Obama: forcing a generation to grow up? West Point Part 2 (2010)

-->

Somewhere along the line in our narcissistic prosperous ways a generation grew up thinking that the world was a reflection of their own. Any failure of humanity was simply due to the fact that they had yet to be tried.

If socialism failed it was because it hadn't been our turn to try it; we would know how to do it correctly. If there was war in the world it was simply because we had not given peace a chance. If there is poverty in the world it is simply because we haven't been in charge and we haven't given enough.

Only we could imagine a world without countries and no religion too. If only we trusted our egocentric, highly self-esteemed brains more and placed science and "reason" above anything else we could solve all the world's problems. If only we would be in charge some day.  Well, we are now.

Before the presidential elections we said that Obama was going to have to follow through on the policies of his predecessor regardless of his campaign rhetoric. In many regards he even said so himself. But many of his supporters, including the Rev. Wright, thought he was just being a politician, and as soon as he got to the White House he would bring all the troops home and the “two wars” would end. We said he would have to follow through because it is the realistic thing to do.

Obama's acceptance speech in Norway can be seen as West Point part 2.  As we mentioned before (“A Bubble gum Prize…”) Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to him as an attempt to tie “his hands and builds unrealistic expectations” and as “yet another effort to meddle in U.S. politics”. Ironically President Obama’s award of the Peace Prize has demonstrated that peace is not just talking about peace.

But president Obama has surprised many and shown a great deal of independence, at least in his speech. For those wondering about his foreign policy it seems he has declared himself a realist. We can also call it “continuity” abroad and at home. President Obama will basically continue President Bush’s policies abroad while continuing to balance his audiences at home.

There are many things in the speech that conservatives and liberals have found fault with, specially “conservatives”. But let the speeches at Norway and West Point speak for themselves. Let’s also look at some of his predecessor’s speeches.

“We are at war”, President Obama. “The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States”, President Bush.

“I come here filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace”, President Obama. “I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace”, President Bush.

“Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms”, President Obama. “I'll just tell you that there are people at Gitmo that will kill American people at a drop of a hat and I don't believe that persuasion is going to work. Therapy isn't going to cause terrorists to change their mind”, President Bush.

“Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting”, President Obama. “Our aim is a democratic peace - a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman”, President Bush.

“The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms.  We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren”, President Obama. “Hundreds of thousands of American servicemen and women are deployed across the world in the war on terror. By bringing hope to the oppressed and delivering justice to the violent, they are making America more secure”, President Bush.

“I am the commander in chief of a nation in the midst of two wars”, President Obama. “I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people”, President Bush.

“I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation”, President Obama. “America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people”, President Bush.

“The world continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan… the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait”, President Obama (remember, the second invasion of Iraq was continuation of the war initiated by Saddam “when he invaded Kuwait”).  “I believe that the free Iraq is in this nation's interests. Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary, confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror”, President Bush.

“If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan”, President Obama (West Point). “I believe a free Afghanistan is in this nation's interest”, President Bush.

“We have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people”, President Obama (West Point). “For all who love freedom and peace, the world without Saddam Hussein's regime is a better and safer place,” President Bush. Speaking for President Obama, U.N. ambassador Susan Rice said that Afghanistan, in her words, is “one theater of operation” in a larger war. “Iraq is no diversion. It is a place where civilization is taking a decisive stand against chaos and terror, we must not waver”, President Bush.

It took political courage for President Obama to move this far from his campaign postures. But why does President Obama insists in the false dichotomy of the “two wars”?  The answer must be “domestic politics”. It is time to rise to statesmanship and do away with the unjustified partisan jabs. But it would take extraordinary guts to go that one step further and admit that President Bush was basically right, at least publicly. In private he has already done so.

Perhaps before his term runs out we will hear from President Obama a similar humorous and self-deprecating quote like this one: "You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on", President Bush.

In all seriousness we hope it would be more like this one: “I understand everybody in this country doesn't agree with the decisions I've made. And I made some tough decisions. But people know where I stand. The true history of my administration will be written 50 years from now, and you and I will not be around to see it”, President Bush.

"[Iraq] One of the great achievements of this administration?” Really? (May 2012)

-->

Dictionaries now have a face to go with the word duplicity. It is the face of Vice President Biden.

It is well known that candidate Biden’s solution for Iraq was the partion of that country in three parts. It is also well established that he vehemently opposed the sending of additional troops to Iraq, in what was called “the surge”.

It is also well known that the current adiministration blames every problem we are facing as problems inherited from the previous administration. There is one exception,  “I am very optimistic about, about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration”, said VP Biden on Larry King (2/10/10)!!

Both VP Biden and President Obama opposed the surge, and not only that but constantly threatened to halt "the war" and any effort in Congress toward its success. According to both, the war was one “of choice” and a distraction. According to leading Democrats Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Biden the war in Iraq was “Bush’s War”.

But let us let words speak for themselves.

“I’m going to actively oppose the president’s proposal (the surge)…I think he is wrong”, Sen. Obama, July 21, 2008.

About Saddam:

"We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world", Sen. Biden, April 4, 2002.

"He is a long-term threat and a short-term threat to our national security", Sen. Biden, April 13, 2002.

"He must be dislodged from his weapons or dislodged from his power", Sen. Biden, September 26, 2002.

"When the inspectors left, after Saddam kicked them out, there was a cataloging at the United Nations saying he had X tons of… X amounts of...and they listed various materials he had. He had these stockpiles. Well it turned out that he didn't but everyone in the world thought he had them, weapons inspectors SAID [Biden's emphasis] he had them. He catalogued them, they catalogued them. This was no Cheney pipe dream. This was in fact catalogued. They looked at them and catalogued. What he did with them...?", Biden with Tim Russert, 2008.  Well, that is a question that rational people would have.

