As a nation, we grieve (and rightly so) for the loss of CIA personnel who died last week in Afghanistan, doing the work they were called to do. Indeed, they and those who work for intelligence agencies are our first line of defense; the information they provide is vital in mapping out good security and defense strategies against the enemy. This particular group, according to this article, is a big blow to US efforts in the area because it was composed of experienced field officers with “unique capabilities and attributes.” It is without doubt that they risked -- and ultimately sacrificed their lives -- for their country, for which we owe them sincere thanks.
As part of their regional mission, the group’s main objective, according to intelligence experts, was to recruit local operatives who could provide information from the field and identify targets. As Bruce Hoffman, professor at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service said, “The best intelligence is going to come from the field, and that means working closely with the Afghans.”
But what makes a good local operative? How can the intelligence community judge if a local is fit for the job? And when is it time to know if that person has the right character worthy of trust? Certainly, his language skills and familiarity with the local conditions are important. But those are not enough! More important are his cultural insight, his loyalty (both political and religious), his worldview. Against what standards the intelligence community should judge all these factors are the blanks that must be urgently filled in.
For more often than not, the culture of which a local operative is part does not possess the proper ingredients with which to produce a liberal character. His loyalty is to his community and religion, informed by a powerful sentiment called nationalism that emphasizes the ethnic and the particular at the expense of the universal. Hence, his worldview is often myopic and parochial.
But he, like everyone else, does possess reason that enables him to discern certain truths about the human condition.
Socrates teaches us in our meditation of the human condition that we should always begin with reality, wherever it takes us. But reality takes on different forms in different cultures, faiths, social living, etc. Yet, the human condition since the beginning of time has remained the same, constantly beset by the struggle between good and evil, the just and the unjust, the free and the unfree. Poverty and injustice faced by the ancients are the very same problems that we grapple with these days.
But we have also learned that there are principles of politics that transcend centuries and continents that inform the human condition, such as the principles of natural justice and natural rights. In modern democratic times, these principles are embodied in the Declaration of Independence: that all men, endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are created equal; that it is the duty of the government to secure and maintain these rights; and if that government becomes abusive of its powers, it becomes a right of a people to overthrow that government. Power is not what is efficient and effective, but what is reasonable and just.
If a local operative is cognizant of the universal truth that is the human condition and the first principles that should inform it, he earns our trust.
If the intelligence community could hire foreign operatives bestowed with this understanding, men and women who possess an insight into the human soul and the environment it lives in, have knowledge of first principles outlined above, can appreciate the importance of the universal at the expense of the particular, the war on terror is half-won.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Chavez and Ahmadinejad: Strange Bedfellows, Indeed
One of the more interesting photos that came out of the Copenhagen world summit was a photo of Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, embracing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, for the world -- well, the US, specifically -- to take note that this blossoming relationship is turning into an alliance to be reckoned with.
This is curious at best. What about their ideological dogmatism that sets them apart? On one hand, the socialism espoused by Chavez is premised on a materialist philosophy that frames world events into a dialectical conflict of economic interests and disregards religion as an opiate of the masses. On the other, Ahmadinejad’s Islamic Republic of Iran is grounded on politico-religious foundations, aimed at achieving a state of other-worldliness not only for Iran but for the rest of the world. Ahmadinejad is one of the Muslim world’s leaders who believes that the apocalypse is about to come through the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam.
But it seems such ideological differences do not deter them from embracing each other’s cause.
We’ll take their self-proclaimed piety at face value, since what they are espousing is indefensible, anyway. We’re astute enough, though, to note that what they have is nothing but philosophical adventurism and opportunism, finding commonalities in two things: 1) an understanding that populist politics is what propels tyrants to power; and, 2) that they have found a common enemy in the United States.
Populist politics is a politics of privilege and connections achieved by playing to the crowd. In its political form, it entails winning elections on the strength of a candidate’s charismatic appeal, social standing, and ability to get votes. Once in office, populist politicians set the tone for their agenda. They begin to assume the role of paternal rulers and treat their voters as children to be patronized rather than as constituents to be heard. They speak on behalf of the people for they view the people as too ignorant, impoverished, and undignified to partake in the complicated task of policy-making. Populist politicians have a total disregard for the workings of institutions. They think that they are over and above the reach of institutional checks provided by law.
