Al Qaeda and ISIS Aren’t the Same

The terrorist group Al Qaeda so far is a movement, not a nation. In contrast, ISIS (the organization calling itself the Islamic State) holds territories in Syria and Iraq and has a land-based army. These and other distinctions were made by Audrey Kurth Cronin in his article “ISIS Is Not a Terrorist Group” (March/April 2015 Foreign Affairs).

Because ISIS is essentially a nation, some suggest a conventional war against it. Cronin calls this a “folly.” He reminds his readers: “Wars pursued at odds with political reality cannot be won.” Such a war would be exhausting and certainly not supported by the American public over a necessarily long duration.

Cronin advises a policy of containment, the policy generally followed in the Cold War with the Soviet Union. We never fought a hot war with the Soviet Union. We waited out our adversary until it collapsed. While waiting, we shored up allies and built our economy. We knew some colossal failures (Vietnam), but overall, our policy was correct.

Similarly, Cronin suggests that we become a “diplomatic superpower,” rather than one dependent solely on military solutions. Effective leadership requires patience.

 

My Visit to Dachau

Dachau, the German concentration camp for Jews and others considered inferior or dangerous to the Nazi cause, was liberated in the spring of 1945.

Allied soldiers stood horror stricken at the emaciated survivors staring at them through the fences. They were the pitiful remnants of the thousands who died there, some gassed or otherwise executed; others succumbing to disease, overwork, or mistreatment.

My husband and I visited Dachau over fifty years later. We stepped off the train and found our way to the Dachau Concentration Camp Memorial. The neighborhood was quiet, with few of the usual shops and restaurants associated with places where visitors come in large numbers.

Inside the camp, we studied exhibits tracing the history of this monument to inhumanity. The exhibits were stark: black and white pictures of Jews being corralled; methodical recording of statistics; and scientifically dispassionate accounts of brutal experiments done on prisoners.

As in many historic sites, a movie was shown in an auditorium to add to the exhibits. I think it’s the only time I didn’t watch such an audio-visual aid. I couldn’t. I wept and could not stop. My husband led me from the building.

I never want to go back to Dachau, but I think everyone should see it at least once. Then they will understand the phrase “never again.”

 

Why Do We Make It So Hard on the Mothers?

I watched a television correspondent interview a mother and son after she had pulled her son, not gently, away from the street violence in Baltimore.

It was obvious during the interview that the mother loved her son and wanted the best for him. It was obvious that the son loved and respected his mother. Why do we make it so difficult for responsible mothers to raise their children?

Why do we not insure that a mother can find work at decent wages to put food on the table and pay the rent? Why do we not insure that good schools and job training are available for the son and all American children?

What are our plans for these millions of poorer American young people of any race? Where do we expect them to learn job skills? We have some of the finest schools in the country—but some of the poorest as well.

When I was raising my sons as a single mom, I was able to hold a decent job because I had a college education. In the days when I was a young person, college tuition was low enough that my own widowed mother could pay it.

My sons graduated from college as well, because they went to good public schools. They were able to use various government programs to help them with tuition or were able to find part time jobs that paid enough. College costs were lower.

I think the most heart rending part of the television interview was the question to the mother: “What do you fear most when your son walks out the door to go somewhere?”

“That he won’t come back,” she said.

 

Time and Setting as Characters

My stories usually unfold in a definite time and setting. Like other characters, time and setting influence the other actors. Their experiences pinpoint changes that began then and influence us today.

Quiet Deception takes place in Pennsylvania and Tennessee following World War II. Changes like the growth of suburbia and later the entry of the United States into the Vietnamese conflict drastically altered the lives of many Americans. Urban neighborhoods declined, encouraging a growing underclass. Antiwar sentiment divided the nation.

Tender Shadows CoverTender Shadows happens within the first decade of the twenty-first century. Places of action include London; Washington, D.C.; Memphis, Tennessee; and a Persian Gulf emirate. Global terrorism changed habits, from the way we pass through airports to how we think about religion. The digital revolution sped new ideas around the globe, sometimes to those not ready for them.

None of my stories take place in the immediate “now.” Indeed, even a story classed as contemporary leaves the contemporary realm as soon as it is written, since the future constantly replaces the “now.”

Are my stories historical? “Near history” is a term I prefer. I believe the time and setting of a story are as important as the characters. Peering back into the near past, we can see how it has influenced the present. Why? Why do some values endure and others pass away? Why do others seem to die, then return in another era?

Our answers may guide us to better understand the “now” and suggest wiser present choices.

 

Vietnam: To Avoid Repeating History

The Foreign Service Journal devoted its April, 2015, issue to the fortieth anniversary of the fall of Saigon to the North Vietnamese.

