Blog


About


Books

 Latest Post: Flash!

Agnostic
A Spirited Manifesto
Available April 4, 2016

   Who is the AT?   Books by LH
  • Agnostic

  • The First Muslim

  • After The Prophet

  • Jezebel

  • Mary

  • More from LH

     

American Influence?

Posted October 26th, 2013 by Lesley Hazleton

rohdeThe road to hell may be paved with good intentions, as the saying goes, but there’s a lot of understandable suspicion out there about exactly how good American intentions even are when it comes to the Middle East.  That’s the theme of David Rohde’s book ‘Beyond War:  Reimagining American Influence in the Middle East.’

The first step I’d suggest:  do some major reimagining of images, and forget Orientalist stereotypes like the camel-rider on  the cover.  The second step:  question the whole concept of influence.

The Catholic weekly America asked me to review the book, and here’s what I wrote:

When the Egyptian military seized power in June, American pundits instantly rushed to preach about democracy.  This took some hubris considering that two recent American elections – 2000 and 2004 – are still considered by many to be of questionable legality, and that redistricting is rapidly ensuring the minority status of Democratic strongholds throughout the south.

Is the US even in a position to preach democracy?  Especially since as with national elections, so too with foreign policy:  democracy is subject to money, and how it’s spent.

This is the hard-headed reality behind two-time Pulitzer prize-winner and former Taliban captive David Rohde’s new book, which focuses on how the US government spends money abroad, specifically in the Middle East.  It’s an argument for small-scale economic rather than large-scale military aid, and as such is immensely welcome in principle. The question is how to do it in practice.

As Rohde writes, “Washington’s archaic foreign policy apparatus” and its weakened civilian agencies mean that “in the decades since the end of the Cold War, the ability of the White House, State Department, and Congress to devise and carry out sophisticated political and development efforts overseas has withered.”

Whether Rohde is aware of it or not, the problem might be encapsulated in the subtitle of his own book, which assumes not only the existence of American influence, but also its necessity. Many of his sources are well-informed and palpably frustrated employees of the Agency for International Development (USAID) who are basically in conflict with both the State Department and Congress.  Yet the stated goals of USAID are clear:  they include providing “economic, development and humanitarian assistance around the world in support of the foreign policy goals of the US.” [my italics].

For all the talk about the need for humanitarian aid and intervention (most recently in Syria), the reality is purely political.  What’s presented as humanitarian aid is always a matter of foreign policy.  And American foreign policy is still intensely focused on George W. Bush’s GWOT – the “global war on terror.”

The principle is that US aid should act as a stabilizing force against militant Islamic extremism.  But the very idea of the US as a stabilizing force has been thoroughly undermined by the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even the best-considered foreign aid has now been rendered suspect in many parts of the Middle East, especially when there’s “a widespread perception of the American government as a finely tuned, nefarious machine, not an unwieldy cacophony of viewpoints,” and when authoritarian control fosters an intense rumor mill, with conspiracy theories rampant (most recently, for instance, Malala Yousufzai as a CIA plant, or American-backed ‘Zionists’ as the instigators of the new regime in Egypt).  In Egypt in particular, Rohde notes, “Washington faces an extraordinary public-policy conundrum.  Decades of support for Mubarak will not be forgotten overnight.”

Rohde details the conundrum in a series of country-by-country chapters, some intensively well-reported (particularly on civilian contractors’ takeover of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and on the use of drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan), while others (on Turkey, Libya, and Tunisia) seem more perfunctory by comparison.  But in the light of the June military coup, the chapter on American dollars-for-peace financing and the Egyptian army’s vast business empire is particularly fascinating and uncomfortably prescient.

Oddly, though, there is no chapter on Israel, the largest recipient of American aid.  This seems to me tantamount to ignoring the elephant in the room, since the intense investment in an Israel that seems willing only to prolong and intensify the conflict with Palestine undermines US efforts elsewhere in the region.  In fact you could make a pretty strong argument that American support of Israel, driven by domestic electoral politics, runs directly counter to its own foreign policy interests.  Inevitably, the US is perceived elsewhere in the Middle East as at least tolerating if not encouraging Israel’s land grab in the Palestinian territories;  if its funds do not literally finance the expansionist project, they certainly free up funds that do.

Even assuming the best American intentions, then, they’re all too often interpreted as the worst.  But what exactly are those best intentions?

At root, this book is, or could have been, about America’s perception of itself.  Are we the world’s greatest do-gooders, distributing our largesse (and our arms) where most urgently needed?  Or are we acting to secure a blinkered and out-dated conception of our own interests?

Either way, as Rohde wrote in a New York Times op-ed back in May, “We should stop thinking we can transform societies overnight…  Nations must transform themselves.  We should scale back our ambitions and concentrate on long-term economics.”  His economic recommendations are accordingly small-scale (sometimes to the level of pathos, as in his enthusiasm for an Egyptian version of ‘The Apprentice’).  Yet his emphasis on entrepreneurship may actually undercut his argument that trying to force Western models on other countries will backfire.  And this is the argument that matters.

Like Ambassador Chris Stevens in Libya, says Rohde, American officials need to listen rather than try to muscle their way in, whether economically or militarily.  A little respect, that is.   Preach less, listen more.  That may not be much of a “reimagining,” but it’s the really important message of this book.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Middle East, US politics | Tagged: Tags: 'America' magazine, 'Beyond War', Afghanistan, David Rohde, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Pakistan, Palestine, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, USAID | 2 Comments
  1. fatmakalkan says:
    October 26, 2013 at 2:13 pm

    I agree with you Lesley. In reality after Eygptian over throw of Moursi next one was Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey. Turkey has much older democracy than Israel in Middle East but it is not in the interest of west to have strong Turkey with strong leader. West wants Soudi type regimes that will obey. Gezi park demonstrations at Istanbul in reality was an unsuccessful cue attempt of west. Thanks God it was unsuccessful. It would destabilize Turkey politically and economically and make Turkey again slave of west. Why West and Israil gov. Wants to get rid of Erdogan? Is he radical Islamist? No. Is he planing to bring sharia law back to Turkey ? No. If Turkey was a Christian state they would allow it to became another France or Germany but it is Muslim state very mellow understanding of Islam no treat to anybody but still even that much of Islam is not OK. There fore Turkey must remain as a third world country for western Judeo- Christian politicians.

  2. Jerry M says:
    October 28, 2013 at 10:57 am

    I can understand why the author left Israel out. I may not like our policy in Israel but it is a very different problem than what is happening in the Muslim world. In the case of the Obama administration, I don’t think they have a clue as to what they want to accomplish. Their lack of real preparation has led to them to keeping the mistakes of the Bush administration in effect long after they have left town. For example the spying on Germany has been going on for 10 years.

    Obama is a good administrator when he has a clear goal, but without ideas and without good advisors he is only a little better than an amateur.