Given all this, it is most likely that whether with Gore or Kerry the US was going to attack Iraq unilaterally—even though, and people forget, the US was still part of a UN coalition that had approved the removal of Saddam by force from Kuwait.

Perhaps some generals were right. In 1991 the UN should have allowed the coalition to go all the way to Baghdad and arrest Saddam for war crimes (initiating a war of aggression and conquest). The rest, were we ended up at, would have been avoided.

The fact is that the policy of regime change in Iraq was a Clinton policy that had been in place prior to Bush and had the support of all the top leadership of the Democrats. The policy of unilateral action was also a policy of the Clinton administration, and it was put in practice in Bosnia.

The policy of regime change in Iraq was the policy of the Clinton administration to its last days. It was supported and parroted by Sen. Biden. After the Bush administration came to power and after 9/11 all that changed. Biden, for one thing, turned against the surge.

On December 26th, 2006, we saw this Associated Press story: "Biden Vows to Fight Any Iraq Troop Boost."  This was prior to the surge.  Anne Flaherty, AP writer, "Sen. Joseph Biden, the incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he will fight President Bush if the administration decides to send more US troops to Iraq.” 

Sen. Biden, who then had his eyes on the Democratic presidential nomination, also warned “I just think it's the absolute wrong strategy.”

Later referring to Gen. Petraeus, and the effect of the surge on military and political success in Iraq, Biden said On Meet the Press, September 9th, 2007: 

“Petraeus is dead wrong. He's dead, flat wrong.  The fact of the matter is that there is -- that this -- uh -- this idea of the security gains we made have had no impact on the underlying sectarian dynamic. None. None whatsoever. Can anybody envision a central government made up of Sunni, Shi'a, and Kurds that's going to gain the trust and respect of 27 million Iraqis?  There have been some tactical gains, but they have no ultimate bearing at this point on the prospect of there being a political settlement in Iraq that would allow American troops to come home without leaving chaos behind.” Biden proposed dividing Iraq into three separate countries.

Before, and during the primaries, Sen. Obama went from immediate withdrawal, to appease the “anti-war” left, in less than 16 months to "I will evaluate the situation and listen to what commanders on the field have to say".

On September 15, 2008, while campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama was at the same time trying in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence. During a BBC television interview of November 5, 2008 Iraq’s Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari confirmed the reports, “Obama has "reassured us that he would not take any drastic or dramatic decisions."

Obama opposed the U.S. intervention in Iraq from the beginning. His promise to pull U.S. troops out of the country was a cornerstone of his campaign.

“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional in Iraq is gonna solved the sectarian violence in there in Iraq. In fact, I think it will do the reverse. I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political acommodation…so I’m going to actively oppose the president’s proposal (the surge)…I think he is wrong”, Sen. Obama, July 21, 2008.

But in his speech of February 27, 2009 in Camp Lejeune he said:

“Thanks in great measure to your service and sacrifice and your family's sacrifices, the situation in Iraq has improved. Violence has been reduced substantially from the horrific sectarian killing of 2006 and 2007.

Al-Qaida in Iraq has been dealt a serious blow by our troops and Iraq's security forces and through our partnership with Sunni Arabs. The capacity of Iraq's security forces has improved, and Iraq's leaders have taken steps towards political accommodation.

The relative peace and strong participation in January's provincial elections sent a powerful message to the world about how far Iraqis have come in pursuing their aspirations through a peaceful political process.

But there should be no disagreement on what the men and women of our military have achieved.”

During the presidential campaign, according to Obama, Iraq was a distraction and had no strategic or national defense relevance. The popular “anti-war” demagoguery was that we sent our troops for oil, not for any strategic, national defense, much less altruistic humanitarian goals.

But in the same speech at Camp Lejeune:

“The future of Iraq is inseparable from the future of the broader Middle East, so we must work with our friends and partners to establish a new framework that advances Iraq's security and the region's.

And so I want to be very clear: We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein's regime, and you got the job done.

We kept - we kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government, and you got the job done.

And we will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better life. That is your achievement; that is the prospect that you have made possible.

The starting point for our policies must always be the safety and security of the American people. I know that you, the men and women of the finest fighting force in the history of the world, can meet any challenge and defeat any foe.

Iraq is a sovereign country with legitimate institutions.”

To this day the partisan left, from Democracy Now to the Huffington Post, etc., insist we are occupying Iraq, and for oil.  “Bush lied people died.”

But important questions remain for history.

One question is, (as then Sen. Biden stated) what happened to the stockpile of Saddam's WMDs which the world catalogued and Democrats thought he had?

Two, after 9/11, and knowing that Saddam was indeed harboring terrorists in Iraq, and the fact that prior to Bush the White House and the New York Times had documented the connection between Osama bin Laden/al-Qaeda and Saddam, and knowing he had and was capable of using weapons of mass destruction, what was any American president supposed to do?

Three, why did the Democrats made a u-turn on everything they believed about Saddam and left on the table for a post-Clinton coming administration? And why they are now doing another u-turn and claiming the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam’s as "one the greatest achievements of this administration"?

Fourth, if, according to all these acknowledgements Bush didn’t lie, who is lying now?

During a press conference then Sen. Biden claimed that during a meeting with then President Bush he told him “Mr. President, this is your war."  

