International Political Will

The strings of America’s mainstream media are pulled so tight by the neo-conservative administration, I doubt they even realize when they regurgitate a talking point in the guise of “news.”

• The Surge worked.
• The Sunni Awakening.

Both of these Orwellian mantras are heard daily on every news outlet. Yet they’re no more than neo-con talking points distributed through press release memos. They are advertisements, aimed at skewing the truth and convincing us we can lose 30 lbs. without exercise. Nothing more.

And when the administration told us outright that they are pulling the wool over our eyes, it is quickly forgotten.

“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality…we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too…We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
– Unnamed White House aide, 2004

Consider the “realities” that are repeated by the media within the context of this quote.

• The Surge worked.

Violence is down, yes. But diminished violence can hardly equate with success. The surge was a necessary course of action, but we seem to have jumped to the end game and (for political purposes) are hastily claiming success.

An average of 20 civilians killed everyday in July 2008 is down from the high of 104 each day of July 2006, but isn’t victory in war defined as a cessation of killing? For a statistical comparison, consider that the population of Iraq is similar to Southern California (there is an average of one [1] homicide per day in Los Angeles and San Diego counties). Imagine another 20 people everyday being beheaded, assassinated, or dismembered by suicide bombers along the sunny beaches of San Diego or on the streets of Los Angeles. Under what convoluted logic would this be considered “success?”

President Bush didn’t go in front of the nation in the Winter of 2006 and say “I’m sending more troops into Iraq so that 20 people a day are murdered by suicide bombs, summary executions, or ethnic violence.” He told us this was a path to victory, and now he and his minions are claiming that victory prematurely and in spite of facts on the ground – similar to his May 2003 “Mission Accomplished” gaffe.

But no one notices, because the warmongers and hawks have “created their own reality.”

• The Sunni Awakening.

Nothing like a nice euphemism to brighten one’s optimism. The Sunni Awakening – the name now accepted by every major media outlet for the cessation of attacks against American troops by Sunni insurgents – is often pointed to as another reason the “surge has worked.” Even Democrats who opposed the surge are quick to say that without the Sunni Awakening, the surge wouldn’t have created the paradise that is 20-civilians-killed-a-day-Iraq.

Magically, Sunni Sheiks decided to stop backing Al Qaeda and sided with the Americans. Why? Because they saw the error in their ways? Because they converted to Christianity? Because they finally believed us when we said we weren’t there for oil?

In the spring of 2007, well into the “surge” and facing levels of violence that were not significantly decreasing, the Bush administration turned to an age-old modus operandi for eliminating one’s enemies.

Buy them.

American commanders began arming, funding, and supplying Sunni Sheiks in return for promises to turn their guns on Al Qaeda. The story was reported (and ignored) in June 2007. By September violence had decreased. Of course, what those Sunni Sheiks do with our guns, ammunition, and money once U.S. troops leave is anyone’s guess. (I’ll guess genocide.) Either way, militarizing other countries has not turned out well in American foreign policy (i.e., Iraq/Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, the Afghan mujahedin in the 80s, the extremist-supporting military dictatorship that is contemporary Pakistan, or the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, whom we saw as a better alternative to the Communists in neighboring Vietnam).

The “Sunni Awakening” would more aptly be named the “Sunni Acquisition.” Actually, it’s more like a lease.

These myths have permeated our media and our debates. They are accepted as truths – as reality. But they are little more than distorted and manipulated talking points aimed at blinding the American public. When the debate begins with a premise that is artificial, any solutions are destined to fail.

Now we are told that because of the surge (and the Sunni Awakening), to withdrawal troops would be folly. Setting a deadline would lead to defeat. First we couldn’t leave because things were so bad; now we can’t leave because things are so good.

We made a mistake in listening to the government and our own media in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. We cannot afford to fall for their chicanery again as they try to convince us that victory means occupation.

This administration told us they were “creating their own reality.” We can’t say we weren’t warned.

The West often rails against the rampant corruption that plagues developing countries. From our perspective, it seems that corruption is a major obstacle that prevents many countries from obtaining the progress we have enjoyed. Yet we may be wrongly assuming our own value placed on an honest politician is the ideal for everyone else.

