Question of the Day - August 17, 2006

If you could be guaranteed one specific thing in life
besides money, what would you ask for?

Snapshots

After awhile, our lives can become just a blur of one moment followed by another. After awhile, it becomes difficult to remember names or faces or even where we have been or what we did. The photos on the table capture a moment in time… include people whose names we no longer remember or are set in some place which we are not sure where exactly that was… show us a person that we once were and a place we once visited. Sometimes we can remember where that was… when that was… why we were even there. Sometimes we can’t.

Sometimes we get lost in our own lives and don’t even know where we are at this very moment, only that we are somewhere doing something for some reason. And then we shoot a snapshot of ourselves, print it out and hold onto it at least for awhile, so that we can remember where we are coming from just now… so we can figure out where we want to...no, need to go next.

Connecting the Dots in the Middle East

In the Middle East one piece of bad news follows another on the airwaves these days. The situation in Iraq is a mess and the only reason that country has not descended into a really bloody civil war appears to be that the US and it's allies are playing policemen on the scene, at least for the moment. Afghanistan is still problematical. The Palestinians and Israelis are nowhere close to resolving their differences. And now, Lebanon becomes the latest flash point as Israel and the forces of Hezbollah go head to head. At least in Lebanon, the guns and rockets have gone silent for the moment, at least.

When Seymour Hersh, the noted journalist, appeared last night on one of the cable news shows. His comments on one of his recent pieces that was run in New Yorker Magazine might help us to make some sense of everything that is happening in this most recent season of war. He suggested that Israel was encouraged [read bullied into] to resort to an ill-advised shock-and-awe display of air power in the recent days in Lebanon. This has the modus operendi of the hawks in the Bush administration in the Iraqi campaign.

Hersh also suggests that this was a way of sending a message to Iran and Syria not to meddle in Israeli-Lebanese affairs. If Ariel Sharon were still at the helm of Israel, would this have happened? Maybe and maybe not. But one suspects that Sharon would have been a little more savvy, than to believe that the air campaign in Lebanon was going to stop Hezbollah. The usually clueless Mr. Bush certainly believes that it did just that, as evidenced by his comments that Hezbollah was "defeated" in this last round of fighting. Indeed. In what alternate universe would that be even nominally true?

But Mr. Hersh goes one step further. He asserts that this destructive little skirmish was a test run for tactics that George Bush and his hawks want to employ against Iran in a preemptive strike to take out Iran's nuclear capability. Observers inside the Beltway are beginning to get the sense that Mr. Bush is laying the groundwork to indeed make a preemptive strike against Iran before the end of his term as President. It would come as little surprise if he did so even without the consent of Congress. This is a President who has opted not to enforce parts of hundreds of bills passed by Congress, because he believes that they are unconstitutional. And Congress and the Supreme Court have let him get away it. So why would it be inconceivable that he would believe he can start another conflict, simply because he and his advisors believe that it is a good idea?

Certainly this is just a "what-if" scenario being floated by one of the more intuitive reporters on the scene today. But the internal logic of Mr. Hersh's scenario certainly makes the confusing swirl of events in the Middle East begin to make some kind of sense. If we connect the dots and see where we will be drawing the next line, maybe we will begin to see that it is time we need to start demanding some hard answers of this administation as to where they are leading us. Maybe we should have done that a long time ago.

A Point to Ponder: Aug 14, 2006

Why is it that suicide bombers can't seem to find something better to do with their lives?

Securing Peace in the Middle East: A Modest and Highly Improbable Proposal

If I were in the position to broker a solution to the dreadful problems in the Middle East, this is what I would do.

Initially, I would establish that I am attempting to represent no one single party in the very complex struggle between the West and the Moslem world. I would attempt to convince everyone involved that I am attempting to be an honest broker. I would strive to assure everyone concerned that my sole intent is to work with all the parties, Moslem and otherwise, to find common ground that everyone can accept and then to develop more productive strategies for dealing with the areas of contention. My ultimate goal would be to fashion agreements among the parties that would begin to address the real underlying issues of the awful mess the world faces today.

Item One: I would recognize that the nations of the Middle East do not speak with a single, unified voice. Each nation in the region has it's own concerns and needs. Additonally, all of the religious groups in the region have their own concerns and needs. All these religious groups and nations also have issues of their own with regard to their relations ship to the nations of the West.