Rape = Torture

Posted May 4th, 2011 by Lesley Hazleton

Just five hours before President Obama announced Sunday night that Bin Laden was dead, instantly capturing the collective mind of the world, there was something else on American television that I wish would capture the world mind just as effectively.   CBS reporter Lara Logan spoke out on the news program ’60 Minutes’ about her extended mass rape in Tahrir Square in the middle of the celebrations on February 11, the night of Mubarak’s resignation.

I’m running the clip here partly in shame, because I was among those whose first reaction was to say “Oh, she’s exaggerating, she was just badly groped.”  That is, I didn’t want to know — not then, not there.  I didn’t want the jubilation of that evening spoiled by such ugly reality.  I was in denial.

Yes, this was rape.  Multiple rape.  Rape aimed at pulling her apart, inside and out.  So first, take 13 minutes and watch this video of her account:

[youtube=http://youtu.be/_g0S6UQem1k]

And if you still question the title of this post, consider these extracts from a New York Times story two days later on Iraqi victims of torture (by the Iraqi army, American forces, Saddam’s thugs, Al Qaeda in Iraq, and various militias):

He described… daily horrors like the suicide of a young prisoner who electrocuted himself with wires from a hot plate after being raped by soldiers.

An 11-year-old girl and her family revealed that she was raped by a group of men who then shaved her head and threw her on a trash heap.

A woman whose husband was an interpreter for the Americans had water and salt thrown on her and was then tied to electrified metal bars.  Then: “They raped her more than once in front of us,” R. said, looking down as he spoke. “She died two or three days later.  There were four guys who raped us….  I was destroyed.  It feels as if something is missing.  I don’t mingle at all with people.”

As Susan Brownmiller made crystal clear in Against Our Will (published in 1975 and, sadly, as essential reading today as it was then), rape has nothing to do with sexual attraction.  It’s brutalization:   the forced domination of another person through their genitalia, whether female or male, 5 years old or 90 years old, close relative or total stranger.  The means of this can be a hand or a penis, a gun or a knife or a broken bottle, a baton or a broomstick or a bathroom plunger (remember Abner Louima?).  Whatever the weapon, the aim is to violently, deliberately, and painfully invade and break another person’s physical and psychological autonomy, will, integrity, humanity.  That is:  torture.

Rape was recognized as a war crime in 1949 (the Fourth Geneva Conventions) and as a crime against humanity in 2001.  Amnesty International has consistently reported on rape as torture: “In every armed conflict investigated by Amnesty International… the torture of women was reported, most often in the form of sexual violence.”  But when rape happens in a dorm room or at a party — even one as large as Tahrir Square on February 11 — we seem less able to recognize it for what it is.  Which is why Amnesty International also reports that in peacetime Europe as elsewhere, victims of rape are consistently denied justice.

This is what we need to get straight in our minds, once and for all:

Whenever rape happens, wherever it happens, and whatever form it takes, it is a crime against humanity.

A crime, that is, against every one of us.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: feminism, ugliness, war | Tagged: Tags: Abner Louima, Amnesty International, Darfur, Geneva Conventions, Iraq, Lara Logan, rape, Rwanda, Tahrir Square, torture, Yugoslavia | 6 Comments
  1. jdenari says:
    May 4, 2011 at 1:36 pm

    Thanks for posting this. I’m planning to watch this video soon.

  2. Meg says:
    May 4, 2011 at 3:34 pm

    Let us be thankful for her, that she was blessed with the not-so-small reprieve that her rape was “by hands,” not by things more horrific and damaging … and that she was rescued by women in ‘burqa,’ who covered her and held her safe until military forces could get her to full safety.
    (for those who may wonder, yes, rape by hands is rape:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape)

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      May 4, 2011 at 5:57 pm

      Just to be clear: manual penetration.

  3. mary fracentese says:
    May 5, 2011 at 4:37 am

    Awesome..and so very true. She is a very brave woman to speak where so many remain silent.
    I cannot imagine the horror for her and her team who watched her get dragged away….

  4. AJ says:
    May 6, 2011 at 11:34 pm

    What a brave lady
    She was subject to worst a woman can face, still recomposing and not ready to give up what she stands for.
    She is not cursing men neither the crowd which should have given her the red carpet treatment for the job she was doing for them, instead they rape her and large portion just stood there to watch and listen to her screams without moving a muscle to leash the unleashed beasts.
    Now Lesley could be a prouder woman because in the end women came to her rescue amongst the thousands men standing and watching or participating.
    May God bless her

  5. THE Banana says:
    July 17, 2011 at 6:05 pm

    Its a horrible story she is telling, however it has been challenged by no less than 8 eye-witness encounters – foreign reporters and domestic activists:

    http://temorisblog.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/rape-women-stripped-what-really-happened-to-lara-logan/

    http://temorisblog.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/lara-logan-and-cbs-dont-care-about-racism-theyre-not-helping-the-womens-cause-either/

    What is your opinion on it?

Can We Please Go Home Now?

Posted May 2nd, 2011 by Lesley Hazleton

No exultation.  No victorious “mission accomplished.”  No jingoistic “Rah rah, USA USA.”   What a relief that Barack Hussein Obama is the president of the United States.

While students cheered wildly in front of the White House as though their team had just won a major football game, Obama’s announcement last night was characteristically calm and realistic:

Bin Laden’s death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that Al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must –- and we will — remain vigilant at home and abroad.

Obama is clearly aware that the killing of Bin Laden is more a symbolic victory than anything.  “Emblematic” is the word being used.  Al Qaeda is a loose alliance, with no reliance on a single leader.   But the fact that this happened on Obama’s watch and on his orders is a huge shot in the arm for the voices of calm and reason in the United States.  And a brilliantly timed one.  Bin Laden’s death may finally give Obama the respect and authority he merits in Congress, especially since it has to be clear as of last night that he is all but assured of a second presidential term.

We need it.  The US is still reeling from the racist absurdities of the “birther” luantics (how many hours until they start demanding Bin Laden’s “long-form death certificate”?).  It’s still in deep recession.  It’s still enmeshed in Iraq, newly mired in Libya, and floundering in Afghanistan. And, as Steve Coll makes clear on The New Yorker blog, bamboozled in Pakistan, where Bin Laden was hiding out just a thousand feet from a major Pakistani military base, “effectively housed under Pakistani state control.”

So I know this is naive.  I know it’s not going to happen soon.  But really, all I can think right now is this:

Mr President, can we please get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya?

Can we please go home now?