Several future American leaders served apprenticeships as young diplomats in that country. Many, including Richard Holbrooke, point man in later diplomatic efforts in Serbia and Afghanistan, learned lessons they never forgot. Holbrooke wrote in an article for The New Republic (May 3, 1975): “But then finally it all seemed to come down to one simple, horrible truth: we didn’t belong there, we had no business doing what we were doing, even the good parts of it.”

More than three million Americans served in Vietnam, a country of 26 million, in one capacity or another. Yet we failed.

Many in the U.S. government in the last years and months of our efforts in Vietnam were in denial. They did not plan for the defeat that younger colleagues knew was coming.

It was left to lower level Foreign Service officers to plan evacuations. Two young officers risked disciplinary punishment to fly unauthorized into Saigon in the last days to aid evacuation efforts. Others worked their contacts in Washington. Not only were Americans in danger, but also their Vietnamese coworkers, who risked harsh measures if left behind. Finally, thousands of Vietnamese were evacuated with Americans and third country nationals.

A review of those last days before the fall of South Vietnam reminds us that we are not all powerful. We failed to defeat the Communists in Vietnam. Our later victory in the Cold War came from economic staying power and a strong military that we chose not to use in major conflicts. Better if we had not chosen to enter Vietnam.

Lessons for today?

 

A Model Senate: How a Legislature Might Actually Work

The Economist (April 11, 2015) reported on an undertaking at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute in Boston. The Institute has constructed a model Senate for teenage “senators” from various high schools to stage a mock Senate. The teenagers study how a proper legislative body might actually get things done.

It was, the article reported, “both uplifting and heartbreaking.” Uplifting because, while watching the young people produce legislation, “It is cheering to see the legislative branch stripped to its core principles, and to realize that the system can work.”

The heartbreak occurs when one realizes, the article said, that these senators “face no pressure to raise millions in campaign funds. No outside groups rank them on ideological score cards. . . . They need not fear primary challengers from hardliners who scorn the very idea that decisions with broad, nationwide support enjoy special legitimacy.”

As candidates declare for the 2016 presidential election, we brace for the absurdity of a campaign season that lasts over a year and a half. The absurdity goes beyond those political ads assaulting our psyches for that long. It means ever more money will be spent on political campaigning that ought to be used for better causes.

We have only ourselves to blame for our refusal to pass campaign finance legislation. And we are the ones who insist on screaming so loudly for our pet causes that we refuse to hear anyone else.

As the cartoon character Pogo said decades ago: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

 

Three Cheers for Inefficiency

A businessman in Seattle has made news by raising all salaries in his company to $70,000 a year. He’s temporarily lowering his own to the same amount until the company brings in enough profit to pay for the rise in salaries. Dan Price, founder of Gravity Payments, said he wanted to do something to address the issue of inequality.

“The market rate for me as a CEO compared to a regular person is ridiculous. It’s absurd,” Price was quoted in The Seattle Times.

Is Price against capitalism? Isn’t the goal of capitalism to be as efficient as possible? To produce the most goods or services with the least amount of cost to the producer? Isn’t that the Wall Street credo?

Perhaps the principle of the goose who lays the golden egg also applies. Kill the goose, and you have no more golden eggs. Treat your hired hands badly, and they will be uninterested in serving you. They will leave for another employer as soon as they can, forcing you to spend valuable time training someone else to take their place. And unhappy employees will be less productive.

A few employers may have read the Biblical warning to landowners not to reap crops to the very borders of their fields. Leave some, the passage says, for the poor, the widows, and the orphans. Capitalist ownership of land is not condemned. Too much capitalist efficiency is.

 

Past Wrongs; Present Choices

Few Americans under forty remember the seizure of the American embassy in Iran in 1979 by Iranian radicals, followed by the imprisonment of fifty-two American diplomats for 444 days. Many hostages, after their release, went on to productive lives. Others suffered severe emotional damage that they and their families carry to this day because of torture and inhumane conditions.

The Cuban revolution happened in the late fifties, many years before the Iranian crisis. It affected more people, however, and Cuban-Americans live among us who fled Castro’s dictatorship since then and who can tell us of wrongs committed by that government.

Both Iran and Cuba practice human rights violations. But some of our allies do also. Saudi Arabia and Egypt come to mind. That does not excuse their human rights abuses. It means that we find it in our interests to have diplomatic ties. Choosing not to have relations appears to do nothing to stop human rights violations.

