As Baghdad sizzles, Condi fiddles and Bush piddles over “Long War” riddle

The Bush Administration has been trying to have it both ways since 9/11 in the security vs. liberty argument. At home their covert actions have been suggesting to us for some time that in order to ensure our security, we need to sacrifice some of our liberties. But then abroad, they have been pushing liberty at a tremendous expense of security – where far more innocent, non-American lives are being lost on a daily basis. This high incidence of “collateral damage” is not only morally repugnant, but also a cause for increasing disenchantment with America around the world.

To therefore help keep an increasingly skeptical American public engaged, the Bush Administration has begun drawing parallels between the longevity of the Cold War and what some in the Administration have been referring to lately as the “Long War” (a.k.a. the “War on Terror”). In any event, they cannot continue to unilaterally violate a sacrosanct principle common to these two ideological struggles: the preservation of liberty as enshrined in the Constitution. Ironically, the preservation of liberty – which their oxymoronic “Long War” policy now seeks to curtail in order to secure – was the rai•son d'être for the Cold War.

The genesis of the “Long War” was an attempt by the Bush Administration to establish a dubious link between Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda and 9/11. This blatantly false equivalence was used as a rationalization to divert the true “war on terror” from Afghanistan to Iraq. To make matters worse, after no WMD were found in Iraq, the Bush Administration changed its phony primary objective to an even harder, secondary objective of “establishing democracy” in Iraq. In recent Senate testimony, the top two Pentagon officials politely suggested that it is hard for a democracy to function in the midst of a civil war. This stark testimony leaves President Bush with a Hobson’s choice – to continue to promote “democracy” or try to contain a civil war.

Is it any wonder then that almost 60% of the American public now believes that the Iraq war was a mistake? In the light of which, it is quite surprising that Senator Lieberman, a strong supporter of President Bush’s “Long War” policy, lost his primary bid for reelection in a deep blue state by only a narrow four point margin. One could conclude that Senator Lieberman took his constituents for granted and paid a price for it. However, based on his post-primary remarks, “For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let that result stand” it appears that Bush-style hubris has infected Senator Lieberman as well.

The morning after his humiliating loss in the primary, Senator Lieberman proclaimed, “I am even more devoted to my state and my country,” as his justification for making an independent run in November. Senator Lieberman may think that he is putting his country first, but he is definitely putting himself second, and his party last among his priorities. He does not seem to care how his selfish power grab might affect the chances of his Democratic Party in winning back the Congress – ironically, from those very Republicans he now hopes will help elect him as an independent senator.

As far as the “Long War” is concerned, it’s quite apparent that both parties are playing politics with what “The Daily Show” host, Jon Stewart, so presciently called “Mess-O-Potamia” shortly after it began. Many people now see President Bush’s “Long War” strategy as trying to “stay the course”, even if it’s a failing one, for the next two-and-one-half years – then to “get outta Dodge” and leave it to the next administration to clean up the mess. Personally, I had an epiphany while watching Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on a recent Sunday morning talk show. It seemed to me like she was fiddling while Baghdad was going up in flames. One can only hope that the larger American public will resist political fear mongering, as was witnessed in the aftermath of the foiled London plot last week, and hold the Bush Administration’s feet to this messianic fire of its own volition. As Baghdad sizzles, we can no longer afford to have Condi fiddle and Bush piddle with the “Long War” riddle – they either solve it or “Lamont” (i.e. lament) the consequences of a November tsunami!

Desperate Maladies Require Desperate Remedies

At the outset, I must confess that I have not read Jhumpa Lahiri’s 1999 best seller, “Interpreter of Maladies”. Nonetheless, I have an interpretation for western civilization’s post-9/11 maladies that might not be palatable to its civil libertarians. Following the 7/7 and 7/21 suicide bomber attacks in London, it has become apparent that western civilization is being threatened in a way that demands any proposed remedies to be equally extreme. In the war on terrorism, Europe is fast approaching a point—which we have probably already breached in America—where freedom can no longer be considered a right but a privilege for its troublesome few. In this regard, any political solution would necessarily have to increase its focus on the wayward children of first generation immigrants in western societies.