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Middle East, US politics | Tagged: Tags: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, Iraq, Libya, Obama, Pakistan | 4 Comments
  1. AJ says:
    May 3, 2011 at 10:12 am

    Lez
    We hardly know
    This war on terror is principled or cost effective.
    One thing we know
    Al-Qaida is not into making the weapons and have no control over Arm Trafficking.
    These terrorists are getting enough resources to execute where they are allowed to execute i.e.Iraq, Iran and Pakistan.
    Although to them biggest culprit is Israel but thats where they are not allowed to execute.
    Amazingly soft targets like Dubai and Saudia and other Gulf puppets are nowhere in the list.
    Thought provoking question is when terrorists have no access to Banking system and money smuggling is also curtailed, how they get the finances and who chose their targets.
    My take is trillion dollars war was not needed in the first place…just cut their roots and access to arms and that was enough at mush less cost.
    Hopefully I am not in violation of allowed quota of words.

  2. Lesley Hazleton says:
    May 3, 2011 at 10:53 am

    So far as I know, two major financing sources are 1. opium, and 2. Saudi (partly in protection money?)

    • Shishir says:
      May 3, 2011 at 2:57 pm

      That may not be true. It is known that OBL lived and
      worked in Iran for some time, it’d be wrong to rule out money from Iran. In fact given the whole “nation of islam” thingy I’d be surprised if money wasn’t coming in from almost all Islamic states. The money that was being pumped in Pakistan and Afghanistan, some part of it either in form of technology transfer to Al-Queda or weapons or straight forward money, would also be contributing.

  3. AJ says:
    May 3, 2011 at 11:34 am

    Unfortunately both routs with our permission

Why Libya?

Posted March 23rd, 2011 by Lesley Hazleton

It’s kind of absurd that I should even be writing this post, since I know next to nothing about Libya.  But I’m writing it because I have the uncomfortable impression that those policy-makers who urged the current American and European military intervention in Libya – aka instituting a “no-fly zone” (a strange formulation when it involves so much use of fighter jets) — know very little more than I do.

I hope I’m wrong about this.  But hope isn’t much of a substitute for reason when people’s lives are at stake.

Why Libya?  Apparently because it seems safe.  Everyone in the west can agree that Qaddafi is nuts, that his regime sucks, and – most important from their point of view – that they have nothing to lose by intervening.  No strategically important naval base to protect, as in Bahrain.  No major oil supplier to coddle, as in Saudi Arabia.  No “partner” in the struggle against the elusive Al Qaeda, as in Yemen.  No close military ties, as in Egypt.

I can almost imagine the decision-makers thinking “Finally, a chance to prove that we really are on the side of freedom and democracy and all the things we keep talking about but don’t back up with action.  Phew!”

Of course the last time they did that – barging with heavy firepower and astounding ignorance into a country where it seemed clear who was Good and who was Bad – the result was disastrous.  Iraq is still a mess.  Afghanistan, an even worse mess.   But this time, you see, it will be different.  This time, we’ll do it right.  From the air,.  No feet on the ground.  So what if we don’t even know who’s who in Libya?  They hate Qaddafi;  what more could one ask for?

When I was a dreamy adolescent, I used to think that if I could only go round the world with a six-shooter and assassinate the worst dictators, the world would be a better place.  I spent hours deciding which six I would target (some weird English sense of fair play dictated that I could only have six bullets), until I grew up enough to realize that those I killed in my dreams would only be replaced by others, that this was not a matter of individuals, but of systemic social and political problems way beyond my grasp. (As for “solving” violence by violence, I’m glad to say I quickly grew out of that too.)

Now, in 2011, it seems that powerful nations are acting like that naïve adolescent that I once was, the difference being that their choice of target is determined not by dumb idealism, but by strategic realpolitik.  So sorry, Bahrain – we know you’re right in your demand for democracy, but our hands are tied.  Too bad, Egypt – we know the military has no intention of giving up power, but we need them.  You’re on your own, Yemen – who knows if you mightn’t threaten our good Saudi friends next?

But Libya?  Thank god for Qaddafi.  A chance to prove how good we are, at last…

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Middle East, US politics | Tagged: Tags: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, no-fly zone, Qaddafi, Saudi Arabia, Yemen | 29 Comments
  1. Hossam says:
    March 23, 2011 at 1:46 pm

    @Lesley
    well i can see how many people think this way, and i can see this is happening in the west and here too (i am egyptian) but i think it’s important to note that only Gadhaffi was so vocal in his intent to kill opposition figures, no other country you mentioned did that. Also it’s important to note that this was a UN resolution and not america trying to “export democracy”
    as for why america is taking a leading role, america is the world’s leader in terms of military, but of course we can argue you don’t really need that much strength to bomb libya.
    this is my opinion and i think that america already knows that it is risking its reputation just by interfering, no matter what the outcome is

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 23, 2011 at 3:41 pm

      Hossam — just one two-bomb example of what can go wrong, from the NYT’s Elisabeth Bumiller yesterday on the rescue of a US pilot who ejected over eastern Libya when his plane malfunctioned:

      “A Marine Corps officer said that two Harrier attack jets dropped two 500-pound bombs during the rescue of the pilot, about 1:30 a.m. Tuesday local time (about 7:30 p.m. Monday E.D.T.). The officer said that the grounded pilot, who was in contact with rescue crews in the air, asked for the bombs to be dropped as a precaution before the crews landed to pick him up.

      “My understanding is he asked for the ordnance to be delivered between where he was located and where he saw people coming towards him,” the officer said, adding that the pilot evidently made the request “to keep what he thought was a force closing in on him from closing in on him.”

      • hossam says:
        March 24, 2011 at 7:03 am

        That is scary of course. Of course there is a lot that can go wrong.
        I have to admit i am not looking from an american perspective, but from an arab perspective or an anti-gadaffi perspective, what other solution can be done to stop him from killing his people?

  2. Chad Tabba says:
    March 23, 2011 at 4:54 pm

    While we wish international politics and relationships were based purely on human ideals, unfortunately it is based on specific interests. We do that on a personal level too. A sibling or friend’s mistake always seems less bad than someone else’s. Don’t u think?

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 23, 2011 at 7:02 pm

      Am not sure it isn’t somehow worse — like we feel more responsible if it’s someone close to us or someone we identify with in any way.

      What do others think?

      • hossam says:
        March 24, 2011 at 7:07 am

        i am not sure i am following the relation of this to the topic, but i will take this chance to say something i want to say.
        i agree with Lesley 100% on that it feels worse when someone somehow related to you does a mistake or something “wrong”
        i feel that particularly when i see a fellow Muslim commit a terrorist act or call for a terrorist act, i feel somehow responsible (even though i’m not) and i feel it somehow damages my image
        especially when that person does that terrorist act in the name of my religion

      • Chad Tabba says:
        March 24, 2011 at 12:01 pm

        Hossam I agree with what you are saying. What I meant was that international politics are built on interests. USA will be less critical of a dictator who is an ally than one who is not (and so the different standard in treating the “uprisings” in Libya compared to Bahrain or Yemen.) what it shows u is that politicians twist the talk and spew morals, but ultimately every country’s leaders will do what they perceive as in their country’s interest. There is more to gain in supporting a change in oil rich Libya than there is in supporting change in any sub-Saharan poor African country. Which is sad. Who will fend for those people? Who will fend for Palestinians? Who will fend for every oppressed people in the world who don’t have oil or who are oppressed by an ally of superpower countries. I hope I’m not too long with this reply?!