In its economic form, populism manifests itself in economic decisions that rely on government intervention for solutions. Using a statist approach, a populist government determines which popular economic policies can gain support for itself.
Both Chavez and Ahmadinejad engage in this form of politics. But they get away with it because they have found a scapegoat in the United States upon which to put all the blame, all the ills plaguing their societies. Using the narrative of imperialism, they argue that the division of the world today between rich and poor countries is attributed to a large-scale exploitation by the former over the latter, with the United States as the greatest exploiters of them all. What Chavez said in Copenhagen affirms this: the world is “not democratic, it is not inclusive, but isn’t that the reality of our world, the world is really an imperial dictatorship…down with imperial dictatorships,” for which he got a standing ovation.
P.T Bauer has offered ample evidence debunking the theory of imperialism. Regardless of this evidence – that what cause poverty in many poor ccountries are endemic graft and corruption, ethnic wars, lack of capacities and institutions favorable to material progress, as well as certain cultural values and religious beliefs that do not give high value on material achievements – populist tyrants lie to their people. Instead of making their country move forward by inviting outside capital and harnessing the initiative, creativity, enthusiasm, industry, and diligence of their people, these leaders make them weak and dependent, depriving them of the very opportunities that will enable them to achieve a life of dignity and well-being.
Regardless of their ideological differences, socialists and radical Muslims seem to have found common cause in their self-righteous indignation against America.
This is curious at best. What about their ideological dogmatism that sets them apart? On one hand, the socialism espoused by Chavez is premised on a materialist philosophy that frames world events into a dialectical conflict of economic interests and disregards religion as an opiate of the masses. On the other, Ahmadinejad’s Islamic Republic of Iran is grounded on politico-religious foundations, aimed at achieving a state of other-worldliness not only for Iran but for the rest of the world. Ahmadinejad is one of the Muslim world’s leaders who believes that the apocalypse is about to come through the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam.
But it seems such ideological differences do not deter them from embracing each other’s cause.
We’ll take their self-proclaimed piety at face value, since what they are espousing is indefensible, anyway. We’re astute enough, though, to note that what they have is nothing but philosophical adventurism and opportunism, finding commonalities in two things: 1) an understanding that populist politics is what propels tyrants to power; and, 2) that they have found a common enemy in the United States.
Populist politics is a politics of privilege and connections achieved by playing to the crowd. In its political form, it entails winning elections on the strength of a candidate’s charismatic appeal, social standing, and ability to get votes. Once in office, populist politicians set the tone for their agenda. They begin to assume the role of paternal rulers and treat their voters as children to be patronized rather than as constituents to be heard. They speak on behalf of the people for they view the people as too ignorant, impoverished, and undignified to partake in the complicated task of policy-making. Populist politicians have a total disregard for the workings of institutions. They think that they are over and above the reach of institutional checks provided by law.
In its economic form, populism manifests itself in economic decisions that rely on government intervention for solutions. Using a statist approach, a populist government determines which popular economic policies can gain support for itself.
Both Chavez and Ahmadinejad engage in this form of politics. But they get away with it because they have found a scapegoat in the United States upon which to put all the blame, all the ills plaguing their societies. Using the narrative of imperialism, they argue that the division of the world today between rich and poor countries is attributed to a large-scale exploitation by the former over the latter, with the United States as the greatest exploiters of them all. What Chavez said in Copenhagen affirms this: the world is “not democratic, it is not inclusive, but isn’t that the reality of our world, the world is really an imperial dictatorship…down with imperial dictatorships,” for which he got a standing ovation.
P.T Bauer has offered ample evidence debunking the theory of imperialism. Regardless of this evidence – that what cause poverty in many poor ccountries are endemic graft and corruption, ethnic wars, lack of capacities and institutions favorable to material progress, as well as certain cultural values and religious beliefs that do not give high value on material achievements – populist tyrants lie to their people. Instead of making their country move forward by inviting outside capital and harnessing the initiative, creativity, enthusiasm, industry, and diligence of their people, these leaders make them weak and dependent, depriving them of the very opportunities that will enable them to achieve a life of dignity and well-being.
