Memorial Day weekend commemorates US men and women who have died in service. Conducting quick internet research, I discovered a site from the Department of Defense describing the casualties of war from Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq) and Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan).
As of May 16, 2009, the two wars have resulted in 4,967 US troop deaths. This number is large, and to understand the magnitude, I tried to compare this figure with other major US conflicts. According to Department of Defense statistics and adding both “in-theater” and “non-theater” casualties, I estimate:
Conflict (Number of Deaths)
Persian Gulf War (1,947)
Vietnam War (59,961)
Korean War (54,246)
World War II (~405,000)
World War I (~116,000)
Civil War (~365,000)
Revolutionary War (~5,000)
The bravery of the men and women who sacrificed for the country should be honored. Their efforts have helped to keep the nation safe.
In the past week President Obama and Dick Cheney have offered divergent perspectives on the ongoing maintenance of the nation’s safety in the changing international climate. The issues in contention are the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, e.g. waterboarding, and the closing of the prison at Guantanamo.
Between the President and former Vice-President’s arguments, which of the two approaches is more compelling? To make that decision, let’s choose a reasonable metric for judgment – which of the approaches would save the greater number of future American lives (both military and civilian) as well as non-US civilians?
In his speech, Obama provides his rationale for shutting down Guantanamo and for ceasing waterboarding on the grounds that it is morally the right thing to do. Delivering the speech symbolically from the National Archives, he argues that the values epitomized by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights – the country’s collective rule of law – is one of the strongest weapon we have to fight terrorism. By adhering to our moral authority in the world, we treat our enemies with dignity and exemplify our ideals. The pictures from Abu Grahib and the practice of waterboarding declare to the world that we don’t mind if our own troops are handled in a similar manner. We treat our neighbors as we ourselves wish to be treated.
The future safety of the American people, and the world’s people, must come from our true position of strength which is elevating to a moral high ground, rather than descending to a ‘might is right’ principle for political expediency.
The ideas from Dick Cheney’s speech at the American Enterprise Institute are in stark contrast. Delivered seconds after the completion of the President’s statements and in the midst of shopping his book deal on the Bush years, Cheney defends the previous administration’s position of a comprehensive attack strategy both domestically and internationally to eliminate the terrorist threat. Waterboarding techniques are a necessary tool for these situations, and provide valuable information to sequester enemy insurgence. These techniques are means that justify the end result: there have been no major terrorist attacks since 9/11. Although we will never know the contra positive – without Guantanamo and excessive interrogation techniques, would there still have been no terrorist attacks – the former VP is quite confident that this would be impossible.
Which of the approaches will save more lives is a personal perspective that must be answered by individual judgment. At the core is how the American citizenry wish to be treated by their leaders. Cheney’s approach is providing a patronizing argument based on keeping the public in fear – there is a big monster out there, stay in your homes (or in your underground bunker), and let us resolve the problem. It is better that the public stay unaware and in ignorance for that is bliss.
Obama’s approach is boldly going to a new frontier in leadership He is providing well nuanced arguments that clarify a defensible position, rather than broad statements of good versus evil. He trusts that by the government being more transparent, we can make our own distinctions and create fine lines, rather than believe broad brush arguments. Despite our micro-byte driven society, where information is provided in staccato bursts, he trusts that people have the ability to think through a problem, rather than be driven by fear
Similar to the Star Trek franchise, rebooted with flair by J.J. Abrams, the frontier is tackled through engagement and discussion, rather than military onslaught. The original series addressed issues of multi-cultural/ multi-species interaction through tolerance and respect – taking an ethical high-ground on race issues during the contentious 1960’s.
Obama’s moves are a calculated risk, reclaiming a moral leadership position, or in the famous words of the Star Trek opening “boldly going where no one has gone before.”
May 24, 2009
Monday, May 25, 2009
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Some thoughts on… Spreading Virulence
With Swine Flu racing around the world, the spread of the virus is on everyone’s mind. The WHO has placed the global public on level 5 for the pandemic indicating that there is sustained human-to-human transmission in communities in different geographical locations. The spread of the disease has claimed 160 lives so far. But there are positive signs of prevalence declining in Mexico – the hypothesized origin of the infections.
As with any virus, the spread needs to be monitored and disease burden managed, to minimize infection. Luckily, accumulated experience from previous contagions has provided an effective platform for the WHO and CDC to help control the infection. As a society, we can effectively contain this particular strain of influenza, but there are other sources of political contamination spreading virulence as well.
In response to the overwhelming popularity of Obama, a few domestic voices are infecting Presidential hatred, and transmitting the messages to millions. The communication is perhaps not as deadly as A-H1N1 but noxious nevertheless. These ultra-conservative voices represent a particularly vehement strain of conservatism whose goal is exclusion of swaths of the US population and misrepresentation of current events.
On principle, the expression of these viewpoints must be supported unless they infringe on individual rights. But, could these voices be more harmful than swine flu?