Yesterday, I had a conversation with a friend regarding all things India: the recent terrorist attacks in Gujarat, who the responsible parties might be, the role of Pakistan and their infamous intelligence service (ISI), the shrinking opportunities and increased ghettoization of India’s Muslims, and the growing movement toward violence as a solution.

As any discussion about terrorism in India always does, we began to debate why Pakistanis never have had a true leader that represents their interests. Pakistan has been ruled by one military general after another – interspersed with a few corrupt politicians that were merely puppets for the ISI. Real elections, real representation, and real freedoms have eluded ordinary Pakistanis virtually since its inception in 1947.

My friend – a liberal-minded Indian woman from Kolkata – was especially disheartened by the assassination of Benazir Bhutto last December.

“Yeah, but Pakistan needs a real leader,” I retorted. “Someone new, someone fresh, who really is elected by the people. Even Bhutto was corrupt.”

“You have to be corrupt to be a politician,” my friend said. “At least she was progressive.”

The words “corrupt” and “politician” occur together far too often in our vocabulary, but in the West, it is usually said tongue-in-cheek.

When young people refuse to vote, they often give the (lame) excuse that “all politicians are corrupt.” But at its core even they know it’s not true.

When Duke Cunningham’s career ended in allegations of blatant corruption, we joked about how politicians all take bribes, and that Cunningham just got caught. But we didn’t really believe it. We know that most politicians are not corrupt (misguided, misinformed, misled, or just plain stupid – perhaps – but not openly corrupt).

Even when Bush administration members awarded large government grants to “inner-city golf programs” that have no record of success but have the President’s father as their chairman, we avoided calling it what it is. Instead, we chalked it up to benign nepotism.

For all our joking, we know that our politicians are actually pretty honest compared to the rest of the world. (Not that this is an excuse to accept the status quo as the best it can be.)

But my friend’s response yesterday carried no sarcasm. No hint of a joke. She was serious, and accepted it as part of politics – as part of life.

An individual’s level of corruption had no bearing on her support. She only wanted someone progressive.

Last week, India’s ruling Congress-led coalition narrowly escaped a no-confidence vote that might have handed power to the right-wing nationalist opposition, the BJP. The images and news stories of members of parliament walking out with bundles of cash and openly claming they sold their votes to Congress had little bearing on the public. India didn’t care that the 120-year-old Congress party was corrupt.

All they cared was that they were more progressive than the alternative.

First we were granted the usual denials-in-the-face-of-reality by President Bush. No recession here. The economy is strong. Why? Because the ‘decider’ said so.

Then we heard Phil Gramm tell us it was all in our heads. McCain quickly refuted his comments, but his own economic plan (the status quo is good) doesn’t exactly disagree with Gramm’s assertion that we are in a “mental recession.”

Then the political and economic pundits got on the talk shows and assured us that “No, we are not in a recession because a recession means ‘two consecutive quarters of falling gross national product.’”

Whoop-tee-doo. GDP/GNP has always been a misleading statistic, never truly indicative of the majority of a population’s economic status. Just because the country as a whole is making money doesn’t mean it’s distributed. The rampant poverty of India has made that abundantly clear (India has an annual GDP growth rate in the 8-10 percent range). Don’t believe what you hear about “India becoming middle class.” For 800 million Indians, it’s simply not true.

Now Bush tells us (accidentally) that “Wall Street got drunk, and has a hangover.” So what? I suppose we should treat the elites of Wall Street like his own family treated Dubya after his foray into alcoholism. Assume that Wall Street “found God” and let them back to the dinner table.

Technical economic or theoretical definitions of “recession” matter little to average Americans. Elizabeth Warren, a law professor at Harvard, made this point in written testimony to the U.S. Congressional Joint Economic Committee.

Since 2000, average American households have watched their annual income decline by $1,175 (adjusted for inflation).

Yet while our incomes haven’t risen, what we are paying for goods and services has. Americans pay an average of $2,195 more per year for gasoline. Food costs an additional $220. Health insurance has increased by $363. And mortgage payments have gone up an average of $1,729 per year. Just for shits and giggles, throw in phone bills (not including cell phones) and appliances at an extra cost of $148.