In support of my desperate remedies reasoning, I recall a Bollywood movie from my days as a youth in India. In the movie an Indian soldier of a minority faith is faced with a classical dilemma when he needs to choose between the apparently conflicting demands of his religion and the pressing needs of his country? I remember billboards around Bombay asking ordinary citizens to vote on the matter prior to the movie’s release. Not surprisingly, the movie producers claimed that over 75% of the citizens chose country over religion! This Bollywood movie exemplifies the predicament faced by some first generation immigrants in western societies today. Given its poor record of assimilating its immigrant population, Western Europe shouldn’t be shocked to find out that a few of its first generation immigrants probably put the demands of their faith before the interests of their adopted country, which could be at cross-purposes at times.

Based on the initial reports from the 7/7 investigations, it seems that Britain’s first generation immigrant parents did not have a clue as to the terrorist proclivities of their progeny. Well, then it is about time Britain tested its “meet the parents” hypothesis. Some British children, of first generation immigrant parents, might not give a hoot about the country adopted by their mothers and fathers. However, if these misguided souls are religious fanatics, they surely must care a lot about the welfare of their diligent parents. After all, their parents did leave their native land to ensure that these ingrates lived a better life in Britain. Thus, my tough love proposal calls on Britain to pass a law that would seek the deportation of first generation parents of these suicide bombers back to their native countries.

The assumption here—while these suicide bombers might place their religion above the adopted country of their parents, they surely cannot love their religion more than their own parents—is a culturally accepted one. It’s high time that these misguided youth were made to realize that their foolish actions will force their parents to "inherit" punitive consequences. No longer will the planned murders of innocent patrons of mass transit systems go unpunished. Henceforth, these selfish and cowardly acts will additionally penalize the parents of these second generation suicide bombers. This will become a case of the sins of the children being visited upon their parents, which amounts to a rather harsh judgment in some cultures. I don’t write this lightly—my wife and I are both first-generation immigrant citizens of the United States, and we constantly pray that we have brought up our children to lead responsible, law-abiding lives in the country that we love and have adopted as our home. I hope that the deportation law that I have proposed will go a long way in stopping the madness—of this random killing of innocents by ungrateful children, who just happen to be citizens of civilized western societies only due to the accident of their birth!

London - At Sixes and Sevens

Jolly old London gave new meaning to a typical English phrase, “at sixes and sevens”, when a string of bombs went off in the heart of the city the day after it had been selected as the venue for the 2012 Olympics. Brits were truly at sixes and sevens – on the sixth, they were in seventh heaven after London trumped Paris to become the host city for the 2012 Olympics, but the very next day, on the seventh, their euphoria was abruptly deep-sixed by the bombings.

Back home newspaper editorials were spinning this tragedy in line with their respective ideologies. Thus, in my left hand, The New York Times wondered “why the wealthy nations have not done enough about the root causes of terrorism and why Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden continue to function after almost four years of the so-called war on terrorism.” While, in my right hand, The Wall Street Journal suggested that “retreat from battling the Islamists in the Middle East would only make it easier for them to take the battle to us at home, as they did yesterday in London.”

Nevertheless, it was Tunku Varadarajan, editorial features editor of The Wall Street Journal, who nailed the British character for what it is in an apolitical tribute. In the Weekend Journal’s De Gustibus column entitled, “The Sign Says 'Take Courage' and the Brits Do”, Mr. Varadarajan wrote:

It really is considered unseemly to complain, or to feel sorry for oneself, among Britons: This aversion to self-pity is bad for the terrorists, who thrive on attention and the sowing of chaos. They won’t get much satisfaction in Britain. Londoners will not retreat into their shells, and they are unlikely to do as the Spaniards did and draw out the tragedy with a lot of public recrimination, or to capitulate in any way.

The secret of British composure is that Britons really do feel proud of their civilization. On the whole, they apologize for very little, which is as it should be. Their message to terrorists is always likely to be straight and robust: “How dare you! I'm British!”

So I suspect that the sixes and sevens are not going to last for very long and our dear friends across the pond will collectively pick themselves up, dust off their jacket, stick their chest out, put their chin up, and show those damn cowards how civilized people behave. As for me, the next time I am in London, I am going to use the Underground as usual – but to the first gent that I bump into on the tube, I will proffer, “Mr. Livingstone, I presume.”