Ann Coulter a self-described polemicist uses her strong Christian beliefs to defend viewpoints ranging from the need for Jews to be perfected to declaring that any Muslim attending a Mosque in Europe must have an affiliation with radical fundamentalist Islamic group. In her own words, “I'm a Christian first and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second, and don't you ever forget it.”
Her recent statements have attempted to counter Obama’s astoundingly strong approval ratings which have been reported by the Wall Street Journal and New York Times. She has argued in a column in the Washington Times that he is the second least popular president, 100 days in, we've had in 40 years. Her comments have been criticized for fallacy in the analysis which compares apples-to-oranges questions from different poll samplings. This is not the first time she has been criticized for spreading misrepresentations, but the damage is done amongst those who take her statements without question and accept them as accurate representations of reality.
Rush Limbaugh the conservative TV and Radio host has proved to be a good foil for the current administration. Referring to Obama as “Barack the Magic Negro” and demonstratively stating that he hoped the President would fail, he represents a strong voice of societal fear of the other. Differing from Ann Coulter’s denigration of cultures outside of Christianity, Limbaugh’s perspectives ring as exclusionary and divisive on numerous fronts. On the front page of his website, there is a pictorial commentary of the criteria for Supreme Court nomination:
Being several of the above categories myself, it is incredible to imagine that this is seen as a joke. Why shouldn’t someone from all the above categories be a Supreme Court judge as long as they are capable? Inherently it represents a belief that only rich, white and male candidates are qualified for the High Court further denigrating the diversity that our country represents.
These folks have every right to express their views, and it is our responsibility to counter when we hear them. Spreading misrepresentation and divisiveness may not be killing lives, but they are painful infections against which we need inoculation. A constructive interpretation is that these perspectives are the necessary ills needed by society to gain immunity for the next wave of challenge to the system.
May 2, 2009
As with any virus, the spread needs to be monitored and disease burden managed, to minimize infection. Luckily, accumulated experience from previous contagions has provided an effective platform for the WHO and CDC to help control the infection. As a society, we can effectively contain this particular strain of influenza, but there are other sources of political contamination spreading virulence as well.
In response to the overwhelming popularity of Obama, a few domestic voices are infecting Presidential hatred, and transmitting the messages to millions. The communication is perhaps not as deadly as A-H1N1 but noxious nevertheless. These ultra-conservative voices represent a particularly vehement strain of conservatism whose goal is exclusion of swaths of the US population and misrepresentation of current events.
On principle, the expression of these viewpoints must be supported unless they infringe on individual rights. But, could these voices be more harmful than swine flu?
Ann Coulter a self-described polemicist uses her strong Christian beliefs to defend viewpoints ranging from the need for Jews to be perfected to declaring that any Muslim attending a Mosque in Europe must have an affiliation with radical fundamentalist Islamic group. In her own words, “I'm a Christian first and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second, and don't you ever forget it.”
Her recent statements have attempted to counter Obama’s astoundingly strong approval ratings which have been reported by the Wall Street Journal and New York Times. She has argued in a column in the Washington Times that he is the second least popular president, 100 days in, we've had in 40 years. Her comments have been criticized for fallacy in the analysis which compares apples-to-oranges questions from different poll samplings. This is not the first time she has been criticized for spreading misrepresentations, but the damage is done amongst those who take her statements without question and accept them as accurate representations of reality.
Rush Limbaugh the conservative TV and Radio host has proved to be a good foil for the current administration. Referring to Obama as “Barack the Magic Negro” and demonstratively stating that he hoped the President would fail, he represents a strong voice of societal fear of the other. Differing from Ann Coulter’s denigration of cultures outside of Christianity, Limbaugh’s perspectives ring as exclusionary and divisive on numerous fronts. On the front page of his website, there is a pictorial commentary of the criteria for Supreme Court nomination:
Being several of the above categories myself, it is incredible to imagine that this is seen as a joke. Why shouldn’t someone from all the above categories be a Supreme Court judge as long as they are capable? Inherently it represents a belief that only rich, white and male candidates are qualified for the High Court further denigrating the diversity that our country represents.
These folks have every right to express their views, and it is our responsibility to counter when we hear them. Spreading misrepresentation and divisiveness may not be killing lives, but they are painful infections against which we need inoculation. A constructive interpretation is that these perspectives are the necessary ills needed by society to gain immunity for the next wave of challenge to the system.
May 2, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Some thoughts on… So Let It Be Written
During Passover and Easter, families celebrate the vernal season with family gatherings, unleavened bread and bunny rabbits. Growing up in a Muslim family, the holidays were not part of our customs, but there was one tradition that I created on my own – watching Cecil B. DeMille’s classic The Ten Commandments on the ABC television network.
The biblical story from Exodus, relates the tale of Moses as the promised deliverer of the Jewish people leading Abraham's followers out of slavery under the Egyptian Pharaoh and to the Promised Land. By definition, it is one of the greatest stories over told, and DeMille wastes no scene without a grand set, thousands of extras, and bravado acting. This is not a subtle, character play.
