through, around and under our land borders.    But the false dichotomy of being for or against immigration or seeing it strictly as a law enforcement and not also an economic and social problem drives us to failure and conflict.  Most importantly, anti-immigrant sentiment is focused on flows from Latin America, mostly Mexico and Central America.   Of course, this concern is increased by the amount of crime taking place across the border as well as some spillover due to the nature of illegal trafficking both of narcotics and humans.  However, a lot of this anti-immigrant sentiment, in my opinion, is purely racism and nativism.  A fear of foreigners, their cultures their beliefs,their way of life and their poverty.  Of course, these attitudes are given justifications such as "they are taking jobs away from Americans," and "they are a burden to our social welfare policies."  But few immigrants take jobs on farms, on construction sites, in restaurants or in hotels that Americans really want, despite the depressed jobs market.  And in general, the immigrants who come here are hard working and conscientious, seeking a living for themselves and their families, many of whom are still back in their home towns down south.

Globalization and economics divides us. There are those who are better and worse prepared to confront the challenges of globalization, which are inevitable.  Those whose jobs are being displaced because employers, mostly industrial but also services, can no longer afford to pay people in this country 10-20 times the wages paid abroad.   There are many other challenges of globalization, such as the use of the social media tot divide us between those who use and those who do not use them or understand technology, which is the root cause of globalization.  Our counry has increasingly been creating a gap in income levels that has left a large number of people poor and undereducated, leading further to their economic marginalization.  The cost of education, the greatest tool for overcoming barriers to increasing income, has become prohibitive.

Finally, we are divided over the role of our country in the world.  This is not an easy issue on which to see a clear divide, because more than anything you find elites on both sides of the political party barrier  finding a common position, versus the opinions of many ordinary Americans.  Both parties support our current policies in both Iraq and Afghanistan, while most Americans are going along with Iraq because we are leaving but have problems with Afghanistan because we cannot leave fast enough for them.  In truth, our current policies are to stay as long as we have to, but no President can say this so starkly and neither can Republicans who are hard liners when it comes to fighting terrorism.    The delicate nature of the problem is our current polices with regard to Libya.  Everyone hates Qaddafi, but few Americans really want to see our country get deeply involved in a third war with "boots on the ground," or with hemorrhaging expenses.   This is an issue where Republicans are also divided so it is not a partisan issue at this time, but could become one.  At root here also, besides those issues of "blood and treasure" that always emerge with foreign involvements, are deep seated sentiments of isolationism vs. internationalism.  These are more deeply rooted in class than in differences among elites.  For the present, however, anti-war sentiment has not been a major issue in our political campaigns, although Iraq was the root of BarrackObama's 2008 campaign.

These differences are often referred to as "cleavages" by political scientists.  If enough of these overlap, they are the basis for a large conflict within a society.   Are we moving in this direction?  Have we already arrived?    I am not sure, but I am fearful.   We entered 2009 on a note of hope and unity.  We are far from that today.  Let us hope for leadership that can move us back in this direction.   I have not specifically mentioned the issue of debt or the Tea Party, but these are obviously large factors of division in the country.  The Democrats have largely thrown in the towel on the debt issue, acknowledging the need for drastic debt reduction.   But the Tea Pary wants more than Democrats are willing to give and they are also salting their demands increasingly with cultural issues that make coming together even more difficult that purely over fiscal matters.

Qaddafi Cannot Win

As we watch the situation in Libya ebb and flow, there is a sinking feeling that the rag tag rebel army is not doing well and is in retreat against the onslaught of Qaddafi's better armed, better trained, more disciplined forces.    The international coalition that is supporting UNSC Resolution 1973 is learning that the tools it decided on to stop Qaddafi's forces, a no fly zone and air attacks against his ground forces, is not enough to tip the balance in favor of the opposition forces.  The recent unintentional NATO attack against opposition armored vehicles only underscores the precarious nature of outside assistance.

Several escalations have been discussed.  First, arming and training the opposition forces.   Second, use of more sophisticated air power such as A-10 Worthogs and AC-130 gunships.   But if only air power is to be used, a better system of air control needs to be introduced.  There are already stories of CIA teams in Libya but no indication that they are directing air strikes as they did in Afghanistan in 2001.    Finally there is the possibility of "boots on the ground" of foreign troops.  The West would want these to be Arab troops, but that is unlikely at this time.   Most Western governments have ruled out use of their own troops in Libya. And the UN resolution specifically rejects any foreign intervention on the ground.  So where do we go from here?