We broke ties with Cuba half a century ago because it was a nation on our doorstep allied with the Soviet Union. The Cuban missile crisis was real, but the Soviet Union no longer exists. Neither Russia nor Venezuela (a supporter of Cuba) are able to offer the aid they once did.

Iran is more difficult. Iran wants to become a major power in the Middle East. If Iranians are not subject to nuclear inspections, they will most likely develop a nuclear weapon. If they are subject to inspections, they have less chance of doing so.

We tried military intervention in Iraq. It cost us dearly and multiplied our problems in the Middle East. Why do we suppose any military “solution” we might inflict on Iran would end differently? Get real.

While accepting that we have serious concerns with both countries, can we not forge a more intelligent relationship with Cuba and Iran? One that has more chance of success than failed policies of the past?

 

Wanted: Alternative Career Cycles

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, head of the Ruth Institute, made an interesting observation at a conference on demography and public policy. As women have entered the labor force, they have tended to fit themselves into a man’s career cycle.

When mostly men made up the labor force, the energy of young adulthood was the driving force in careers.

Young adulthood, however, is for women the ideal time to birth and rear children. Women are fitted with a biological clock that men don’t have.

We’re all different, of course, with different reactions to the seasons of life. Some women successfully birth and rear children in their thirties or even early forties. Others manage both career and family in their younger years. Some careers lend themselves to work at home or part time hours. Nor are all women called to become mothers.

Nevertheless, women remain the life producers. Get rid of motherhood and we become extinct. For the first few years of a child’s life, the mother appears the more essential parent for the child. It’s suggested that children who are breast fed for up to a year have an advantage over those who are not.

Perhaps we should make it easier for those women who choose motherhood to do so in early adulthood. After early nurturing, fathers might take on more child care while mothers add other interests, including careers. That would vanquish the “empty nest” syndrome as well as encourage men into a more balanced life. The old pattern of the career cycle may be outdated, even for men. Or for singles who want permission to drop out once in a while.

 

The Iranian Negotiations and World War I

Tower Red PoppiesWe are in the midst of the centenary for World War I. The recent placement of red ceramic poppies in the moat surrounding the Tower of London brought home its horror: a sea of red, 888,246 poppies, representing British commonwealth soldiers killed, only part of the estimated millions of deaths, civilian and military, for all the nations involved. Most of the soldiers were young men in the prime of life, forever unable to live the productive lives that would benefit their nations.

Today we acknowledge how horribly stupid this war was. A royal was shot in Serbia. Different nations lined up, driven by pride and perceived loyalty. Leaders thought the war would be a simple skirmish, over with in a short time. It wasn’t. Modern weapons changed the way wars are fought.

The reminder of that war, and the absurdity that so-called civilized nations allowed it to happen, caused me to examine more closely the Iranian nuclear deal that is going through the paces. I think I must support it.

Do we want to be part of another war in the Middle East? Look at the horrors unleashed by the last one we initiated.

World War I (and probably World War II, its continuation) wouldn’t have happened if nations had backed down, swallowed a little of their pride, been reasonable. But they didn’t. It wouldn’t have been a perfect deal for anyone but better than the alternative of WW I.

Negotiations are so much harder than starting a war, in the give and take, in the lack of complete victory for one side or the other. They are, however, superior to the alternative.

 

More Modern and Less Western

Just because Twitter and Facebook carpet the globe, we should not assume the wholesale acceptance of Western values. The current terrorist horror, the Islamic State, exploits digital diplomacy but hardly condones democracy, capitalism, or individualism.

Some admire Western values but would prefer a full stomach first. Many wish merely to go bed with no fear that a bomb will fall on them during the night. Others in less precarious situations are repelled by our country’s partisan politics, the amount of money we spend on our elections, and the immorality they perceive in our culture.

Almost two decades ago, Samuel P. Huntington, a political scientist, wrote the following:

“As Western power recedes, so too does the appeal of Western values and culture, and the West faces the need to accommodate itself to its declining ability to impose its values on non-Western societies. In fundamental ways, much of the world is becoming more modern and less Western.”
—Samuel P. Huntingdon, Foreign Affairs (November/December, 1996).

 

Why Such Hatred in the Middle East?

I don’t remember ever meeting anyone of the Muslim faith when I was growing up in Nashville, Tennessee. I certainly wasn’t aware of the chief division of Islam between Sunni and Shi’a. That division now splinters the Middle East, leading to acts of inhumanity not known since the days of Nazism.

The ancient conflict began over the succession to Islam’s leader, Mohammed, in the seventh century. At Mohammed’s death, some thought he chose his son-in-law Ali to succeed him as leader. They eventually became know as Shi’a. Others thought he chose his companion Abu Bakr as leader of the growing Muslim community. They became known as Sunni.