Regardless of their ideological differences, socialists and radical Muslims seem to have found common cause in their self-righteous indignation against America.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
'Americans as Occupiers'
While our military generals prosecuting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are clear in providing us with a rationale behind these wars, namely, to destroy al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other extremist Islamist groups that pose a threat to both national and global security interests, many in the Muslim world, including home-grown terrorists, do not see things that way. They view the Americans as “occupiers.” According to Pervez Hoodbhoy, a nuclear physicist and defense analyst in Islamabad, “’The U.S. is seen as an occupier in Afghanistan, and there's no way that can be turned around.’ He said that a Taliban victory in Afghanistan would be ‘terrible for Pakistan,’ but that the United States had created the problem and must ‘clean up the mess before it leaves’” (Washington Post, “Pakistanis voice concerns about Obama's new Afghanistan plan”).
Let’s dignify this charge for a moment and take it seriously. What does it mean to be an occupier? What does empire-building entail for both the colonizer and the colonized?
The history of the world is a history of the rise and fall of empires. That’s just how it is. Most recent to date were the British imperial rule in South Asia, America’s colonial rule in the Philippines , the spread of Nazi totalitarian rule across Europe, and the expansion of Soviet communism in Eastern Europe, among others. There were good and bad empires. But what makes an empire civilizing, according to Churchill, is when it promotes the interests and welfare of the colonized, hence, “a cure to the disease of tyrannical rule” (Churchill, Liberalism and the Social Problem, 156).
What makes it unjust? An empire is unjust, Churchill says, if it does not help in elevating the uncivilized world from barbarism and savagery towards a life of dignity and well-being. In defending the British Empire, he says that empire-building should not rest only on altruism, nor does it have to be motivated only by self-seeking, narrow interests: "To be just, empire must be grounded on a higher sentiment and principle, but that higher motivation must reside midway between extreme formulas.” This higher motivation lies in an imperial people's desire to improve themselves, for sharing the benefits of civilization with those who do not possess them can make an imperial people more human. In Churchill's view, "Ruling its empire justly further civilizes an imperial nation. At its best, empire is not a burden to be endured but an opportunity for individual and national self-improvement" (Kirk Emmert, Winston S. Churchill on Empire, 53).
Can a democratic nation engage in empire-building? According to Emmert,
Democratic empire would seem to rest on an alliance between two quite different views of justice and the political good. The democratic view looks to equality grounded in a commonly shared humanity, the imperial view to inequality as it is manifested in the superiority of the fully civilized few; the democrat insists upon the primacy of rights, the imperialist upon the primacy of obligations; the democratic elevation of freedom and individualism contrasts with the imperial stress on virtue and man’s political nature; the highest purpose of modern democratic government is to encourage the private pursuit of happiness and the source of its legitimacy is popular consent; the purpose of an imperial government is to promote civilization, and “intrinsic merit” is its title to rule. If democratic empire is to be a viable form of government these fundamentally different principles and the practices which spring from them, must be able to coexist within an imperial democracy (Ibid., 66-67).
That is, until subjugated peoples are able to create the conditions for democracy and justice themselves, a good regime, even from afar, can adopt and employ an aristocratic view of what is morally good and politically just for them.
Between the extremist ideology and cruel rule of the Taliban and al-Qaeda on one side and the US policy of defending, securing, and supporting the local population on the other, can’t reasonable people in the Muslim world conclude that sometimes in the grand scheme of things occupiers are really liberators?
Let’s dignify this charge for a moment and take it seriously. What does it mean to be an occupier? What does empire-building entail for both the colonizer and the colonized?