Item Two: I would also acknowledge that the nations of the West, have their concerns and needs with regard to their relationship with the nations in the Middle East. I would recognize that the nations of the West are especially concerned about the terrorist and nationalist groups who have intimidated their own people and exported terrorism and chaos to Africa, Europe, Indonesia, Somalia and the United States. I would acknowledge that concerns about a stable supply of oil to the West is a key factor in this discussion.

Item Three: I would identify the key players in the West, in Europe, in the Middle East and elsewhere. I would open channels for dialogue to get a clear, unambiguous understanding of what each party needs to accomplish and to receive in assurances from other players for peace and resolution of problems to happen. In my dialogue with each party, I would make it very clear that what I need to know is what they, in fact, need, rather than what they desire and want.

Item Four: I would attempt to build a team of individuals of stature who would work with me to achieve my goals. I would form a council and we would prioritize the identifiable issues and identify the most critical and inflammatory issues first. We would divide into subgroups so that each group could begin to address a specific issue among the most critical issues.

Item Five: Once an issue has been identified, the strategy would be for each working ad hoc commitee to work to form a working committee that would include the nations that a particular issue impacted. That working committee would work to identify and address the specific concerns and needs of each of its members. The members of the working committee would establish certain understandings. It would be understood that the nations represented are sovereign nations and as such the just laws, values and customs of each country must be respected. It would be understood that when the citizens of one nation are present in another nation, that the laws, values and customs of the host country will be respected, so long as those laws, values and customs are generally recognized to be fair and just. It will be understood that the whole point of the work of the committee is to foster tolerance and respect among groups and nations. And it will be recognized that some existing supranational judicial body will be called upon to mediate when there is a disagreement as to what constitutes what is generally fair and just, if a law, cultural value or custom is brought into question.

Item Six: The group would approach an organization such as the United Nations to create a multi-national armed force to immediately step in to insure the peace while the working committees do their work. The Group would require each of the nations and parties which constitute each working group to sign an accord, agreeing not to resort to force in the case of disagreements among members, while the working committee is doing its work.

Item Seven: All parties involved in any of the working committees would be required to sign an agreement declaring that terrorism committed in order to further the goals and ambitions of any group or nation is unacceptable and criminal behaviour. The accord would declare that terrorism or intentional intimidation, either physical or psychological, of those who support the search for peace, will be viewed by all parties as unacceptable and criminal in nature. Each party agrees to enforce zero tolerance of terroristic acts and to be held responsible for suppressing it within the borders of that nation or within a given group. In short, terrorists, wherever they are, would have no place to hide and no place to feel safe.

This strategy... this arrangement has a major objective: to buy time so that problems can be worked out peacefully and not be sabotaged by those who would resort to destruction and terrorism to stop the process. This arrangement is structured so that a dialogue between the parties in a conflict can be established. There are a lot of people out there who want this as well.

If all those people and I could speak with one voice and one intention this is what we would be saying.
We want the guns to go silent.
We want the suicide bombers to find something better to do with their lives.
We want terrible despair that exists in so many areas in the world to be addressed, because out of this despair grows the the anger and pain that produces wars and terrorism.
We want to work for the possibility that peace between nations and religions can happen.
We want to work for the possibility that if we can achieve a measure or peace and mutual respect among peoples of the world, maybe we can then begin to address the real issues that confront all of us as a human species: hunger, disease, the ongoing damage to our environment, among others.

I am no fool, nor am I a hopeless optimist. However, the one thing that I do know is that the seemingly hopeless mess that we are witnessing today in our world is not going to get any better until nations and self-declared groups begin to listen to one another and talk to one another. That is why the United Nations was formed in the first place. That is the whole point of this idea: to get one set of people talking to another set of people and getting them to actually hear what the other has to say. It is impossible for two people... or two groups to talk to one another much less to hear one another, if they are just shouting at one another or brandishing dangerous weapons at one another. The idea is to encourage dialogue over using armed conflict and/or terroristic activities, to achieve one's goals.

A war is sure evidence that diplomacy has failed. At this point in human history, increasingly, failure is no longer a viable option.

Question of the Day - August 13, 2006

Without being given specific details, would you want to be forewarned that something very bad was going to happen to you in five days at 3:45 in the afternoon? How would that information impact you?

Without being given specific details, would you want to be forewarned that something very good and very wonderful was going to happen to you in five days at 3:45 in the afternoon? How would that information impact you?