That means since George W. Bush took office, the average American family has a total gap of $5,830 per year in extra expenses and lost income.

Wait – that doesn’t include the expenses associated with having children. Daycare has increased by $1,508 per year. After-school childcare has gone up an addition $622. And state college tuition is up more than $1,000.

But we’re not in a recession, right?

When incomes are stagnant (or in this case, falling) and prices are rising, the economy sucks. You don’t need a Ph.D. from M.I.T. to know that. Sure, for those families making $150,000 or more a year, an extra $8,000 in expenses can be absorbed with smart budgeting. But those wealthy families only account for five percent of the population.

Most Americans make far less than $150,000 a year. And for them, a $8,000 gaping hole in their budget is more than a matter of psychological perceptions or metaphorical cocktail binges.

It’s a matter of life.

The nuclear showdown between Iran and the U.S./Israel is often seen through the lens of the Shi’a emphasis on martyrdom. Yet we cannot move forward in this crisis assuming that it is merely a matter of “Will they?” or “Won’t they?” It may not matter if they push the button – having the button may be enough.

A penchant for honoring those that sacrifice their own lives for a holy cause has a historical context in Shi’a Islam, and rightfully (though, I think, disproportionately) the hawks in Israel and Washington are concerned. They see Iran’s quest for nuclear power as a means for the hardliners in Tehran to destroy Israel – even if retaliation means their own national suicide.

But we must separate Tehran’s saber-rattling and threats from their actions, and consider the wider implications of a nuclear-armed Iran. Ephraim Sneh, a former Israeli general and politician, notes that “Iran would be in a position to destroy the Zionist dream without even pressing a button.” It may sound like hyping the threat – more fear-mongering in the so-called “war on terror”; but there is some truth in this statement.

Ahmedinejad has said he aims to “wipe Israel off the map.” Many assume this means another holocaust, but there is a difference between wiping Israelis off the face of the earth and wiping the nation-state of Israel from a map. Throw in Ahmedinejad’s suggestions that Israelis be forcibly emigrated to Alaska or Germany, and it could appear he merely wants the nation-state of Israel to cease to exist, returning the land to Palestinians. Conclusion: the collapse of a state, rather than murder, may be the goal.

Bring in Sneh’s comment about destruction without even pressing a button. If Iran has a legitimate threat of nuclear war at its fingertips, it can effectively blackmail Israel. Moreover, Israeli citizens would feel very uncomfortable living under the threat of nuclear annihilation. The Israeli government is concerned this may “trigger an exodus of the educated elite that could spell disaster for the country, both economically and culturally.”

Imagine a scenario whereby Israelis with the financial ability simply leave. Unwilling to live with the threat of nuclear war, they immigrate to the U.S., Europe, or elsewhere so that their children might grow up without fear. Likely the only people who would remain are those who don’t have the money or education to begin a new life in New York, London, or Paris.

A country as small as Israel would be devastated by the loss of their best and brightest. Politicians would govern in absentia. Businesses would fail. Professors would find other employment in Europe or America. Doctors, lawyers, and musicians would find places to work that aren’t being threatened by religiously-motivated zealots like Ahmedinejad and the mullahs of Iran.

All that would be left of Israel would be those least able to defend themselves, with a failing economy and a shrinking defense force. Eventually, it just may “wipe Israel off the map.” The political entity that is Israel may cease to exist as we know it.

And back in Tehran: mission accomplished. Without pressing a button.

It’s a convoluted scenario that requires many assumptions, and there is no practical basis to estimate the reaction of the Israeli public to a nuclear-armed Iran. Americans didn’t flee when the Soviets gained the ability to end the world. Floridians didn’t move north when missiles were stationed in Cuba (at least I don’t think they did – it would be interesting to see any available statistics).

Of course, the Soviet Union did not have a history of martyrdom and fervent religiosity that may exist in Iran. Looking back, we might be convinced now that neither the U.S. nor the Soviet Union was ever serious about using nuclear weapons. But the passage of time has a way of blurring the past and extricating emotions. At the time we were never sure the theory of mutually assured destruction was working. How many Americans in the 1960s really believed the Soviets were not going to start a nuclear war?