        • Lesley Hazleton says:
          March 24, 2011 at 12:08 pm

          Chad — No way is this too long!

  3. Lynn Rosen says:
    March 23, 2011 at 11:38 pm

    Spot on.

  4. Lesley Hazleton says:
    March 24, 2011 at 8:11 am

    @ Hossam — Nick Kristof agrees w/ your first comment: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/opinion/24kristof.html?_r=1 Still not sure I do. Am torn both ways.

  5. Lesley Hazleton says:
    March 24, 2011 at 8:12 am

    @Chad, @Hossam, @Lynn — Yes, some of us feel responsible, even though we know we aren’t personally, and find ourselves immensely frustrated and angry that someone who declares themselves part of our “we” should commit terrorism. But then there are others who are seduced into that declared “we,” maybe even only half-willingly, and get caught up in rationalizations to cover up that uneasy feeling of wrong, even evil, done in their name. They end up justifying the unjustifiable in the name of the “we.”

    Dangerous words, “we” and “they.”

    • hossam says:
      March 24, 2011 at 12:20 pm

      @Lesley
      yes, “us” and “them or “we” and “they” are dangerous words and dangerous thoughts, unfortunately i think that ultimately the majority of people think in terms of us and them, of course the definition of us and them may be different, for example in Egypt when a Muslim talks with another Muslim or Christian with another Christian about religion in Egypt, the us and them is Christian or Muslim, yet when a Muslim and Christian here are talking about US intervention then it’s the West vs. East or whites vs. Arabs.
      I Think the same can apply for example when you have a stereotypical American neoconservative and right winger talk about Muslim immigration to USA (i may be way off with this one but would like to hear what you think)

      About US intervention in Libya, i just thought of an interesting question, what would have people thought if the US had Vetoed the UN resolution?
      I would’ve been baffled, i would’ve thought it is for a reason beyond my knowledge. I also think that many people here (probably the same who object to the intervention) would have thought and said that America really is evil, not only is it not helping, but is preventing other countries from helping.
      what do others here think? sorry for long comment

  6. Ammar says:
    March 24, 2011 at 11:37 am

    Good point Lesley. All the Khalifa, Malik, King they are same in killing people. its not matter which one killed more,
    khalifa of Bahrain Oppressed people Bahrain,
    Malik of Saudi Oppressed people Bahrain and Saudi,
    Malik of Qatar Oppressed people of Bahrain (and maybe his people in near Future),
    in Yemen and Egypt and Libya as well.
    But the problem of Libya as I believe:
    1- Gaddafi: (as you pointed Nuts) 🙂
    2- its an American plan: to stop revolutions in other countries, by showing the people of Jordan, Yemen, Bahrain and … if you want democracy this will happen to you as well, not easy(fast) like Tunisia. (Scar them)
    Is evident that America its not happy with revolutions (new Middle East) in these countries (but revolutions in Iran absolutely happy!!!).
    American Plan make revolution longer and to take more time, and this plan have very good Benefits for them like: A: people of world please forget Bahrain, Jordan, Yemen …. oh and what about new politic happening in Egypt right now, most of concentration is on Libya(Miserable people, like football ball). B: Israel Killing people of Gaza, did you see the body of cut baby only few month of age? (excellent time for Killing). C: time to think, Transfer Weapons (selling), …..
    But as all we know it will be revolutions and victory is with Nation will. [….]
    Why we have Religion, Why Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (Peace be upon them all) [….] We have god and one day this world will end and we are front of our Almighty God with empty hand or ….

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 24, 2011 at 12:49 pm

      Ammar — I seriously doubt that things are as conspiratorial as you seem to imply. I think those who urged intervention in Libya were deeply frustrated at having been held back from doing more to support protest in Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, and more, and so perhaps over-compensated re Libya.

      My concern is that good intentions without good information can create bad unforeseen consequences.

      • Ammar says:
        March 25, 2011 at 7:44 am

        dont doubt Lesley, this is politic.
        I like your blog, thanks

  7. Shishir says:
    March 24, 2011 at 2:50 pm

    Ms. Hazleton, I’ve decided to become a regular commenter :-).

    People in power don’t like to lose power, those not in power want to gain power, other people in power tend to support people in power for they derive benefits out of that support, they withdraw that support only when they see another center for power emerging.

    None of this has any thing to do with freedom, democracy etc etc. If US realizes a pro-US entity may gain power why mustn’t it support it, it is just the instinct of self preservation, every organism has it.
    Similarly if they realize anti-US entity gaining power
    they’d use whatever means permitted to ensure it doesn’t come to power.

    Isn’t that all that is there to any political situation? It is interesting to note in all major revolutions – when did businesses start financing the revolutionaries that tells a lot about when the revolution or any movement really gained critical mass required for potential success.

    Bombing Libya is less about freedom chest thumping and more about gaining a potential foothold with a favorable regime which you help install 🙂

  8. Helen Wenley says:
    March 24, 2011 at 4:27 pm

    I understand that Gaddafi is nuts and he threatened to kill his people. However I feel very uncomfortable with what is happening. The Americans have the reputation of being stumble bums and as its been pointed out, their track record is not the best. I feel very sad for the people of Libya that the situation has escalated.

  9. AJ says:
    March 24, 2011 at 8:50 pm

    Lez you are beauty…right on spot.
    your words satisfied the feelings of many.
    I will add character of new Bully France joining the ranks of Britains….Angela Markel lagging behind probably saved for better evil project until then she should play half willing doll of the puppet master
    Since Things started in Tunis and Egypt and then other nations…uneasy feelings were always there wheres the name of Al-Qaida why its not poped up yet…what happened to Bullys…are they sleeping.
    Nay they were working …working hard.
    Al-Qaida is old trick…now more reasonably theatrical approach is adopted.
    [….]
    They kill to save. What difference would it make if few thousands or few hundred thousands of Libyans are killed…still millions would be left…only few hundreds needed to pump oil to France and other civilized countries where human life is as expensive as oil.
    I wish Libyans understand it sooner than later.