The majority of Muslims belong to the Sunni tradition, but Shi’a Muslims are a significant presence in several countries. Most Muslims in Iran are Shi’a. A majority of Muslims in Iraq are Shi’a. Yemen is home to large numbers of Shi’a.

A majority of Syria’s Muslims are Sunni, but the al-Assad family, belonging to a Shi’a related group, have reigned as dictators for decades over the Sunni. They have generally been allies of Shi’a Iran, and Iran has supported Bashar al-Assad in his attempt to retain power. The resulting factional struggle has devastated Syria.

The former leader of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, was Sunni. He was a brutal leader whose Sunni government held sway over the majority Iraqi Shi’a. When Saddam was overthrown by the American led coalition in the early 2000’s, Shi’a Iraqis took power away from Sunni Iraqis.

All of the above makes for a potent mix of warring factions.

Recently, conflict in Yemen between Sunni and Shi’a has drawn in Saudi Arabia. Some analysts fear that the Middle East will see a major war between the two groups, a Sunni group led by Saudi Arabia and a Shi’a group led by Iran.

As the United States tries to craft a foreign policy to take us through these minefields, this is not a time for slogans, sound bytes, or political posturing. Let our debates on possible directions be reasoned, respectful, and knowledgeable, not partisan. The Middle East has enough of that.

 

How Books Hook Us: It’s Not Always the Plot

Recently I read The Boys in the Boat by Daniel James Brown. It’s the nonfiction narrative of nine young American men on the University of Washington rowing team. It follows their quest for the gold medal in the 1936 Olympics.

I already knew that the UW team had won, but the story of its characters still hooked me. The author traced the bonding that developed between these unlikely sons of depression era loggers and farmers and laborers.

The desire to know HOW the triumph happened and WHY the young men developed as they did kept me reading. I wanted to follow the dynamics binding this group together.

The suspense of character can be every bit as suspenseful as plot, in fiction and nonfiction.

I’m told that a few readers even look at the last few pages of a book before they begin the book. They wish to enjoy how the story and the characters develop, more important to them than the way it ends.

Why not? Good writing mirrors life, and the whole of life is important, not just the ending.

 

Why Our Politics Should Stop at the Water’s Edge

U.S. Senator Arthur Vandenberg is credited with the famous saying that our political differences stop at the water’s edge. He meant that though we may be on opposite sides of issues, we present a united front in our dealings with other nations. We do not let our differences impede our ability to carry out a strong foreign policy with diverse nations.

Americans have always celebrated ties to other countries. We are a nation of immigrants, after all. We talk of our special relationship with Britain. Though Saint Patrick’s Day is not a federal holiday, many Americans of Irish descent celebrate it. Mexican Americans celebrate Cinco de Mayo. Jewish Americans celebrate Passover. Muslim Americans celebrate Ramadan. Chinese Americans celebrate the Chinese New Year.

Basing our foreign policies on subservience to a particular country is a more serious matter. When I served in U.S. missions overseas in the Middle East, newly naturalized Americans with ties to those countries sometimes wanted us to work for their countries at the expense of our need to retain relations with many nations in the region.

Refusing to act solely for the interests of a particular country is based on our requirement to put the interests of our own country first. We also seek broader policies that benefit as many nations as possible.

The address of a foreign prime minister to the U.S. Congress at the invitation of one political party set an unwelcome precedent. This has never happened before. To tie the foreign policies of the United States so tightly to the policies of another nation is unprecedented and weakens our ability to choose options. We are part of a global community, and our goal should be working for policies that benefit both us and the community.

 

Governments Grind Away in Neutral While Citizens Seek Alternatives

The gridlock in legislatures, both in Congress and several state legislatures, has led citizens to “legislate” by other means. Citizens in my home state of Washington filed a legal case against the state to increase funding for education. They alleged that the government failed to satisfy the state constitutional mandate calling for an adequate education for all Washington children. The state supreme court agreed and placed the legislature under orders to increase funding. The legislature is currently scrambling to find the funds, being placed under threat of fines if it does not.

We see increased use of ballot initiatives to allow citizens more input into the legislative process. Both governors and the president issue more executive orders. Court cases, ballot measures, and executive orders are attempts to detour around stalled lawmakers. Such measures will continue as long as our representatives are unable to compromise and pass legislation. Political hardening and name calling (hatred in some cases) make compromise appear as “giving in to the enemy.”

Polls indicate that legislatures are sometimes at odds with what citizens actually want. Perhaps contributions to election campaigns coming from moneyed interests are overriding the public will.