The NATO led coalition needs to rethink the question of the use of ground power.  This would be very unpopular among most publics.  The US fears getting involved in a a third ground war.   Secretary of Defense Robert Gates even said it would not happen "so long as I am the Secretary of Defense."  The implication there is that the option still exists with Gates' planned departure from DoD, athough his departure has not been specified.  Nonetheless, there is now serious talk about CIA Director Leon Pannetta taking over his job (and General Petreaus, taking Pannetta's.)    All of this is probably not intentionally linked to Libya, but it could facilitate a policy shift.   I know that nobody thinks we are going to dive into a ground war in Libya.  However, can anyone imagine that we would stand by while Qaddafi vanquishes the opposition forces in Benghazi?  I, for one, cannot.

What Ever Happened to Idealism?

As I view the current landscape I am struck by the absence of idealism.  Too bad, because I have long defined myself more as an idealist than any other character trait.   It was easy to be an idealist in the past.  I was an idealist about being an American in a world in which few countries offered both the standard of living and the liberties of the United States.  It was easy being an idealist in the 1960s with the Civil Rights movement and the anti-Vietnam War movement and the Peace movement and Youth movement.   It was easy to be an idealist as a liberal.   It was easy being an idealist during the Carter human rights era of the late 70s,  the return to democracy in Southern Europe and Latin America in the 80s and during the 90s when there was a flourishing recoginiton of the role of women and civil society.

9/11 killed idealism.  It threw us all into an abiss of fear and militarism.  I can't go through an airport screening process without thinking how naive we all were.   Where the hell did those guys come from.  We didn't have a clue that our entire society would be challenged by a bunch of guys living in the most backward parts of the globe, who responded to an 8th century creed.   

The electiion of Barack Obama seemed to represent a return to idealism.   He won an election through inspiration.   We for the most part believed him.  Imagine electing the first African American ever to the Presidency.   It seemed something that only happened in the movies.   But we barely realized that we had already been hit with a sledge hammer of recession.   And we were already struggling through two major wars that were legacies of 9/11.     If politics was for a moment inspiring, it no longer is.   Antibodies to the election of a liberal Black President immediately began to build and have developed into a poisonous mixture of nativism, reaction to the health care legislation, vituperatively labeled as "Obamacare" by all those who seek to denigrate the President and his accomplishments.    And while the President has successfully pulled us out of the recession, he has been continually attacked for the sluggish jobs recovery and now for the Federal deficit, neither of which were of his making.   

Ah, the Arab Spring!   It is truly inspiring, perhaps one of the most important developments of our time.  But it is being met with a high degree of cynicism and fear.   We think that these revolutions could well get out of control.  We fear that a certain stability we have enjoyed in the Arab world is now at risk.   And we hesitate to know how far to go to support the broad revolution taking place differently in each country in the region.  Meanwhile the cost of a gallon of gasoline keeps creeping up, and we can no longer trust our energy future to the power of the atom.   We once again fear nuclear annihillation.

So where are the idealists?  Where are the idealistic causes and what can we be idealistic about in the future?

I have questions, but at this moment no answers.  Maybe tomorrow or the next day.

Eleanor's War

I have commented in past blogs about how the President and the Secretary of State have persistenty referred to "universal human rights" as a basis for our policies abroad, from China to Libya.   Hillary again refered to it on today's "Meet the Press," where she was unusually inteviewed side-by-side with Defense Secretary Robert Gates about our i ntervention in Libya.  

It occurs to me that our country has entered into a new foreign policy, that of "the defense of universal human rights."   Very few people seem to know the origins of this phrase.  However, as the former Executive Director of the Eleanor Roosevelt Center at Val-Kill (ERVK), Mrs. Roosevelt's former home, I am deeply aware that this is a reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which was the main accomplishment of Mrs Roosevelt's career.   In 1998, ERVK ran a multi-part program to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the  UDHR.  It included a town hall meeting on the day of the anniversary, December 9, at Marist College, in the Roosevelt's home of Dutchess County; a 7 part college lecture series around the country on human rights that included then First Lady Hillary Clinton, former Nobel Peace Prize winner and President of Costa Rica Oscar Arias; Gloria Steinem and others. We also sponsored several teacher training courses on human rights and a local Welfare Reform Monitoring Program that used the UDHR as the standard for evaluating the results of Welfare Reform.  It was an ambitious program for a small organization.