The history of the world is a history of the rise and fall of empires. That’s just how it is. Most recent to date were the British imperial rule in South Asia, America’s colonial rule in the Philippines , the spread of Nazi totalitarian rule across Europe, and the expansion of Soviet communism in Eastern Europe, among others. There were good and bad empires. But what makes an empire civilizing, according to Churchill, is when it promotes the interests and welfare of the colonized, hence, “a cure to the disease of tyrannical rule” (Churchill, Liberalism and the Social Problem, 156).
What makes it unjust? An empire is unjust, Churchill says, if it does not help in elevating the uncivilized world from barbarism and savagery towards a life of dignity and well-being. In defending the British Empire, he says that empire-building should not rest only on altruism, nor does it have to be motivated only by self-seeking, narrow interests: "To be just, empire must be grounded on a higher sentiment and principle, but that higher motivation must reside midway between extreme formulas.” This higher motivation lies in an imperial people's desire to improve themselves, for sharing the benefits of civilization with those who do not possess them can make an imperial people more human. In Churchill's view, "Ruling its empire justly further civilizes an imperial nation. At its best, empire is not a burden to be endured but an opportunity for individual and national self-improvement" (Kirk Emmert, Winston S. Churchill on Empire, 53).
Can a democratic nation engage in empire-building? According to Emmert,
Democratic empire would seem to rest on an alliance between two quite different views of justice and the political good. The democratic view looks to equality grounded in a commonly shared humanity, the imperial view to inequality as it is manifested in the superiority of the fully civilized few; the democrat insists upon the primacy of rights, the imperialist upon the primacy of obligations; the democratic elevation of freedom and individualism contrasts with the imperial stress on virtue and man’s political nature; the highest purpose of modern democratic government is to encourage the private pursuit of happiness and the source of its legitimacy is popular consent; the purpose of an imperial government is to promote civilization, and “intrinsic merit” is its title to rule. If democratic empire is to be a viable form of government these fundamentally different principles and the practices which spring from them, must be able to coexist within an imperial democracy (Ibid., 66-67).
That is, until subjugated peoples are able to create the conditions for democracy and justice themselves, a good regime, even from afar, can adopt and employ an aristocratic view of what is morally good and politically just for them.
Between the extremist ideology and cruel rule of the Taliban and al-Qaeda on one side and the US policy of defending, securing, and supporting the local population on the other, can’t reasonable people in the Muslim world conclude that sometimes in the grand scheme of things occupiers are really liberators?
Saturday, December 5, 2009
The Minaret Ban in Switzerland
When majority of Swiss voters endorsed the ban on the building of minarets in Switzerland during its November 29th referendum, they were making a political statement. Contrary to angry reactions from various Muslim groups who saw this vote as an act of suppression of religious liberty, backers of this measure said that it was not their intention to prohibit Muslims from practicing their religion. “The goal, they explained, was to prevent what they described as the growing political impact of Switzerland's Muslim minority, which they said is symbolized by minarets pointing into the sky; women wearing full veils; and observance of sharia, a Koran-based legal system.”1 Walter Wobman, a People’s Party member of Parliament, adds, "The minaret is the power symbol of political Islam and sharia law."
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki of Iran saw otherwise: “values such as tolerance, dialogue and respecting others’ religions should never be put to referendum,” and warned the Swiss of “consequences.”2 This vote, he said, “went against the prestige of a country which claims to be an advocate of democracy and human rights.”
The question of religious liberty vis-à-vis Islam is a complex one. For Islam is at once both a religion and a political system. While it offers a set of moral teachings, it also endorses political power with which to carry out those moral teachings. Inherent in it is the union of clerical and political powers, creating a state within a state, if it happens to flourish in a foreign political community. Granting it the right to exist in the name of religious liberty is providing it space to exist as a political entity.
This, I think, is the political statement that the Swiss voters are telling us. This is also what Tocqueville said in his chapter on religious freedom in democratic settings:
"Muhammad brought down from heaven and put into the Koran not religious doctrines only, but political maxims, criminal and civil laws, and scientific theories. The Gospels, on the other hand, deal only with general relations between man and God and between man and man. Beyond that, they teach nothing and do not oblige people to believe anything. That alone, among a thousand reasons, is enough to show that Islam will not be able to hold its power long in ages of enlightenment and democracy, while Christianity is destined to reign in such ages, as in all others.” (Democracy in America, vol. 2, part 1, chapter 5).