The movie’s themes are timeless – the reward of faith, the troubled questioning of a moral hero, the fight for human equality. In the end Moses, the adopted son of Pharaoh, relinquishes his privileged upbringing to follow his path towards a virtuous goal. Released in 1956 the movie was Hollywood’s prelude argument to the civil rights movement – supporting the right of an oppressed people to have equal rights in society.
An analogous situation is playing out today around the ability of gay and lesbian citizens to secure the rights of a long-term relationship under the law. But should gays and lesbians have the right to marry?
Similar to the 1960’s, society’s views on homosexuality has transformed dramatically in the past decade – in the scientific literature it is no longer considered a mental illness, and individuals are open both in their public and private spheres. Although acceptance is widespread of gay individuals, the issue of marriage between committed individuals incites a great deal of divisiveness.
There seem to be two issues: 1) recognition by the community of the long-term commitment of same-sex relationships; 2) granting of equal local, state and federal rights for same-sex couples as those automatically achieved by heterosexual couple, e.g. medical visitation rights, transfer of property rights, tax liability.
Despite judicial rulings in California, Vermont, Massachusetts, and most recently Iowa, the idea of gay marriage is not supported by the majority of the US population. Intertwined with religious and societal beliefs, marriage is too difficult a label for people to accept. The solution may just be to take the word marriage out of the equation and separate the powers of the state from the church.
Instead of marriage, the Federal and State governments should create a new term, like “civil union” or “long-term partnership”, that would confer the same rights as marriage. To avoid a “separate but equal is equal” status for this new term – the government-sanctioned recognition of partnership would be the only option available for homosexual or heterosexual couples. To be “married” in the ecclesiastic sense, couples would need to have a religious or non-civil ceremony endorsed by the house of worship of their choice. The compromise may not please vocal critics on the extremes, but it achieves the two issues identified – maybe that is the sign of a palatable solution. Similar measures are already in place in France and South Africa.
The government stays out of religion and religion stays out of civil rights. To instate this change permanent, we need legislative action to support the Supreme Court rulings - the only way to ensure permanence to these actions.
In the Ten Commandments, Pharaoh could utter his rulings and they would be made into law. In our democracy we need more than justices of the Supreme Courts to provide moral guidance; we need to create laws that will uphold the status.
“So let it be written, so let it be done.”
April 12, 2009
The biblical story from Exodus, relates the tale of Moses as the promised deliverer of the Jewish people leading Abraham's followers out of slavery under the Egyptian Pharaoh and to the Promised Land. By definition, it is one of the greatest stories over told, and DeMille wastes no scene without a grand set, thousands of extras, and bravado acting. This is not a subtle, character play.
The movie’s themes are timeless – the reward of faith, the troubled questioning of a moral hero, the fight for human equality. In the end Moses, the adopted son of Pharaoh, relinquishes his privileged upbringing to follow his path towards a virtuous goal. Released in 1956 the movie was Hollywood’s prelude argument to the civil rights movement – supporting the right of an oppressed people to have equal rights in society.
An analogous situation is playing out today around the ability of gay and lesbian citizens to secure the rights of a long-term relationship under the law. But should gays and lesbians have the right to marry?
Similar to the 1960’s, society’s views on homosexuality has transformed dramatically in the past decade – in the scientific literature it is no longer considered a mental illness, and individuals are open both in their public and private spheres. Although acceptance is widespread of gay individuals, the issue of marriage between committed individuals incites a great deal of divisiveness.
There seem to be two issues: 1) recognition by the community of the long-term commitment of same-sex relationships; 2) granting of equal local, state and federal rights for same-sex couples as those automatically achieved by heterosexual couple, e.g. medical visitation rights, transfer of property rights, tax liability.
Despite judicial rulings in California, Vermont, Massachusetts, and most recently Iowa, the idea of gay marriage is not supported by the majority of the US population. Intertwined with religious and societal beliefs, marriage is too difficult a label for people to accept. The solution may just be to take the word marriage out of the equation and separate the powers of the state from the church.
Instead of marriage, the Federal and State governments should create a new term, like “civil union” or “long-term partnership”, that would confer the same rights as marriage. To avoid a “separate but equal is equal” status for this new term – the government-sanctioned recognition of partnership would be the only option available for homosexual or heterosexual couples. To be “married” in the ecclesiastic sense, couples would need to have a religious or non-civil ceremony endorsed by the house of worship of their choice. The compromise may not please vocal critics on the extremes, but it achieves the two issues identified – maybe that is the sign of a palatable solution. Similar measures are already in place in France and South Africa.
The government stays out of religion and religion stays out of civil rights. To instate this change permanent, we need legislative action to support the Supreme Court rulings - the only way to ensure permanence to these actions.
In the Ten Commandments, Pharaoh could utter his rulings and they would be made into law. In our democracy we need more than justices of the Supreme Courts to provide moral guidance; we need to create laws that will uphold the status.
“So let it be written, so let it be done.”
April 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)