  10. hossam says:
    March 25, 2011 at 6:55 am

    @Lesley
    i love this blog!
    you know, i talked with my wise friend today about US interests and Libya intervention, and he pointed out something interesting; he told me “don’t forget the word interests is very broad” it can be something like a Military base (which US does not have any in Africa), can be oil, can be even preventing China’s possible future foothold, etc…
    So i think there is always self interest when it comes to States, but i like to think that there is a little bit of humanitarian side to it too, i hope.
    I guess what I’m saying is that definitely there is US interest involved, but that doesn’t mean that it is exclusively US interests in mind, or even if it is, but in that situation it will also bring humanitarian interests to the Libyan people, whether on purpose or not, if nothing goes wrong as you pointed out Lesley

  11. A.S says:
    March 25, 2011 at 7:38 am

    The history of the mankind shows that many atrocious oppressors try to hide their unhumane deeds under the veil of persuading justice-seeking slogans, they also seek protection under the rubric of fighting against corruption and unsecurity.

  12. Chad Tabba says:
    March 25, 2011 at 8:17 am

    I have neutral feelings about international intervention. I will know how I feel about it after we see the results! LOL

    I do wonder and hope that this is some form of “Renessaince” happening in the Middle East after 300-400 years of “dark ages”. Or maybe its just wishful thinking. I think people have started to lose interest in the “palestinian-israeli conflict”. Maybe people have started to realize that you only gain respect in the world by growing economocally, through education, through freedom. You don’t get what u ask for just because its “right”. People are looking at their own financial situations and freedom and realizing they need to stand up for their rights. I hope….

  13. Lana says:
    March 25, 2011 at 12:08 pm

    I sure hope what you are saying is true … i pray it has nothing to do with the oil … we don’t need another occupation … i pray for the best

    thank you … I LOVE your blog

  14. A.S says:
    March 26, 2011 at 3:03 am

    Turkish President Abdullah Gul says the goal of NATO-led invasion of Libya is not “liberation of Libyan people,” warning against pursuing any hidden agenda. ….. whats happening in libya!

  15. AJ says:
    March 26, 2011 at 12:23 pm

    @hossam Sir with due respect — The humanitarian interests to the Libyan people is hard to envision. We can forget but history always record.
    Look at Afghanistan and Iraq…trillion $ wars. Had we spent 10 billion each on infra structure, we could have won the hearts of people. more than 10 years of occupation…we had plenty of time resources and expertese to build roads and schools and industrial network plus railway tracks…that had generated jobs and created a middle class in Afghanistan.
    Afghanistan has upper ruling class and tribal leaders AND down trodden lowest class which is 80% of population…they eat and feed their family the day when they can find work on daily wages…they sleep with empty stomach the day when their labour is not required.
    Whats the worth of 20 bil in 10 years in a multi-trillion dollar war…… that could have given them reasonable means to survive respectfully.
    Other means of survival there are to join Taliban which is left wide open and I am sure intentionally. Believing in their sincerity is naive.

  16. Kinopop says:
    March 31, 2011 at 12:20 am

    I’ve recently discovered your blog, and I can only shower you with praise. You are among the few who are so learned without a glaring agenda or bias, who has an honest disposition toward peace and accord among different cultures.
    Your tremendous wealth of knowledge in religious scriptures is enviable.
    Perhaps one of the less mentioned praiseworthy characteristics you have is an unashamed curiosity.
    I mean this as no insult when I say that you appear to be beginning a long journey of learning about the true nature behind political and economic incentives in that region. All I will say about it is that there should be no shred of doubt that the US’s involvement in Libya is far from “humanitarian.”
    A great resource for thorough analyses by well-intended academic political ‘demystifiers’ is counterpunch.org, among a few other sites.
    On a side note, I respect your opinion a lot, and I was wondering if you have any familiarity with ourbeacon.com and/or Dr Shabbir Ahmed’s interpretation. If so, I’d like to know what you think of it.

  17. AJ says:
    March 31, 2011 at 11:57 am

    Dr. Shabbir […] is a strong advocate of Quran alone…. Prophet’s prime job was to explain Quran… He thinks all Quran explained by Prophet is within Quran.
    When Quran says “For believers the best example is life style of Prophet”…he thinks all life style of Prophet is enshrined in Quran.
    He is against Prophet’s traditions [….]

    [By way of explanation: AJ is talking here about the hadith — later reports of Muhammad’s life and practice — and the ongoing argument within Islam as to how much emphasis to place on them and how reliable they are. For AJ, they are ultra-reliable and an essential part of Islamic belief; for Shabbir, not. — LH]

  18. Remittance Girl says:
    April 1, 2011 at 1:48 am

    Ms. Hazelton, I want to applaud you for your wonderful blog, for your wonderful work. I agree with your opinion about Libya completely.

    The West has a phenomenally bad record in helping people to embrace democracy in the past 40 years. I understand why protesters in Syria, Libya, Egypt and Yemen want the West to intervene, but that doesn’t and shouldn’t give us permission to do so. We have example after example of how we ‘intervene’ wrong, no matter how noble or ignoble our intentions. We don’t leave places better off than we found them. It’s seems easy to make a bargain with the devil when you’re in pain, but you’ll pay for it later. Look at Iraq. Look at Afghanistan.

  19. Eddie says:
    April 11, 2011 at 9:11 am

    Dear Ms. Hazelton,

    I don’t have to fully agree with you to extend my fulliest respect! You are a very inspiring person and humanity can never thank you enough for making us think on many levels, I really believe this does make the world a better place, ultimately.
    I was very sorry to find that someone is using your name as a You Tube Channel, promoting zero tolerance in additions to other spcial poisons you actually warn of.

    Good luck, and wishing you peaceful productive times.

    Sincerely,

    Eddie

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      April 11, 2011 at 10:00 am

      Thanks Eddie — and yes, several fake Lesley Hazleton videos on YouTube, and YouTube stunningly unresponsive to complaints. So much for their ‘community standards.’

Believing in Peace

Posted February 24th, 2011 by Lesley Hazleton

“I can’t believe you don’t believe in anything!” someone wrote on this blog a while back, commenting on my agnosticism (actually, she used capital letters and lots of exclamation marks, but I’ll refrain).   And I was a bit shocked by that.  What kind of human being can I claim to be if I don’t believe in anything?  A nihilist?  A god-forsaken creature left to the whims and mercies of fate?    A craven whimpering coward afraid to commit herself?

So in between keeping up with what’s happening in Egypt and Tunisia and Bahrain and Yemen and Jordan and Iraq and Iran and oh-my-god Libya, I’ve been haunted by what she said — and have realized that she placed the stress on the wrong word.  It doesn’t belong on the word ‘anything,’ but on the word before it:  ‘in.’

Of course there are things I believe.  I just don’t generally feel the need to believe in them.  I may well believe that such-and-such a thing is true, though in fact this is much the same thing as saying “I think that…” or the more amorphous “I feel that…”  and I’m trying not to be amorphous here.  And in fact there are some things I do believe in, prime among them the possibility of some seemingly impossible form of peace between Israel and Palestine.

If I look at Israel/Palestine rationally right now, I see no way to a peaceful resolution.   So in the lack of empirical evidence, I have no choice but to fall back on belief – that is, on the conviction that peace is possible, despite all evidence to the contrary.