But Christianity has had its dark period as well when, during the Middle Ages, the papacy wielded both ecclesiastic and political powers in its effort to establish a world empire. It took a Reformation to rein in this papal power, leading to the birth of a modern state where, under the principle of separation of church and state, political affairs were left in the hands of the state, and religious matters in the hands of the church.
Modern republicanism upholds the separation of church and state. It is one of the key foundations of the free society. It is basic to individual liberty. By removing theological differences from the political arena, as Professor Harry Jaffa of the Claremont Institute has argued, “people could worship freely according to the dictates of their consciences, thereby promoting confidence and even friendship among citizens.”
Those who are protesting the minaret ban in the name of religious liberty must first understand what it is that should belong to the public realm, and what it is that must be kept private.
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki of Iran saw otherwise: “values such as tolerance, dialogue and respecting others’ religions should never be put to referendum,” and warned the Swiss of “consequences.”2 This vote, he said, “went against the prestige of a country which claims to be an advocate of democracy and human rights.”
The question of religious liberty vis-à-vis Islam is a complex one. For Islam is at once both a religion and a political system. While it offers a set of moral teachings, it also endorses political power with which to carry out those moral teachings. Inherent in it is the union of clerical and political powers, creating a state within a state, if it happens to flourish in a foreign political community. Granting it the right to exist in the name of religious liberty is providing it space to exist as a political entity.
This, I think, is the political statement that the Swiss voters are telling us. This is also what Tocqueville said in his chapter on religious freedom in democratic settings:
"Muhammad brought down from heaven and put into the Koran not religious doctrines only, but political maxims, criminal and civil laws, and scientific theories. The Gospels, on the other hand, deal only with general relations between man and God and between man and man. Beyond that, they teach nothing and do not oblige people to believe anything. That alone, among a thousand reasons, is enough to show that Islam will not be able to hold its power long in ages of enlightenment and democracy, while Christianity is destined to reign in such ages, as in all others.” (Democracy in America, vol. 2, part 1, chapter 5).
But Christianity has had its dark period as well when, during the Middle Ages, the papacy wielded both ecclesiastic and political powers in its effort to establish a world empire. It took a Reformation to rein in this papal power, leading to the birth of a modern state where, under the principle of separation of church and state, political affairs were left in the hands of the state, and religious matters in the hands of the church.
Modern republicanism upholds the separation of church and state. It is one of the key foundations of the free society. It is basic to individual liberty. By removing theological differences from the political arena, as Professor Harry Jaffa of the Claremont Institute has argued, “people could worship freely according to the dictates of their consciences, thereby promoting confidence and even friendship among citizens.”
Those who are protesting the minaret ban in the name of religious liberty must first understand what it is that should belong to the public realm, and what it is that must be kept private.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
One-Man, One-Vote in Honduras’ Constitutional Democracy
The much-awaited presidential election in Honduras finally took place today. There are high stakes riding on this election, namely, “a chance for Honduras to advance beyond the political crisis and regain international legitimacy and access to much-needed aid,” said James Creagan, former U.S. Ambassador to Honduras. It would mean ending a five-month constitutional crisis that began with the ouster of then President Manuel Zelaya who sought to extend his term through a referendum rendered illegal by the Honduran Supreme Court. It would also determine whether the election results would convince the international community to recognize the winner and provide the newly elected government a legitimate stature. As it is, countries in the region, with the exception of the US, Costa Rica, and Panama, have stated that recognizing the outcome of this election would be tantamount to endorsing a process of removing a duly elected president by a “military coup,” as what they alleged the Honduran military did in ousting Zelaya last summer.
I don’t know why Hondurans have to worry about the international community’s non-acceptance of their democratic process. Honduran democracy should march forward with or without the endorsement of the international community. The only real and true test of Honduran democracy is whether every single vote cast by every single Honduran translates itself into a form of consent that empowers a government to rule in his or her interest. Hondurans, every single one of them, are the only source of sovereign power, a power that they share equally with one another through a representative government that they empower to represent their interests. The one-man, one-vote principle in any constitutional democracy translates itself into a representative government whose leaders are chosen by the enlightened consent of its citizenry.