Now, VP Biden wants to claim that war on President Obama’s behalf.  Why?  Duplicity, simple duplicity.

A SPEECH AT WEST POINT (from Cafe Magazine 2009)

Reactions to President Obama’s speech at West Point have been mixed to say the least. In some cases surprising—coming from some camps—in many other cases predictable. Reactions have run the gamut from predictions of failure on one side to depressing disappointment on the other, to the coming together of strange bed fellows

Our reaction is one of critical caution.

As we have covered in our radio program (“Foreign Policy and You”), American involvement in Afghanistan is a complex situation, made complicated by the nature of our domestic politics. The president—any president—is caught in the middle.

In a previous posting (WIN OR GET OUT! THAT’S THE STRATEGY!) we discussed how domestic partisan politics impact and sometimes overruns our best interest in foreign affairs.

On the nature and style of the speech it can be said that it was at times too political, and although the topic was by nature somber the tone was unnecessarily too dour also. Unfortunately, the president who promised to do away with old style politics could not help himself to try to appease the vocal base. For that purpose, the jabs at his predecessor were not missing. That was disappointing for the kind of statesmanship which was required for the occasion.

But why did it take 100 days to say the same things he said in March? To many observers, the president was simply just trying to appear deliberative, thoughtful and playing to his campaign image and promises that he would take his time, in consultation with others, before sending Americans to war.

But the inevitable decision had already been made apparently even before he came to the White House, at least in March. The president ran on a campaign that he had a better plan than Bush, and a better plan than McCain. He gave us the impression that he would hit the ground running on Afghanistan.

Now it appears that to put some distance between him and anything that would give the impression of recognition of President Bush’s correctness, or of continuity and agreement with his policies, President Obama simply stretched taking a decision that needed to be implemented immediately upon assuming his role as Commander-in-Chief. More than 100 Americans have been killed in Afghanistan under his command waiting for his decision.

And we still do not have a comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and the region, at least not publicly. Nor do we have, nor should we expect a public admission from the president that “the surge” in Iraq, which he was against during the campaign, was a success. Such is the case that he has decided to try it in Afghanistan.

But as we have said before, the president appears as not having a clear grasp of the concept of "strategy"; nor of the difference between “tactical” and “strategic”.  While he calls his plan “strategy” it is in fact a political device to please to crowds in his domestic audience. The plan is in fact half escalation, half continuity, half muddling of notions to give the impression of a thoughtful plan for withdrawal.

But two major contradictions are still puzzling. If Afghanistan is so crucial to American security, a “war of necessity” why a deadline based not on victory but based mainly on a chronological time-line?  How are we going to motivate people in Afghanistan to come over to the good side if we are also telling them that after a certain time they risk to be left on their own? 

The same astounding ignorance on military matters and geopolitics we saw during the Bush administration coming from the so-called "anti-war" movement is manifest again, this time in full ridicule. The selective pacifists, who at the drop of a hat would demand an invasion of Darfur or Haiti, are the same ones who kept quiet all through the presidential campaign when their candidate stated very clearly that Afghanistan was "a war of necessity". They are also the same ones who have been in monastic silence while civilians in Afghanistan have been killed by U.S. attacks, and in fact think that the use of drones alone is the way to go.

President Obama seemed to be in pain, timidly trying to explain to the American people especially to an infantile left, the reasons for his “strategy”. Calls for “an exit strategy”—an irrational code phrase for irresponsible quitting, disguised in military garb—continues from the same camp. His speech has pleased nobody in his base, while receiving some cautious accolades from unexpected and strange bedfellows.

As David Sanger, of The Washington Post, reminds us President Obama “strongly opposed President Bush’s surge in Iraq during his presidential campaign” and even now “has never publicly acknowledged that it was largely successful.”  But in a meeting with his aides more than a month ago he told them “It turned out to be a good thing.” 

Regardless of the political motivations of the president at least he has honored the requests from his commanders on the field and, although perhaps too little too late, it is a campaign promised fulfilled. Let’s hope that between the speech and the time the counteroffensive begins the situation in Afghanistan doesn’t deteriorate to the point that more troops would be required in the end.

As we have said before President Obama started his campaign with a wrong premise of dividing a larger war declared against us into two wars, the bad one "of choice" in Iraq, and the good one "of necessity" in Afghanistan. That went well during the campaign but now reality hits the road.

Cautious hope is requested. President Obama made a choice by distancing himself from Bush, by failing to acknowledge his success. By failing to educate the American people on the real geopolitical and comprehensive strategy needed for American security he also missed an opportunity to become a statesman, a national leader. He chose to split the domestic political differences down the middle. Now Afghanistan it’s all his own.

On Iraq

People ask me about Iraq and the tenth anniversary of the intervention.

Unfortunately, ten years after the intervention in Iraq and people still harping the same tired, puerile talking points it's beyond the limits of my patience and time. At the moment I'm too busy with other projects.

So, instead I decided to post some op/eds of mine which appeared in Cafe Magazine from 2009 to 2012 (see separately) on Iraq and Afghanistan (see, "A Speech at West Point", "Obama: forcing a generation to grow up? West Point Part 2","[Iraq] One of the great achievements of this administration?” Really?"; links below).

They deal with statements made by President Obama and Vice President Biden attempting to either claim credit for Iraq, or praising the results of the intervention for their own personal political gain in full duplicity of their previous political positions.

The narrative that WMDs was "THE" only reason why President Bush forced the issue on Iraq is a canard. So the main point in all this, if any, is that we need to be informed and move away from the mere partisan talking points in matters such as this. One thing is political campaigning for office and another thing is what happens in office.