I’m not being over-idealistic here.   The first step in any thinking about peace is to get rid of all those images of doves fluttering around all over the place and everyone falling on each others’ shoulders in universal brother/sisterhood.  Peace is far more mundane than that.  It’s the absence of war.  It’s people not being killed.  It’s the willingness to live and let live.  And that will do just fine.

There’s no love lost between England and Germany, for instance, but they’re at peace after two utterly devastating wars in the first half of the 20th century.  There’s less than no love lost between Egypt and Israel – in fact it’s safe to say that for the most part, they detest each other —  but that peace treaty, signed by an Egyptian dictator and an Israeli former terrorist, has lasted three decades.  It’s nobody’s ideal of peace, but however uneasily, it’s held, and will likely hold whatever the changes in Egypt – a frigid kind of peace, but peace nonetheless.

But even thinking in terms of pragmatic, undramatic, boring peace, which once seemed as impossible for England and Germany, and for Egypt and Israel, as for Israel and Palestine, I still can’t see it.  Of course this may simply mean that I have a very limited imagination, and so can’t see the forest for the trees.   But to think that something is impossible because I can’t see it is not only an absurd assumption, but also a dangerous one.

What we believe affects how we act.   If we stop believing that Israel/Palestine peace is possible, or even desirable, as the Israeli government seems to have done, then that affects how we act:  we really do make it impossible.  That is, we create a self-fulfilling prophecy of unending conflict.   We act in our own worst interests.

I’d rather be naïve than nihilistic.  So in face of the despair that often overtakes me at the latest news from Gaza or from the West Bank, I have to fall back on belief in the possibility of peace, no matter how seemingly irrational.  After all, if it was rational, it wouldn’t require belief.

One definition of despair is in the inability to imagine oneself into the future.  It is, in a very real sense, a failure of the imagination.  So perhaps this is what belief really is:  an act of imagination.   The astonishing human ability to imagine something into existence, and to act in accordance with that imagination.

That’s what we’ve seen these past few weeks in Tunisia and Egypt and Bahrain (and maybe even in Libya), and that’s what’s been so inspiring about it:  belief transformed into possibility.   Belief not as faith in the divine, but as faith in the human ability to act and to change the future.   Belief, that is, in ourselves.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: agnosticism, existence, Middle East | Tagged: Tags: Bahrain, belief, conflict, Egypt, faith, Gaza, Germany, imagination, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Libya, nihilism, Palestine, peace, Tunisia, West Bank, Yemen | 15 Comments
  1. Sue says:
    February 24, 2011 at 2:44 pm

    Thank you for your distinction between ‘believing’ and ‘believing in’ – I think that’s fabulous.
    Regarding ‘Peace’ – I believe it to be more than just the absence of war – it is a whole other force in itself. It’s people’s determination to live differently and better and to care for each other and their communities, and so much more.
    And perhaps something to think about – it occurs to me that you use the word ‘believe’ (ie. you choose to believe in peace in the Middle East despite all evidence to the contrary) is used in the same sense as others would use the word ‘faith’, eg. I have ‘faith’ that there will be peace in the middle east. I do love words and how we use them, and I do love it when people can string a fabulous sentence together – you do that so well – thank you.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      February 25, 2011 at 2:34 pm

      So glad you pointed put my conflation of ‘belief’ and ‘faith’, Sue — it’s one of those things I was vaguely aware of doing, but hadn’t really paid attention to. Yes, I think there is a difference, but will have to work on figuring it out (it has to do, I think, with intention — a kind of willed decision — but am not sure, so will muse, and write about it at a later date). Thanks for the sharp eye. — L.

  2. Kate McLeod says:
    February 24, 2011 at 3:10 pm

    What these countries who want to go to war with each other need are football teams. They can take out their aggression in the viewing stands, wear war paint, wave flags–all that.
    Also my new rules about war in the world must be followed: no one under the age of 50 goes to war. I think it’s probably the fastest route to peace.

  3. Sana says:
    February 24, 2011 at 7:37 pm

    My husband always tells me that what I lack is belief. I give up too easily, hence abandoning any fight in me. My husband is the opposite, if he believes he achieves – and he makes it happen no matter what the odds are. Your article has made me realize how dangerous it is not believe….. its a bit daunting actually. Now comes the hard part – what do i believe? …….

  4. Lynn Rosen says:
    February 24, 2011 at 10:37 pm

    There is no point in believing IN war as an inevitable solution. Peace is the default. That is in what I believe.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      February 25, 2011 at 2:35 pm

      Perfectly in-put!

  5. Lana says:
    February 24, 2011 at 11:26 pm

    Thank you 🙂
    i hope u add a “like” button under your posts … sometimes i realy like an article but has nothing else to add 🙂

    best wishes

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      February 25, 2011 at 2:36 pm

      Thanks Lana — will poke around and see if I can find out how to do it. — L.

      (Best way to ‘Like’ — click the Facebook button!)

  6. Moes says:
    February 25, 2011 at 9:05 am

    I enjoyed very much your TED talk about Kuran.
    We have a woman a bit like you in France, Annick de Souzenelle (except she’s not an agnostic). She has read the Bible in the languages it was written (she studied years and years to learn Aramean and Hebrew, symbology and theology). If you go back to the source, it’s the best way not to be misguided by translations and interpretations. And her books about the bible explain how deep and beautiful this book is. Far away from the interpretation men have made of it through the centuries, trying to control people out of it. Much more universal than we think it is (not to mention the stupid and childish “creationist” interpretation of it.)
    I guess Kuran is the same. It’s the fragility of beauty, when taken over by gridy and bad intentional people.
    Please continue your struggle for beauty and peace (and excuse my poor english.)
    all the best.

  7. Elisa Sparks says:
    February 26, 2011 at 9:29 am

    Have you seen the bumper sticker: “Militant agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you”? Virginia Woolf’s father, Leslie Stephens, was famous for his statement of rational agnosticism.

  8. Anneza Akbar says:
    March 1, 2011 at 10:39 am

    Very interesting piece,
    I am curious as to what your view is on the idea of:

    “Peace is not the absence of war but the presence of justice”
    in comparison to:
    “peace is the absence of war”

    Could it be that perhaps “no war” and therefore “peace” could come about after a sense of justice is established?

    of course then the question would arise what would be justice in any specific case?

    Thank you for sharing your thoughts 🙂
    Anneza

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 1, 2011 at 1:12 pm

      Good question, and a tough one. “Peace and justice” is a much-used phrase, yet how exactly they go hand-in-hand is not clear, at least to me. The core problem being, of course, what we mean by justice. Are we talking justice as harmony, as moral rightness (and if so, whose morality?), as retribution, as equitability, as divine justice (in which case, whose concept of the divine?).