This is a good constitutional measure by which the international community should judge whether the political process in Honduras is democratic or not.
Meanwhile, three cheers for Hondurans for showing the world that they are indeed faithful guardians of their constitutional democracy!
I don’t know why Hondurans have to worry about the international community’s non-acceptance of their democratic process. Honduran democracy should march forward with or without the endorsement of the international community. The only real and true test of Honduran democracy is whether every single vote cast by every single Honduran translates itself into a form of consent that empowers a government to rule in his or her interest. Hondurans, every single one of them, are the only source of sovereign power, a power that they share equally with one another through a representative government that they empower to represent their interests. The one-man, one-vote principle in any constitutional democracy translates itself into a representative government whose leaders are chosen by the enlightened consent of its citizenry.
This is a good constitutional measure by which the international community should judge whether the political process in Honduras is democratic or not.
Meanwhile, three cheers for Hondurans for showing the world that they are indeed faithful guardians of their constitutional democracy!
The Mindanao Massacre
I’m sure every Filipino’s sensibilities (not to mention their sense of justice) were offended by last week’s horrific killing of at least 50 people (including journalists and lawyers) in what appeared to be a tribal war between two powerful Muslim families in Mindanao over the filing of a candidacy for the gubernatorial race by Vice Mayor Ibrahim Mangudadatu, representing the Mangudadatu clan, against the incumbent, Andal Ampatuan, Sr. of the influential Ampatuan clan. World leaders, foreign journalists, and international organizations workers were also quick to condemn what happened.
That's why it was baffling to read in this Philippine Star article that some Filipino Muslim groups would rather raise "the possibility that top government officials may be involved in the massacre in Maguindanao to pave the way for emergency rule in the country.” According to Amina Rasul, chair of the Philippine Council for Islamic Democracy, “some Muslim groups are not convinced that the Ampatuans should be held solely responsible for the killings. . . “The conspiracy may involve the national government,” Rasul said.
Given the mounting evidence to the contrary, such assertion is absurd and irresponsible. It deflects the blame from those who are otherwise guilty of these heinous crimes. It does not serve both truth and justice. It is also clannish and myopic. It is playing politics as usual, Philippine style.
Amina Rasul was a United States Institute of Peace (USIP) fellow. USIP at one time underwrote the US policy towards Mindanao.
What happened last week reveals the political dynamics in these communities and the clannish nature of Mindanao politics. If those engaged in the upcoming peace talk are hoping that transferring power and resources to the Filipino Muslim leadership will resolve the Muslim conflict in the country, they are in for a rude awakening. For as long as these leaders are governed by their oligarchic interests (and religious indignations), they will use that power against the national community and against each other.
That's why it was baffling to read in this Philippine Star article that some Filipino Muslim groups would rather raise "the possibility that top government officials may be involved in the massacre in Maguindanao to pave the way for emergency rule in the country.” According to Amina Rasul, chair of the Philippine Council for Islamic Democracy, “some Muslim groups are not convinced that the Ampatuans should be held solely responsible for the killings. . . “The conspiracy may involve the national government,” Rasul said.
Given the mounting evidence to the contrary, such assertion is absurd and irresponsible. It deflects the blame from those who are otherwise guilty of these heinous crimes. It does not serve both truth and justice. It is also clannish and myopic. It is playing politics as usual, Philippine style.
Amina Rasul was a United States Institute of Peace (USIP) fellow. USIP at one time underwrote the US policy towards Mindanao.
What happened last week reveals the political dynamics in these communities and the clannish nature of Mindanao politics. If those engaged in the upcoming peace talk are hoping that transferring power and resources to the Filipino Muslim leadership will resolve the Muslim conflict in the country, they are in for a rude awakening. For as long as these leaders are governed by their oligarchic interests (and religious indignations), they will use that power against the national community and against each other.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
An Afghan Initiative
It is heartening to know that anti-Taliban militias have sprouted in different parts of Afghanistan, “prompting hopes of a large-scale tribal rebellion against the Taliban,” so reports the New York Times in this piece, As Afghans Resist Taliban, U.S. Spurs Rise of Militias. It has also encouraged American and Afghan officials to spawn the growth of other armed militias – under the plan “Community Defense Initiative” -- right on Taliban territory in the southern and eastern parts of Afghanistan.