In all this debate one major thing is always omitted when approaching the topic from an assigning blame view. And that is the fact that the “war in Iraq” didn’t start in 2003. It was the reassuming of the responsibilities the UN had for the 1991 intervention and the 18-19 standing resolutions left on the table (especially Res. 678, 687, 1441). Corruption in the Oil-for-Food Programme involving members of the Security Counci prevented the UN to assume its responsibilities.

The situation faced by Bush and Obama, fighting an illegal enemy is like no other in American history, and American laws nor international laws were meant to include an international, borderless, nationless armed enemy. One thing is political campaigns and another the reality of the office.

The CIA director on whom Bush depended on and kept as a gesture of bi-partisanship, was a Clinton appointee.

There was no war in Iraq in 2003 initiated by Bush (and remember Bush had bi-partisan approval, the top Democrat leadership included). Bush re-assumed the activation of the cease fire/armistice agreed to in 1991 and violated by Saddam for 12 years, 8 of those under Clinton. In was Clinton in 1998 who made "regime change" American policy for Iraq.

If the continuation in 2003 of the UN approved intervention of Iraq of 1991 was illegal, why then did the UN gave and extended a mandate to the coalition of willing nations? Because the operational concept of "coalition of willing nations" is a principle upheld by the UN Charter, based on the fact that by becoming a UN member no nation is required to resign to its sovereign right to self-defense. "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the UN." (UN Charter, Ch. VII, Art. 51)

President Clinton invoked this principle for his interventions in former Yugoslavia and Haiti.

Again, "If the continuation in 2003 of the UN approved intervention of Iraq of 1991 was illegal, why then did the UN gave and extended a mandate to the coalition of willing nations?"
 
--> SECURITY COUNCIL EXTENDS MANDATE OF UNITED NATIONS IRAQ MISSION FOR 12 MONTHS, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1883, 7 August 2009

The Security Council, reiterating its support to the people and Government of Iraq in their efforts “to build a secure, stable, federal, united and democratic nation, based on the rule of law and respect for human rights”, today extended the mandate of the United Nations Mission in that country for another year.

Recognizing that the security of United Nations personnel was essential for UNAMI to carry out its work, the Council called on the Government of Iraq and other Member States to continue providing security and logistical support to the United Nations presence in the country.

The full text of resolution 1883 (2009) reads as follows:

“The Security Council,

“Reaffirming the independence, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of Iraq,

“Welcoming improvements in the security situation in Iraq achieved through concerted political and security efforts...

“1. Decides to extend the mandate of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) for a period of 12 months from the date of this resolution;

“3. Recognizes that security of United Nations personnel is essential for UNAMI to carry out its work for the benefit of the people of Iraq and calls upon the Government of Iraq and other Member States to continue to provide security and logistical support to the United Nations presence in Iraq;

“4. Welcomes the contributions of Member States in providing UNAMI with the financial, logistical, and security resources and support that it needs to fulfil its mission and calls upon Member States to continue to provide UNAMI with these resources and support;"

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546 was adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council at its 4987th meeting, on 8 June 2004.[1][2][3]

From April 2003 to the end of June 2004 Iraq had been governed by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). The CPA's administrator had an appointed body of Iraqis, the Iraqi Governing Council, that served the CPA in an advisory capacity.

On 30 June 2004, the CPA was scheduled to dissolve and hand power over an Iraqi Interim Government, staffed by appointees chosen by foreigners.

Resolution 1546 endorsed the dissolution of the CPA and the handover to the appointees of the Iraqi Interim Government as a step in Iraq’s transition to a democratically elected government.

The resolution said that the UN was "looking forward" to the end of the occupation and the assumption of full responsibility and authority by a fully sovereign and independent Iraq.

It was superseded by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1637.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1637 was a resolution of the United Nations Security Council extending the mandate of the MNF-I authorized in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546 until 31 December 2006.[1] It was submitted by Denmark, Japan, Romania, the United Kingdom and the United States.

It was superseded/amended/modified by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1723.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1723, submitted by Denmark, Japan, Slovakia, the United Kingdom and the United States, was adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on November 18, 2006, extending the mandate of multi-national forces in Iraq until December 2007, with a force review in June 2007.

The resolution was requested by the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in a letter that was attached to the resolution as an annex, along with a letter from the United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice confirming the force's willingness to continue. The resolution allows for the mandate to be terminated earlier if requested by the Iraqi government.

This resolution follows on from the earlier resolutions providing for the multinational force, resolutions 1546 (which established the multi-national force in 2004) and 1637 (which extended the mandate in 2005).[1]

The full text of resolution 1883 (2009) reads as follows:

“The Security Council,

“Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions on Iraq, in particular 1500 (2003) of 14 August 2003, 1546 (2004) of 8 June 2004, 1557 (2004) of 12 August 2004, 1619 (2005) of 11 August 2005, 1700 (2006) of 10 August 2006, 1770 (2007) of 10 August 2007, and 1830 (2008) of 7 August 2008,

“Reaffirming the independence, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of Iraq,

“Commending the important efforts made by the Government of Iraq to strengthen democracy and the rule of law, to improve security and public order and to combat terrorism ...

“Underscoring the sovereignty of the Government of Iraq...