 

Five Reasons Not to Spend More Time at the Office

A nurse in palliative care, Bronnie Ware, has recorded the five top regrets of dying patients as listed in an article in the British newspaper, The Guardian. They are:

1. I wish I’d had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me.

2. I wish I hadn’t worked so hard.

3. I wish I’d had the courage to express my feelings.

4. I wish I had stayed in touch with my friends.

5. I wish that I had let myself be happier.

Apparently, we must intentionally direct our lives toward the more important values. Otherwise, the necessary but less important tasks will overwhelm us.

 

For Those Young Americans Not Voting in the November Election: Perhaps You’d Prefer a Country Where You Can’t Vote?

Raif Badawi, now thirty-one, has been held in a Saudi Arabian prison since 2012 for blogs considered insulting to Islam. Badawi was sentenced to ten years in prison and 1,000 lashes, fifty each week until the number is completed. After the first punishment was carried out, reprieves have been granted, because, it is said, his body has not yet recovered from the first round. Badawi, of course, has never voted in a national election, nor have any other Saudis, young or not, since they aren’t allowed there.

The number of 18-29 year old Americans (millenials) who bothered to vote in the November 2014 election hovers around 21 percent, according to an article by Froma Harrop. (Published in The Seattle Times on January 25, 2015.) That’s not even one out of four. In some countries where I”ve lived, the idea of not voting when you have the privilege is beyond comprehension.

Harrop scorned the idea of some young Americans that their government doesn’t care about them, or that their voting doesn’t make a difference.

Older people vote in larger numbers. That’s why we have Social Security and Medicare. Or, as Harrop said, “You don’t get served till you enter the restaurant.”

 

Do You Have a Home to Take You In?

An adult cousin of mine developed rheumatic fever many years ago. With financial resources dwindling, his wife drove him and their two little girls back to her mother’s farmhouse in Tennessee, where she had grown up. Her three brothers were supportive. They stayed until my cousin recovered. He resumed his livelihood, and the family returned to a normal lifestyle.

Home, the saying goes, is where, when you go there, they have to take you in.

This homespun saying has never been true of all homes, of course. Some families experience rifts that separate them. However, a great many of us head home to family when trouble strikes: death of a spouse, illness, divorce, financial reverses.

What will happen as families have fewer and fewer members? What happens after young adulthood when parents die or become incapacitated? More families have only one child. What happens when we do not have brothers, sisters, or cousins to lean on in hard times?

The lack of brothers and sisters, of kin, may leave us short of homes to take us in when trouble strikes. We will need to develop communities that support members during those times, not only physically but emotionally as well.

 

Different Solutions for Different Kinds of Homelessness

The other day I pulled out a faded newspaper clipping about homelessness in Atlanta, where I lived several decades ago. That’s probably about how old the clipping is, demonstrating the tenacity of the problem. The article discusses the reasons for homelessness.

One of the speakers in the Atlanta group suggested specialized shelters instead of generic ones. For example, the mentally ill require treatment not needed by those temporarily without funds for shelter because their job was downsized. Those addicted to alcohol and other drugs need rehabilitation centers, but women and their children who are homeless because of abuse may require a different kind of help. Some conditions overlap, of course.

The idea is to treat conditions that cause homelessness. Some cities, such as Salt Lake City, appear to have made progress in reducing homelessness by offering a room with basic amenities to any homeless individual without requiring changes in the individual. The idea is that getting people into safe spaces solves an immediate problem and may make them easier to reach to solve chronic homelessness.

The need for those of us who have homes is, as it always has been, to grasp the need for investment in long term help for the homeless among us.

 

Should Our Schools Begin Educating in Chinese?

The world used to be divided into Western, Communist, and nonaligned nations. More recently, the division has been between developed and developing countries. Lately, a new separation has appeared. The separation is between democracies and those countries, like China, whose leaders think democracy does not work and have instituted a more autocratic form of government.

Democracies stress open elections, freedom of the press and of religion, and an unbiased judiciary, among other requirements. Autocracies think the liberal ideas of democracy have failed. They point to dysfunction, partisan politics, the recent economic recession, and the importance attached to money in winning elections. They prefer a small group of elites who can, they believe, operate more efficiently, not to mention more cheaply.

Believers in autocracy don’t think the liberal ideas of the democracies work any longer in the world as it is. The more orderly, economically viable life of an autocracy like China supposedly compensates for the lack of individual freedom.

The survival of democracies may hinge on their ability to handle the polarization of the last few years between citizens with widely differing ideas of what a government should be and do. Perhaps playing to one’s base in a democracy doesn’t work as well as playing to the common good.