      I do think that any kind of peace, however minimal in concept, does have to involve a sense on both or all sides that nobody is being advantaged to the disadvantage of others. In practice, I think that might well mean that both/all sides will have to feel not that they’ve gotten what they think is right or what they deserve, but that they’ve had to give up a certain amount of what they think is right or what they deserve. In other words, that far from being perfect, peace is an imperfect compromise on all sides. And possible only when everyone is willing, finally, to make those compromises. I know it seems like there should be a “win-win” option, but in fact “lose-lose” may be the only realistic one — and thus, paradoxically, in fact a win-win.

      Have you heard of the Prisoner’s Dilemma? It’s a central paradigm in conflict resolution, in which the only rational solution is the one in which both sides lose an equal amount. Hard-headed, and worth thinking about. Here’s the Wikipedia entry on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

  9. Sunny says:
    March 1, 2011 at 5:12 pm

    War and peace are two sides of the same coin, just as light and darkness are. Just as light cannot exist without darkness, peace cannot exist without war – just as God and Satan cannot exist, atleast in two Abrahamic religions, by themselves. The principle of duality seems to be all-encompassing.

  10. Kathleen says:
    March 4, 2011 at 12:50 pm

    Very though provoking and written – as usual – Leslie. 🙂 I came across a book’s paragraph about an underlying social dynamic (‘bargains with God) that are suppose to guarantee peace (except the world keeps cheating on the bargain by going to war) : During WWI. The protagonist is looking at a stained glass window in a cathedral of Abraham’s sacrifice of his son. ‘Behind Abraham was the ram caught in a thicket by his horns and struggling to escape…You could see the fear. Whereas Abraham, if he regretted having to sacrifice his son at all, was certainly hiding it well, and Isaac, bound on a makeshift altar, positively smirked’. …[This represents] ‘the bargain on which all patriarchal societies are founded. If you, who are young and strong, will obey me, who am old and weak, even to the extent of being prepared to sacrifice your life, then in the course of time you will peacefully inherit, and be able to exact the same obedience from your sons. [and this one sacrifice to the gods is enough to appease them, instead of thousands] Only …. [being at war is ] ‘breaking the bargain… all over the inheritors were dying…. while old men, and women of all ages, gathered together and sang hymns. *”Regeneration” by Pat Barker, pg 149 (book 2 of a trilogy based on a Psychologist trying to heal shell shocked solders in England during WWI.) Just an interesting twist on the concept that older men (and women) sit in hallowed-halls and declare war and it’s planning, while the young die to execute the plan. Don’t know that it adds anything to your dialogue on peace but just thought to add it. No comment back needed 🙂

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 4, 2011 at 4:44 pm

      I totally agree: the Pat Barker trilogy (‘Regeneration,’ ‘Eye in the Door’ and ‘Ghost Road’) is stunning, and perhaps the most sustained and subtle anti-war fiction ever written. — L.

What Obama Really Meant

Posted September 1st, 2010 by Lesley Hazleton

A friend rewrote the Obama “end-of-combat-mission-in-Iraq” email we’d both received.   You probably got it too.  Here’s the rewrite:

From Barack Obama:

Lesley —

Seven years ago, the US’s Commander-in-Chief led our country into a stupid and unnecessary war. We tried to beat the shit out of the Iraqis, and the Iraqis tried to beat the shit out of us. We killed many tens of thousands of Iraqis, but only 4500 Americans died, so one might say we kinda won. As we now make our departure from the battlefields, we can look back to see a land well and truly ravaged, more violent and unstable than it was when we first arrived.

As your present Commander in Chief, I am proud to say that we are now dragging our sorry asses off the scene, licking our wounds, and hoping to hell we won’t have to go back.

Hope this reaches you as it leaves me,

Here’s hopin’!

Barack

Here (by way of compare and contrast) is the original Obama email:

Lesley —

Tonight marks the end of the American combat mission in Iraq.

As a candidate for this office, I pledged to end this war responsibly. And, as President, that is what I am doing.

Since I became Commander-in-Chief, we’ve brought home nearly 100,000 U.S. troops. We’ve closed or turned over to Iraq hundreds of our bases.

As Operation Iraqi Freedom ends, our commitment to a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq continues. Under Operation New Dawn, a transitional force of U.S. troops will remain to advise and assist Iraqi forces, protect our civilians on the ground, and pursue targeted counterterrorism efforts.

By the end of next year, consistent with our agreement with the Iraqi government, these men and women, too, will come home.

Ending this war is not only in Iraq’s interest — it is in our own. Our nation has paid a huge price to put Iraq’s future in the hands of its people. We have sent our men and women in uniform to make enormous sacrifices. We have spent vast resources abroad in the face of several years of recession at home.

We have met our responsibility through the courage and resolve of our women and men in uniform.

In seven years, they confronted a mission as challenging and as complex as any our military has ever been asked to face.

Nearly 1.5 million Americans put their lives on the line. Many returned for multiple tours of duty, far from their loved ones who bore a heroic burden of their own. And most painfully, more than 4,400 Americans have given their lives, fighting for people they never knew, for values that have defined our people for more than two centuries.

What their country asked of them was not small. And what they sacrificed was not easy.

For that, each and every American owes them our heartfelt thanks.

Our promise to them — to each woman or man who has donned our colors — is that our country will serve them as faithfully as they have served us. We have already made the largest increase in funding for veterans in decades. So long as I am President, I will do whatever it takes to fulfill that sacred trust.

Tonight, we mark a milestone in our nation’s history. Even at a time of great uncertainty for so many Americans, this day and our brave troops remind us that our future is in our own hands and that our best days lie ahead.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Middle East, war | Tagged: Tags: 'end of combat mission', Barack Obama, Iraq, speech | 2 Comments
  1. Lynn Rosen says:
    September 1, 2010 at 11:32 pm

    Dragged our sorry asses, licking our wounds. Yup. That seems to be we pay now in the name of the oil and military industrial giants. You can bet there will be profits badortes flowing in for many moons. Next up—Afghanistan.

  2. charlotte gerlings says:
    September 2, 2010 at 5:48 am

    Hi Lesley, yes indeed, great rewrite – the original is sheer cant. Stand by for Iran, I fear.
    If you can pick up the following link
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00tn4fw/The_Tony_Blair_Interview_with_Andrew_Marr/
    you can see what we were treated to last night from the Bliar. I think you will be particularly interested from 16 or 17 minutes in.
    This shallow smug Bush-poodle has the temerity to pop up on our screens after three years, as unrepentant as ever – gah! He’s even publicising his book by annnouncing that proceeds will go to the British Legion (the British veterans’ organisation), as if (a) we’ll all forgive him on account of that and couldn’t donate to the Legion anyway if we want to, and (b) as if he couldn’t have made the donation quietly and in private. I’d be more impressed if he would pay outright for new accommodation for the service personnel that he’s helped to disable, instead of buying yet another luxury home for his vainglorious self.
    You’re welcome to keep him over there in the US on his lucrative lecture tours, reportedly earning a quarter of a million dollars a throw – though you might have to let him play at being Middle East envoy now and then -when he’s not busy topping up his tan in the Caribbean.