Few people understand that the UDHR is contained in a UN General Assembly Resolution, at the time adoped by all the members of the UN (with some abstantions).    To read the relatively short text and background, I would recommend the website set up in 1998 by a coaliton of non-governmental organizations that banded together to promote the UDHR's 50th anniversary, of which ERVK was only one:  http://www.udhr.org/index.htm.  (Do not access the Declaration from the left hand column of the site, which is a dead link, but yes from the first line of the main page where it is hyperlinked.)

I beleive that a good argument can be made that we went into Libya because the current administration believes deeply in the UDHR.    Therefore, I am not ashamed to say that Libya could be called "Eleanor's War."

Sunday Nonsense

When I was teaching political science at Tidewater Community College as an adjunct lecturer, I made my students watch and report on at least one of the Sunday talk shows..  These reports became the basis of our discussions of current political events at our Monday evening class.  I always thought that the best discussions of the previous week's events were found on these Sunday shows, which continue to evolve with the addition of such programs as Farid Zakaria's GPS and Cristine Amanpour's show.

But I have been disappointed in the disucssions for the past two weeks on these shows about Libya.  There continues to be a reserve on the part of most commentators on the wisdom of our military intervention there.  Some observers are clearly in favor of the President's decisions, but even they do not firmly resist some of the allegations of those who opposed him.   Richard Haas of the Council of Foreign Relations has been especialy critical.  

One of the most insistent points made by Haas and other critics is that we simply do not know who the Libyan opposition is so should not have rushed to support them.  Even John Negroponte, a supporter of Libyan policy, ceded this one to Haas and urged the State Department to get diplomatic representatives to Benghazi to meet them.    All this talk seems to ignore the fact that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton herself met with these leaders as did earlier French President Sarkozy. (The story of how French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy travelled to Benghazi to meet them and then arranged for them to meet with Sarkozy is one of the fascinating turns of fate of this matter.)   While I agree with Negroponte that we should dispatch diplomats to Benghazi, all this talk seems to ignore information already available about the Libyan opposition.   For one, an excellent piece abou the origins of the revolt and the nature of it was published in the recent issue of "The New York Review of Books," by Nicolas Pelham called "The Battle of Libya:"  http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/apr/07/battle-libya/?page=1)

My hope is that the rebels, after a most successful air intervention by the anti-Coalition, will continue their westward sweep and that all this doubt and angst will also be swept away by their victory and the President's and Hillary's wisdom and compassion will have been confirmed.

The Fourth Wave

I met Samuel Huntington, the noted late Harvard political scientist, only once when I was a young vice consul in Brazil and he had come there to advise the Brazilian military regime on their desire to make a slow return to democratic, civilian rule. Unfortunately, I was not invited into his private meeting with the American Consul General in Rio, but when he came out of the meeting, the CG turned to me and asked me to help Dr. Huntington with something: could I help him buy a parrot to take back to the US with him. I did. Huntington, from all I could gather, actually was a main architect of the Brazilian process of "distension:" the "slow, secure but steady" evolution towards democracy devised by the regime's intellectual leader, Gen. Golbery do Couto e Silva.

Huntington wrote a book in 1993 called "The Third Wave," about the wave of democratic transitions that took place in Southern Europe and Latin America, including Brazil, in the 1980s and 90s. The first two waves of democracy had taken place between 1828-1926 and 1945-1962, he noted. He explained a series of factors that made this third wave possible, but did not go on to say they had been inevitable. The last place that Huntington thought there would be democratic change was in the Islamic world. Most students of the Middle East and Central Asia would have agreed with him.

However, Huntington would have surely been one of the first to identify the current democratic uprisings in Northern Africa and the Middle East as a likely fourth wave of democratization. Though the dust certainly has not settled on the region and many properly express concern that these revolutions could be "high-jacked" by militant Islamic extremists, there are not concrete indications that this is happening or, even more important, that Islamic fundamentalism is at the root or even a part of these movements.

This is why I remain nonplussed by the consistent note of scepticism about these democratic revolutions and especially the decision of the international community to go in to protect and support the revolution in Libya. This is an unparalleled opportunity to see the entire Arab world move in the direction of democracy and modernity. Whether these revolutions have external support could be critical, if we read Huntington, to their success. It is easy to say, "this is not my fight," but in fact we have huge interests, global interests, in their success. I hope others can see it this way.