This is encouraging. For one, the initiative comes from the Afghans themselves. Taking responsibility for their own security means that they are beginning to have a moral clarity about what is at stake in this war, namely, not to allow the Taliban to rule their country once again. A Taliban rule would mean perpetuating a way of life that is steeped in ignorance, falsehood, and religious myths. The Afghans also know that a Taliban comeback would mean allowing a cruel, autocratic rule to prevent them back from pursuing a life of dignity, peace, and well-being.
But the article also alludes to potential dangers under this plan: the militias could turn against the Afghan and American governments and also against each other in a culture where warlordism is part of the country’s social infrastructure. These are legitimate concerns. A practical solution lies in establishing institutional checks on these militias, at the community, national, and even international levels. In the NY piece, the US says that it will go about this by keeping the groups small and limiting "the scope of their activities to protecting villages and manning checkpoints."
But more should be required of these militias. They should be linked to institutions that could control both their conduct and activities effectively. At the community level, for instance, their militia activities should be linked to familial duties and obligations. They should be persuaded to think that what they are doing is for the good of their families and communities. Their mothers, wives, and daughters should be co-opted in terms of organizing them into economic associations or small business enterprises, or providing them with education and health care opportunities. If this happens, their welfare now becomes linked with the goals of the militias to rid their community of bad elements. This is not a new idea, but implementing it will probably yield effective results.
At the national level, the Afghan government (as mentioned in the article) should link these militias with the Afghan national police and perhaps put them on their payroll to make them accountable for all their actions. And at the international level (also mentioned in the article), Americans and other international groups will provide the economic and security resources.
My underlying cause for optimism, of course, is the beginning recognition on the part of these Afghans that the good must prevail, and that they must fight for it themselves.
And on this Thanksgiving season, special thanks goes to the Special Forces -- those unsung heroes who do make things happen.
This is encouraging. For one, the initiative comes from the Afghans themselves. Taking responsibility for their own security means that they are beginning to have a moral clarity about what is at stake in this war, namely, not to allow the Taliban to rule their country once again. A Taliban rule would mean perpetuating a way of life that is steeped in ignorance, falsehood, and religious myths. The Afghans also know that a Taliban comeback would mean allowing a cruel, autocratic rule to prevent them back from pursuing a life of dignity, peace, and well-being.
But the article also alludes to potential dangers under this plan: the militias could turn against the Afghan and American governments and also against each other in a culture where warlordism is part of the country’s social infrastructure. These are legitimate concerns. A practical solution lies in establishing institutional checks on these militias, at the community, national, and even international levels. In the NY piece, the US says that it will go about this by keeping the groups small and limiting "the scope of their activities to protecting villages and manning checkpoints."
But more should be required of these militias. They should be linked to institutions that could control both their conduct and activities effectively. At the community level, for instance, their militia activities should be linked to familial duties and obligations. They should be persuaded to think that what they are doing is for the good of their families and communities. Their mothers, wives, and daughters should be co-opted in terms of organizing them into economic associations or small business enterprises, or providing them with education and health care opportunities. If this happens, their welfare now becomes linked with the goals of the militias to rid their community of bad elements. This is not a new idea, but implementing it will probably yield effective results.
At the national level, the Afghan government (as mentioned in the article) should link these militias with the Afghan national police and perhaps put them on their payroll to make them accountable for all their actions. And at the international level (also mentioned in the article), Americans and other international groups will provide the economic and security resources.
My underlying cause for optimism, of course, is the beginning recognition on the part of these Afghans that the good must prevail, and that they must fight for it themselves.
And on this Thanksgiving season, special thanks goes to the Special Forces -- those unsung heroes who do make things happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)