“1.   Decides to extend the mandate of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) for a period of 12 months from the date of this resolution;

“4.   Welcomes the contributions of Member States in providing UNAMI with the financial, logistical, and security resources and support that it needs to fulfill its mission and calls upon Member States to continue to provide UNAMI with these resources and support; …”

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/sc9725.doc.htm

http://thecommentarybyamoros.blogspot.com/2013/05/a-speech-at-west-point-from-cafe.html


http://thecommentarybyamoros.blogspot.com/2013/05/obama-forcing-generation-to-grow-up.html

http://thecommentarybyamoros.blogspot.com/2013/05/iraq-one-of-great-achievements-of-this.html

THOUGHTS ON WORDS BY POPE FRANCIS

“You know that it was the duty of the Conclave to give Rome a Bishop.  It seems that my brother Cardinals have gone to the ends of the earth to get one… The diocesan community of Rome now has its Bishop. 

And now, we take up this journey:  Bishop and People.  This journey of the Church of Rome which presides in charity over all the Churches.  A journey of fraternity, of love, of trust among us.

I ask a favour of you: before the Bishop blesses his people, I ask you to pray to the Lord that he will bless me: the prayer of the people asking the blessing for their Bishop.”  —Pope Francis

The dream sheet, the long list of concerns particular groups think the Catholic Church must have “if it wants to stay relevant”, seems like a list of one political party advising its rivals as what do “if they really want to win elections.”

But the main concern of the church is not how to remain or become popular by appealing to as many “constituents” as possible, to run for a popularity contest. It has received a mission from its founder, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations…(Mt. 28:19). The Gospel is not subject to political triangulation.

The main practical and pastoral concern of the Church is how to remain and continue to become truly universal (Catholic) in a globalized world in order to fulfill its commission. “We…can build many things, but if we do not profess Jesus Christ…we may become a charitable NGO, but not the Church... (Pope Francis in his first sermon)."

I told my friends after the abdication of Benedict XVI that the new Pope would have to “de-Vaticanize” the Church and “de-Europeanize” the Vatican.  The first words of Pope Francis sound as if he is already involved leading the Church in that task.  

For two millennia, and for obvious historical reasons, from the move to Rome by the apostle Peter, through the fall of the Roman Empire and to this day, the city of Rome and the rise of the Church have been intertwined. So were the Vatican and Europe. It should be no wonder that a process of mutual inculturations have occurred. As global as the Church became in its span after the encounter of Europe with the rest of the world, Rome was still in the Church.

With the advent of the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council the communion between the Church and all humanity, expressed in its Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World as “Nothing that is genuinely human fails to find an echo in their hearts" (the hearts “of the followers of Christ”), finds echo today in the first words of Pope Francis benediction, “Now I will give the Blessing to you and to the whole world, to all men and women of good will.”

With the election of Pope Francis we may be already seeing a reverse process of inculturation. From the lands of the once evangelized, with an exhortation to the new Pope to “not forget the poor”, with his election from outside of Europe and his choice of the name Francis (in honor of St. Francis of Assisi), we may be seeing “the voice from outside” and “below” start a reverse evangelization of the church, the “de-Vaticanization” of the Church and the “de-Europeanization” of the Vatican. 

We sometimes forget that what makes a Pope a “Pope” is not the pomp and circumstance, or the centralized administration of the Church and of its temporal assets in a complex of buildings but the primacy of the bishop of Rome as the first church among all the churches, its universality expressed in the individual churches but in unity with Rome, “…which presides in charity over all the Churches.” 

The emphasis of Pope Francis on his figure primarily as bishop of Rome, as “Bishop and People”, and not as Pope or pontiff, point toward the church and the bishop in Rome not as “Church Central”, and end into itself but as a stop in the Christian journey in the manner of the apostle Peter, the first bishop of Rome, “This journey of the Church of Rome…” A bishop for which “…my brother Cardinals have gone to the ends of the earth to get one…”

The fact that the other bishops selected for Bishop of Rome a bishop from another side of the world reiterates not only the universality of the Church but also reminds us that the Church is the organic sum of all the parts of a living body, and not just an administrative central see in a specific geographic location. This organic whole in parts is the true and primitive sense of Catholicism (καθολικός, katholikos, "universal"; from καθόλου, katholou, "according to the whole").

The traditional papal salute “Urbi et orbe” (“to the city and to the world”) has become in fact “Ex orbe ad urbi” (“from the world to the city”). It is going to be interesting to see the impact of this papacy not only in the whole of the Church but also in international geopolitics.  May it all serve well “to all men and women of good will.”

Four More Years in Mediacracy

Yesterday democracy won and republicanism lost. I’m not talking about the high and lofty versions of those notions but in their popular senses.

I said elsewhere that half of the electorate would vote to ensure that the other half keeps subsidizing them, in one way or another. That if the first half wins two things are going to happen. First, the second half will have to work longer and harder to do two things in turn, one to keep their current life style, and two to help maintain the first half where they are. Second, the first half will increase in numbers as the second half will decrease in theirs. This will ensure the reelection ad perpetuam of those for whom the first half voted. And that depending on what half voters are or think they are is how most likely they would vote.

Some people could not understand the social and economic description of this political reality and took personal exceptions. The numbers are there. Democratic populism succeeded in demonstrating its hegemony over the popular culture, its means of production and control. Republicanism lost by failing to occupy that space.

I conducted mock elections among my students yesterday in two classes. And Obama won 2 to 1 (almost 3 to 1). Interestingly enough that is about the same ratio between the students that are lazy and want everything given to them, and those that actually want to work for their grades.

Racism also won. Most blacks voted again for Obama based on racial identity. And Democrat media pundits and celebrities used the race card against “the white guy”. Classism also won against “the rich guy”. Ironically, super wealthy celebrities mostly used this canard.

