War to end all fiscal restraint

The U.S. seems destined to be stuck between Iraq and an even harder place as Democrats basically throw up their hands on any sort of accelerated withdrawal plan while high-level U.S. brass have begun evincing unprecedented uneasiness over the military's ability to absorb much more punishment in Iraq, which is beginning to look a lot like Afghanistan to our Soviet Union.

The cost of the invasion, which Paul Wolfowitz intially projected at about $3 billion a year for 10 years--an amount, he blithely suggested, that could easily be covered with a rebate of Iraq oil revenue--now appears headed past a previously deemed preposterous $1/2 trillion mark (and much more when future costs are factored in) as Bob Gates appears before Congress with a request for $190 billion for next year; $42 billion more than originally projected this year.

A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking real money. Fortunately the lion's share of the tab seems destined to be absorbed by our great grand children. Would that I could pull off the same scam at a Chicago restaurant sometime: "Oh, no. Just leave the check here. There'll be a family by in 2037 to pick it up for me."

Between Iraq and a hard head

While the International Red Cross documents the deteriorating conditions on the ground in Iraq and yet another report documents the misuse of intelligence in the build up to the U.S. invasion, Vice President Dick Cheney persists in what can only be described as the Iraqi Big Lie strategy, asserting once again, despite all evidence to the contrary, that some meaningful connection existed between Al Qaeda and the Hussein regime as a justification for this disastrous war.

What has been odd about the coverage of the so-called failure of intelligence that led America into its unfortunate adventure in Iraq has been the apparent reticence of the media to call a spade a spade and a lie, well, a lie. At least to these skeptical eyes it appeared from the inception of the public relations campaign to sell the invasion to U.S. citizens in 2002-03, one not dissimilar to the current Iranian campaign, that information was being cherry-picked or distorted to build an illicit case for war.

One of the little lies the mainstream media seems willing to accept is that the president was somehow wronged by the intelligence community, thus leading to our disaster in the desert. What was pretty obvious from the beginning, however, and what has now become well-documented, is that a team of self-appointed intelligence experts run out of the Vice President's office and led by the appalling then-Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith was deliberately twisting intelligence toward war. Why these liars have not been called on the carpet and their distortions better brought into the light of day (how many Limbaugh listeners, after all, still believe the VP when he makes a case for the war) remains a mystery to me. Surely this administration has demonstrated that it does not deserve such over deference, that it in fact only encourages the care and feeding of the reality distortion field that envelopes the White House.

Meanwhile, no one appears to have the slightest idea how to "win" in Iraq or even how to get out while maintaining the semblance of order. The White House seems bent on soldiering on to an ever-distant and unlikely moment of victory, though it is finding it increasingly difficult to enlist the military elite in this effort even as the volunteer army buckles under new costs. But few even now are willing to acknowledge that the U.S. presence in Iraq may only guarantee a perpetuation of the mayhem and the only sensible plan (Joe Biden's) for reaching a political stasis that could lead to an orderly military drawdown remains essentially off the table. While right wing pundits have already laid a solid "blame the messenger" case for the eventual failure of the U.S. adventure in Iraq, current policy seems perversely driven to repeat the shockingly awful spectacle of a complete, chaotic collapse a la Saigon '75.

What would Jesus do . . . if he made U.S. foreign policy?

Reaction to a recent column, "War wounds," this neo-pacifist's take on President Bush's plans for escalation in Iraq, drew some of the usual outraged subscription cancellations and the below response, one that typifies a "realist" rejection of Christian ethics in foreign policymaking.

This "Christianity makes nice piety but bad policy" is the consistent answer to projections of scripture ethics into geo-political relations. I think that assumption deserves deeper critical scrutiny, however. Let's start by listening to this kind, if unhappy reader:

"Kevin Clarke and all who think like him need a wake-up call. The teachings of 'the Nazarene, who elevated weakness and mercy and the divine imperative of peace' do not make for a very effective foreign policy or military strategy in the real world. Christ's own example of allowing himself to be horribly tortured and murdered on the cross is admirable from a theological sense but it is hardly the path that any leader of any country is going to choose for his people.

"No government, no nation-state has ever done what Clarke wants the US to do. Indeed, the Catholic Church itself, given its history of crusades, inquisition, support for pro-catholic dictatorships, etc., has NEVER done what Clarke asks."

There are some interesting presumptions hidden in the subtext here. The primary one being that Christian thinking is nice but ineffectual in geo-strategic policy and that within a system where each nation pursues its best interests, sometimes through state-sponsored violence, a realist strategy is the eminently rational and effective mode of achieving tactical or strategic goals.

I guess I think that underlying assumption is essentially erroneous. I don't think the realists' readiness to use violence or oppression as a tool of political policy has ever proved effective over the long term, frequently not even over the short term. Can anyone take an objective look at the recent history of U.S. strategic thinking and execution of same and honestly describe that as "effective?" Since the end of WWII each intervention, usually cold blooded and violent, in the internal affairs of another nation can only be described as marginally successful. From Guatemala to Iran to Vietnam to Afghanistan and now to Iraq--it seems we lay the foundation for the next geopolitical catastrophe with almost every foreign intervention we undertake.

Attempting to interrupt the Falling Dominoes of South East Asia, we tip them over ourselves; seeking stability and control in Iran and Saudi Arabia, our covert machinations lead to the opposite; anxious over the clash of civilizations, we condemn ourselves and our children to it; seeking to demoralize and diminish the Soviet Union, we provide the venture capital for the mujahadeen that emerges soon after as a global force demoralizing and diminishing us.

If these are successful and effective outcomes of a rational, realist strategy, I say it's time to recall the CIA and send in the birkenstock brigade and see what the pacifists of the world can accomplish. (Here's another commentary on the curse of self-fulfilling prophecy in American foreign policy.)

I entirely agree that no one has tried the Nazarene's method before, which is why we condemn ourselves to perpetuating the same cycles of confrontation and violence over and over again. I don't agree that this alternative would make ineffective foreign policy, however.

I find our current reliance on dominance and aggression and submission to be truly ineffective and essentially irrational. It is at minimum a horrendous mis-allocation of resources--vastly expensive, draining treasure and brainpower away from the critical challenges of our time. At its best it is deeply immoral, tolerating a widespread violence against the most vulnerable people in the world. On the other hand, the biblical call to nonviolence and peacemaking opens up new vistas for creative strategic thinking on foreign and defense policy. We are foolish to treat it as mere piety or idealism and not wisdom that can be translated into practical policy.

The blessings of peace and cooperation are not just spiritual, they are quite literally earth changing. It is a fundamental charge of Christianity to co-create the kingdom. How does our continued reliance on brute force contribute to that difficult challenge?

Welcome to the Margin Notes blog!

I fear that my initial post is bound to prove underwhelming as I am currently wrestling with putting the January issue of Salt of the Earth e-zine to bed (Do stop by!). Enuf excusifying though, here's some issues I'm following today: US Bishops speak up on min. wage and stem cells, and while the prez puts the finishing touches on his well-leaked "surge" speech, anti-war folks are firming up their plans for resistance to same.