As long as Iran continues to threaten Israel, and Israel continues to threaten Iran (and implement a system of apartheid on the Palestinians), all these points are moot. Since we cannot be sure that the theory of mutually assured destruction will work in this conflict, we need alternatives. Which leaves diplomacy as the best and only option. Finding ways to address the grievances of both sides can create a new framework for a world in which nuclear weapons are a reality.

We must find ways to remove the very factors that motivate hatred. Apartheid in Gaza and the West Bank must end. Rhetorical bluster and denying the mass-murder of 6+ million Jews must end. This cannot be accomplished by military maneuvers in the Persian Gulf, Holocaust-denial conferences, air strikes against nuclear facilities, photo-shopping video of missile tests, or covert operations meant to create civil war. These are issues that can only be addressed with communication.

If mutually assured destruction cannot work, perhaps mutually assured co-existence will.

The Mumbai head-wobble (a gesture where your chin acts as the pendulum in a grandfather clock, swaying left to right) appears similar to our Western version of “I don’t know” or “maybe.” This can be very confusing until you realize the wobble is actually a “yes” or “I agree.” It is also a greeting or even substitute for a friendly smile.

Yet often I feel that a head-wobbler is conveying to me that I’ve just stated the obvious. It seems an admonishment, as if the person is telling me “you should already know that.” An Indian version of “well, duh.”

Last week, I grabbed an auto rickshaw from the slums back to the train station. The rickshaws are shared, but on the way back to the station they are not always full. There was only one passenger – a young Muslim with a white kurta, a multi-colored crocheted tazcat cap, and a thin beard that would likely become bushier with age. As I boarded next to him, I wobbled my head in greeting; he wobbled back and smiled.

He asked which country I was from, and followed that up by wondering which state. Then he asked me what I was doing here (“here” being the slums).

“I’m helping at an NGO – Akanksha - tutoring kids in English and some math.”

“Akanksha. Hah, hah. I know,” he said with a wobble.

“I work in Vashi, but come here a couple times a week.”

“Why did you come to India?”

“Something different. My wife is teaching for Akanksha in Bombay.”

“So you are just spreading education,” he said plainly with another wobble.

“Hah, I guess so. What do you do?”

“I am going to university in Valdala. I’m studying commerce. I was studying art, but there are not jobs for art. Only teaching. Commerce I can get any job.”

“That’s true.”

“Which is better – California or India?”

“There’s good and bad to both, I think. People are more friendly in India.”

He smiled and wobbled. “Hah, in India, everyone is your brother.”

It’s true. It’s what I like most about India. People treat each other with a mix of familiarity and casual disrespect: just as you would treat your own siblings.

But what stuck with me was the straightforward way that the young man had encapsulated what so many Americans are trying to do: “spread education.” Whether it’s a rural Kansas primary school, a high school in downtown Los Angeles, government organizations like US AID, international NGOs, or students from overseas that come to learn at our universities, the goal is the same: spread education.

The U.S. economy exports many things, but none may be so critical to the future of our world than education. Our trade in military technology and weapons may exceed billions of dollars – much of it with autocratic despots – but only our universities and the teachers they produce can have a positive global impact. I wonder if we underestimate the potential of America’s educated public. Education should be our number one export.

The neo-cons and other religiously-conservative groups often speak of America being chosen by God for a special purpose: that we are a “shining city on a hill.” Many Americans believe that spreading democracy and freedom is God’s divine purpose for our nation. Too often there is disagreement about how we should go about achieving our mission, and the hawkish zealots see the barrel of the gun as God’s messenger.

But perhaps we can achieve that special purpose in a much more benevolent manner. If America is a chosen nation, we should play to our strengths, not our weaknesses. Violence is never a catalyst for positive change, and hardly seems worthy as a modus operandi for people on a mission from God.

As I moved toward the platform to board my train, I turned and waved at my new friend who – whether he knew it or not – had so eloquently summarized America’s purpose.

He smiled. “Masha’ Allah,” he said as we parted. God has willed it.