If the numbers of unhappy Ron Paul supporters who stayed home had an impact then libertarianism also lost, in fact, it may have died of irrelevance as a political movement, a Ross Perot type of footnote in political history.

In 2008 candidate Obama ran a campaign on themes of “hope”, “change”, “new politics”, upbeat mood. He won but not with a mandate. In 2012 President Obama ran on moving “forward”, yet based his campaign on the demonization of his opponent.

Now the Rubicon has been crossed. At least 50% of the American people are voting on feelings. Many of my female friends voted for Obama simply because “I feel like he listens to me”, or “he makes me feel good.”

Perhaps liberal political advisors like Dr. George Lakoff, a linguist and cognitive scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, was right when he suggested that voters should be made “to feel” not “to think”. According to Dr. Lakoff, the opinions of voters are neither logical nor self-arrived at, and therefore should be ignored. Instead, campaigns should rely less on facts and more on emotional images and dramatization, “casting progressives as heroes, and by implication, conservatives as villains.”

Again Obama does not have a strong mandate. Up to last week he could not rise above 50% in the polls. Perhaps this time he will learn the art of the democratic compromise or like a friend of mine says nothing will happen. “This administration's second term will be just like Clinton's second term: nothing but House committees investigating everything from Benghazi through the real nuts and bolts of the auto "bailout". The health care act will be blocked from funding. Another wasted four years.” It is going to be up to President Obama and the Democrat leadership.

As the gap between the dependent and the self-reliant decreases, so will the ambit of liberty. Those who understand this understand the risks of democracy. But they also understand the greater risks of having no democracy; as someone said, “Democracy is not perfect but is better than the alternative.” Information and access to information will is essential to preserve it. We cannot count on the press. It is a mediocre press. We live in mediacracy.

President Obama has a new lease on his political life to show what he meant when he promised four years ago a "new tone and politics in Washington". He admitted a few weeks ago that Washington "can't be changed from the inside". It will be fascinating to watch his other approach, if he has one. If the record of the last four years is telling I don't expect him to seek compromise. Yet, there is still hope.

WE ARE ALL COLUMBUS! LONG LIVE COLUMBUS! CELEBRATE DISCOVERY!

I will not be joining the Neo-Stalinist, Orwellian, “politically correct” rewriting of history for political manipulation of “Columbus Day”. Instead, I will celebrate the human spirit of discovery.

In North Anglo-Saxon America, with its emphasis on the individual, what is celebrated is the individual achievement of a man. From a cultural point of view that’s understandable. In Latin America what is observed or celebrated is “El día de la raza”; literally “the day of the race”. It celebrates the multi-ethnic, multi-racial composition of the Americas, contrary to the almost racist connotation that some “radical” sectors now imply.

Since no human individual is perfect—much less any historical figure—what should never be overlooked in Columbus is our common human patrimony. We commemorate the human spirit of exploration, of discovery, of empirical research, of courage, of going against the current against superstition and obscurantism.

When in 1992 I was invited to be in a panel on the 500th anniversary of the Discovery of the Americas by Europe, sponsored by The National Endowment for the Humanities, I made some discoveries of my own.

As a Hispanic representative I discovered I was supposed to be there as the token victim of Columbus. I discovered that the purpose of the conference was not to develop a fresh and new historical consideration, a “corrective balance”, but an effort to reinvent history for a political purpose. I also discovered that some who claim to help us in fact want to keep us down.

Since then the anti-Columbus Day “correction” hides a new Black Legend. We are no longer talking about the spirit of discovery, courage and ingenuity, the gallantry of the Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians and Europeans in general.

We are not telling our children that they too share in the founding of this country and that before Jamestown there was San Juan; that before Plymouth Rock there was St. Augustin; that before Denver and Las Vegas there was San Francisco and Los Angeles; that before Lewis and Clarke there was Coronado. Nor are we telling them that all of these have some things in common. They were all founded on sacrifice, hard work, sweat and tears, and yes, ambition and greed, but also self-denial.

No, we are now telling our children that before their Spanish ancestors there was paradise, after the arrival of their ancestors only genocide, disease and pillage. Euphemisms have been developed in lieu of the dreaded word “discovery”. “The encounter”, “the exchange”, “the clash” are phrases that are supposed to make us feel better and lift the indigenous from the ignominy of having been discovered.

Yes, in the process of indeed discovering something that was truly unknown to them, there were abuses committed by Europeans. But contrary to the paradisiacal view that politically correct “corrections” want to rewrite, Spaniards were actually shocked and thought they had arrived at the very gates of hell after witnessing indigenous practices of human sacrifice.

The question for educators is this: how do you intend to lift the self-image and self-understanding of a generation of Hispanic students when you are telling them that at least half of their heritage is nothing but a heritage of brutes and genocidal maniacs? What this history should teach us all is not just how evil some historical figures were, but that we all have the potential to be just like them; or to be the opposite.

Spanish conquest was distinct from all others in that from the beginning it developed an ethical process of self-examination. Even in their historically limited world-view the “Indian” was lower in the order of things and yet they had a place in the human order and incorporation. Other conquests simply set out to remove them and in many cases simply to exterminate them. For the Spanish, as a whole, there was no “a good Indian is a dead Indian”.

As a result of that history, and because soldiers and “conquistadores” were not the only ones who came with and after Columbus, Spain emerged as a world pioneer in the philosophy and jurisprudence of human rights. Missionaries, appreciative of the level of culture they found were responsible for the preservation of invaluable indigenous cultural artifacts, documents and codices of the time. It was those same missionaries who came to their defense. It was they and the Spanish crown, not a commission of 20th Century historians who were responsible for the eventual arrest and removal of Columbus.