The Rockets’ Red Glare

Posted July 3rd, 2010 by Lesley Hazleton

Ten at night on July Fourth, and the gunship helicopter comes in low over Seattle’s Lake Union, the prelude to the fireworks show.  A giant Stars and Stripes hangs from it as it parades slowly around the lake, an ominous matte-black presence made all the more threatening by the music blaring from the loudspeakers at the north end of the lake.  That music was chosen by someone who was either cinematically ignorant or had zero sense of irony, because until last year, it was Wagner’s ‘Ride of the Valkyries’ — the same music that accompanies the long tracking shot of gunship helicopters flying off to napalm the hell out of a Vietnamese village in perhaps the best war movie ever made:

Even in liberal Seattle, nobody seems to question why an attack helicopter is considered a suitable means of displaying the flag.   National independence is  easily militarized, since it is often — far too often — achieved at the cost of war.   “Blood and treasure” is the current phrase for this cost, and a particularly abhorrent one, not least because it seems to imply that blood is not treasured.   We are now past the 1,000 mark for US dead in Afghanistan, and approaching the 5,000 mark in Iraq (nobody keeps precise tallies of the far greater fatalities of Afghanis and Iraqis, said to be anywhere from “tens of thousands,” as though an extra ten thousand here and there makes no difference, to close to 200,000).   So this year, when the gunship flies around the lake, albeit sans the Valkyries (did irony finally hit? or did someone catch up on their Netflix queue?),  the sight and sound of that massive metal weapon looming and booming over my houseboat will again make me feel not pride in my American citizenship, but anxiety.   And not just because of the association with ‘Apocalypse Now.’

That gunship makes me see the fireworks differently.  I still go ‘Wow,’ but there’s no innocence in it.   Instead, I remember how people watching TV went ‘Wow’ as ordnance arced over the night skies of Baghdad in 2003, or how they tuned in to the cameras in the nose-cones of those peculiarly imprecise ‘precision’ missiles in the Kuwait war, as though the light and sound effects had nothing to do with real lives, real blood, real bones pulverized into the dust.    The fireworks, I realize, are non-lethal versions of that lethal ordnance, the utterly literal illustration of the national anthem:   “The rockets’ red glare/ The bombs bursting in air/ Gave proof through the night/ That our flag was still there.”

But how strange that rockets and bombs are needed to prove independence.   The insecurity behind those lines from the anthem is clear, which may be part of why we’re now mired deeper than ever in Afghanistan.  Two hundred and thirty-four years have passed, yet even in Seattle, we still need to send in the gunships.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: US politics, war | Tagged: Tags: Afghanistan, Apocalyse Now, fireworks, gunships, Independence Day, Iraq, Seattle, Vietnam | 5 Comments
  1. rachel cowan says:
    July 4, 2010 at 3:37 am

    I had similar thoughts – though less eloquently presented even within my own mind – as I watched the fireworks launched last night from West Point as a culmination to the 1812 Overture. I was watching from a terrace above and across the river – in a totally idyllic setting on a warm night with many small children going WOW and what’s next? So pleasant, and yet this huge West Point complex can not produce victory in Afghanistan or Iraq, and invites such delusion of strength. I thought of each dazzling (and totally amazingly wonderful) burst of sparkling lights as a drone bomb missing its “target”, not even able to imagine what that would be like from below.

    so here’s to a fourth with fireworks for peace! for my grandchildren at least!

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      July 4, 2010 at 10:23 am

      Fireworks for peace — what a wonderful light-filled image. Thanks, Rachel.

  2. Nancy McClelland says:
    July 4, 2010 at 12:39 pm

    I’m embarrassed to post this — but felt more shamed about hiding the truth. I watched the display of this military ship with its American flag the past two years (so, yes, even with the Wagner), and was impressed. My husband and I sheepishly admitted to each other afterward that it was impossible not to be charmed out of our anti-military stance and into a pro-nationalist one. I wanted to stand up and cover my heart and sing the national anthem for the first time since seeing a flag hanging off a highway overpass the day after 9/11. What does this mean? Why mention it? Well, if this show of force can be inspiring even to those of us who normally abhor military/imperialist propaganda, then imagine the cumulative effect of all the crap that is fed daily to Americans eager to embrace it. Discounting the results of such efforts by various parties (tea- not excluded) is going to get us into even more trouble. How can we “take back the flag”?

  3. charlotte gerlings says:
    July 4, 2010 at 2:48 pm

    It’s often been said that because they’ve never struggled through years of foreign aggression on their own patch – unlike the Europeans – Americans have a propensity to elevate and eulogise violence and disregard the human cost. But after the get-nowhere of the past decade, now could be the time to protest about that helicopter’s lap of dubious honour above your neighbourhood. There’s nothing redemptive about violence, it can never make one’s own country more secure or other nations more compliant. So what has the willy-waving of weaponry got to do with a celebration of independence? Hope you’re all having a great time – fireworks over water are extra spectacular – enjoy every sparkle!

  4. Accidental Theologist v. Gunship Helicopters: 1-0 « The Accidental Theologist says:
    July 5, 2010 at 10:15 am

    […] The Comets’ Red Glare […]

Order the Book

Available online from:
  • Amazon.com
  • Barnes & Noble
  • IndieBound
  • Powell's
Or from your favorite bookseller.

Tag Cloud

absurd agnosticism art atheism Christianity ecology existence feminism fundamentalism Islam Judaism light Middle East sanity technology TED TALKS ugliness US politics war women

Recent Posts

  • Flash! September 1, 2019
  • “What’s Wrong With Dying?” February 9, 2017
  • The Poem That Stopped Me Crying December 30, 2016
  • Talking About Soul at TED December 5, 2016
  • ‘Healing’? No Way. November 10, 2016
  • Psychopath, Defined August 2, 2016
  • Lovely NYT Review of ‘Agnostic’! July 14, 2016
  • Playing With Stillness June 22, 2016
  • Inside Palestine June 20, 2016
  • Virtual Unreality June 6, 2016
  • The Free-Speech Challenge May 23, 2016
  • Category-Free April 20, 2016
  • Staring At The Void April 13, 2016
  • Sherlock And Me April 3, 2016
  • Hard-Wired? Really? March 22, 2016
  • A Quantum Novel March 9, 2016
  • This Pre-Order Thing March 4, 2016
  • The Agnostic Celebration February 29, 2016
  • The First Two Pages February 23, 2016
  • Two Thumbs-Up For “Agnostic” February 10, 2016
Skip to toolbar
  • About WordPress
    • WordPress.org
    • Documentation
    • Support Forums
    • Feedback