Ironically, Fr. Bartolomé de las Casas, who in his effort to defend the Indians also became one of the greatest contributors to the Black Legend, in the end protested against the New World being called America, in honor of a traveler named Amerigo Vespucci. He thought that in all due credit it should have been named Colombia.

So, without overlooking Columbus’ shortcomings I will celebrate his courage and vision. I will celebrate the fusion of cultures that is the Caribbean. I will celebrate the courageous resistance of our indigenous people and the resilience of Africans.

I will celebrate the spirit of Fr. Bartolomé de las Casas for standing against Columbus and defending the Indians and the spirit of Fr. Francisco Victoria who became the acknowledged “father of international law and human rights” in the process. And I will celebrate the positive human qualities of Columbus and the spirit of discovery of his era for as Victor Hugo said, “The glory of Columbus is not so much in having arrived, but in having lifted anchors.”

THE (TRAGIC) DISGRACE OF 9/11

-->

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”  -Thomas Jefferson

The event of 9/11 was an American disgrace not a tragedy.

“Tragedy” has become such a misused and misapplied word that is has lost its real meaning, depriving it of its seriousness and human dignity.  It has become a term to cover every form of loss of human life regardless of the circumstances, from accidental drowning to car accidents.

The classics say otherwise. Oedipus, the main character in classic Greek tragedy, is visited by a fate of misfortune and misery not because of unexpected, unconnected circumstances out of his control in life, but by his own doings. Oedipus is not altogether an innocent victim of fate.

In the classical sense tragedy occurs when a character brings upon himself a turn of fortune (usually from good to bad). We observe how a character makes mistakes upon mistakes trying to fix a dealt bad hand and is not able to see the complex compilation of those mistakes in his future.  Pride plays a central role in tragedy, as it does not allow the character the moral judgment necessary to see his predicament. 

The audience fears and at the same time feels pity for the character, and even cheers for him and hopes that in the end he can break from the logical but ominous path he have set for himself.  We know our character is not a bad person, just simply blind. In the end, we are able to release the tension the play creates in us because a tragedy bring us healing, but only if one is able to reconcile the facts that led to the tragic ending and the final fate of the character.

Even though we feel pity for the character, in the end we accept that his fate was all his own. The character is not innocent. That is tragedy.

When I hear of 9/11 referred to as “tragedy”, I have to ask, what was the guilt of its victims? Yes, we heard some, like former professor Ward Churchill (people working at the WTC were “little Eichmanns”) and even a linguist like Noam Chomsky blame American policies for 9/11. And even a college textbook has this conclusion, “The root cause [of world violence] is not terrorist activity. It is the relationship between the United States and the Islamic world. Until this central cancerous problem is treated, Americans will never be free from fear.”  We have also heard “They hate us for our freedom.” 

None of the statements above can be proven as true, but they serve the tragic version of 9/11. We deserved it therefore the victims of 9/11 deserved it too. But does that make it a tragedy, even if true?

Contrast the term “disgrace”.  It means “shame”, “dishonor”, “humiliation” it’s the antonym of canonization, exaltation.  And that is what 9/11 is, a disgrace.  On 9/11/01 the United States of America was disgraced, not as result of anything its victims did, knowingly or not, but by politics, cheap politics.

On 9/11 we were disgraced by politicians that did practically nothing after the first attack in 1993, even after a formal declaration of war by al-Qaeda; they disgraced the victims, and the country. The same politicians who tell us we are safer today because a 90 year old woman has to leave her wheelchair to be patted down like a criminal, or a 3 year old child has the fingers of a government employee run through his intimate clothing.

Politicians and their spouses, working for airline industry lobbies that successfully lobbied legislators for lower security standards at airports disgraced us. The same politicians that still allow for uncontrolled open borders knowing that groups like Hezbollah operate in Mexico and Venezuela.

You see, nearly 3,000 human beings were killed on 9/11 through no fault or guilt of their own. Was 9/11 a tragedy? It never was. When a "9/11" happens again who knows, perhaps, next time it will.

A climate change I can believe in (From Cafe Magazine March 12, 2010)

By now the reasonable, the rational, should know that there are serious problems with the whole “climate change” agenda.  
We have recently seen how leading scientists and institutions who have been promoting the “climate change” agenda have been caught and have admitted to fudging data in order to establish “scientific” evidence of global warming. If one thing has change it is the climate of the debate itself.
 
Resignations from East Anglia University, the leading institution in the “climate change” debacle, to resignations at the United Nations point to serious problems. The worst is how science has been used for political purposes. We were first told we faced a problem of “global warming” but when dissident voices within the scientific community began not only to question but to expose serious problems with the conclusions the terms then changed. It became no longer politically feasible to keep calling the problem “global warming”. “Climate change” became the new call to arms.
 
“Climate change” is such a general concept that it really means nothing to those who deal with the weather on a professional basis. Yet to the general public it is a concept so vague that it can include anything that the “global warming” prophets want it associated with. But as any airline pilot will tell you there is “climate change” every day, indeed, every hour, and every minute.
 
For many people “global warming” has become a religion. But what we need is reliable, non-politically driven scientific research to determine first of all if there is global warming occurring, and then to find out what the real cause or causes may be. The division is really not between those who think that humans may have an impact on the environment and those who do not, but whether current claims that current global warming is caused by humans.
 
There is a narrative attached to the whole debate that seems to go beyond the mere climatological inquiry and it has political undertones. The bottom line is that the connection is being made or attempted to be made between global warming and human progress, especially as led by capitalist, free-market societies. The conclusion, as seen by some of the solutions being proposed, seems to be ahead of the scientific determination of the problem: curtail life in developed nations, make them pay for global warming, excuse developing nations.
 
What became more telling about the whole debacle and scandal of “climate change” was the actors who most pushed for adoption of a Copenhagen accord. At that gathering the international leader who received the longest standing ovation was Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. His anti-U.S., anti-capitalism rant was applauded extensively. A few weeks later Osama bin Laden joined the cause.
 

We need to ask--regardless of any scientific merits—what is really driving those who have found in “climate change” a new political home? A leading global warming scientist Dr. Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in Britain, just recently stepped down as director. It was discovered they were manipulating data to strengthen the argument for man-made global warming. That data was been used by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to demand of governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions. It was also used to produce the “graph” showing temperatures relatively stable for centuries as counterpart to dramatic rise in recent decades. Yvo de Boer, the U.N.'s top climate official, has also resigned.

 

I do not need the global warming religion to be a concerned and responsible citizen toward the environment. But I do want to believe that science should remain above political agendas.

 
President Obama insists that we should believe in “climate change”. President Obama, I want to believe, please help my unbelief.

Rethinking Obama (reposted here from Cafe Magazine October 26, 2009)

I'm nearing the conclusion, as much "benefit of the doubt" I have tried to give President Obama, that we are not dealing with any of all those reasons to explain Obama one can find in conspiracy theories of the left or the right. I'm beginning to think it is all more banal and simple than all that.

I think we have in Obama the perfect and final product of the 1960's. If some kind of liberal/left Dr. Frankenstein had decided to create the perfect president for the future he would have produced Obama.

First, he would have given him Obama's psychological profile (see WOUNDED EGOS ON THE WORLD STAGE ), then he would have added all the 60's elements starting with heavy doses of pop-psychology, "I'm Okay, You're Okay" hypersensitivity, then a good quantity of "Dr. Spock's" prescription for an undeserved and aggrandized sense of self-importance and self-esteem.

He would then deconstruct any and all inherited positive views of America and reprogram his brain to see America as the reason for all the world's misery and corruption. By way of a "Clockwork Orange" type of conditioning he would proceed to ingrain in him an automatic and guttural distaste for anything military. He would fill him with a populist center-left rhetoric capable of fooling even the most educated.

And finally, imprint in him the notion that the rest of the world is really a multicultural mélange of the United Colors of Benetton waiting for the luminescence of a world Messiah as they sing "We are the world" and not for a way to advance their own interests.

In the meantime, we will either laugh or cry as we watch "the creature" running around like the emperor who has no clothes; while decisions that need to be taken are not, but appear to be.

Bush was smart. And that's the difference I make between smart and intelligent. They are not mutually exclusive but sometimes you could be only one. I think Bush was both. But Bush was not an "intellectual". Liberals and academicians especially, confuse intelligence with "intellectualism". That is why Obama has been and will continue to sit around surrounded with "pointy heads", pondering, contemplating what needs to be done.

Smart has to do more with "street smarts", business acumen, etc. A smart and intelligent person knows what needs to be done and does it. The "intellectual" is mostly abstract and see things in the abstract, he is afraid of being wrong so he will ponder for ever, without taking sides or a decision. The smart and intelligent one goes to Harvard for an MBA (Bush); the "intellectual" goes to Harvard and academia, community organizing (Obama).

When Mao said "Power is born from the barrel of a gun", it made sense. The problem is that liberals confuse "Power" with "Authority". A rapist with a gun has "power" over its victim but no authority. Today's Liberals do not believe in essential democratic values. They have de-constructed everything down to "power". Our Founding Fathers believed in power but that power resides in authority, that is "authorship", and that the authors of that power are “the people”, not the government as a separate, autonomous entity. Communists, liberals, etc., only believe in power. They reject authority. Authority requires legitimacy. Power requires only force.

Bush understood the logistic problems of having troops mobilized and waiting in the dessert for an attack on Iraq. On the way to the invasion of Iraq liberals did not understand those realities. Obama doesn't know these things either. He doesn't understand what it takes to mobilize an army and have it at peak preparation. He must think that it is just like getting on Air Force One to go to Europe to lobby for the Olympics and be back in two days.

Bush made a strategy based decision. At the height of the war against al-Qaeda his put-together coalition attacked, squashed and left Afghanistan, and then picked a better fighting ground that favored American doctrine of “re-shaping the Middle East” by moving to Iraq. Both actions were approved by the Democrats.

But let’s not forget that to win the election the Democrats had to diminish the public's view of the security brought us by Bush's bold action. Hence the Democrats mantras: "Bush took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan” and the ever popular, "Iraq is a war of choice" and “Afghanistan is a war of necessity.”

Well, now they are forced to focus on Afghanistan. Now winning depends on success in a place where nobody has ever won...long term, yet. Now we have to fight in a place that is a defensive force multiplier and probably do things that this group will not have the stomach for, bringing the full force of military occupation into play.

So yes, Iraq was a war of choice. What war isn’t? Successful commanders always force the fight on ground that favors them. Iraq was most favorable to establish a buffer zone between Iran and other interested parties against U.S. interest in the region.

President elect Obama and his team were briefed in full detail on the review and recommendations for Afghanistan in the fall of 2008. They accepted the evaluation and took it as their own. In March, President Obama announced the implementation of a strategy that was based on that review. He appointed Gen. McChrystal. Now “the war of necessity” is being treated as a “war of choice” due to the basic stability of Iraq, “the war of choice”.