Random Thoughts Edition (Daniel Ellsberg, George P. Schultz) (April 2018)

1. Humanity's most damning flaw in the modern information overload era is its over-reliance on sight and visual images. Such over-reliance on a single sense leads to an inability to understand the varied reasons a result has occurred. 

For example, most Americans waste time mocking the current--or any--President when it should be clear his or her views are the culmination of numerous variables and their interplay over the last fifteen years. After all, no four-year data set could justify both 2016 presidential candidates turning so quickly against international trade (e.g., TPP) or immigration while Canada moves in the opposite direction, nor any other "shift" (i.e., globalization and technology have been with humanity as long as it has existed). And yet, almost every single commentator or writer discussing North America's political landscape speaks in short-term tongues. One cannot arrive at an effective solution if one cannot ask the right questions. 

2. A simplistic example of hubris is as follows: a person will argue that Australia is safe because it has strict immigration laws, while another person will argue Australia has been unable to generate Canada's economic gains because of its failure to increase skilled immigration. After a rigorous debate, both sides may agree to increase skilled immigration but with stricter regulations and better-trained staff to sort through each applicant's submission. Both educated participants will walk away satisfied not only that they have resolved the issue, but that others ought to follow their example. 

Neither one will realize the reason Australia can discuss a certain immigration policy is because of its geographic location--in the middle of nowhere, walled off from unwanted intruders by an all-encompassing ocean. Neither one of them will realize that without discussing refugees (as part of a shared international responsibility), illegal immigration (which occurs despite anyone's best efforts), assimilation, and funding (for the immigrants and increased staff to vet application), they have not yet begun to create comprehensive solutions. Finally, neither will realize the roles of interest rates, trade agreements, international investment, and other complex economic issues that affect funding any new immigration staff. In a world more interlinked than ever, "first-world" educational and employment systems sincerely believe in models where experts study only one or two subjects for years (often from educators lacking recent experience even in their subject areas) and where the private sector retains a fragmented approach. 

Humility is the opposite of hubris, and humility comes from knowing every situation is Rashomon-like. Furthermore, even if every angle is understood, one still cannot know all the variables that led to a present-day situation being x instead of y. The tragedy of humanity is that its imagination is its greatest asset but to stay comfortable, the brain's limited nature seeks a specific rationale, which then renders imagining a just-as-likely alternate scenario almost impossible. 

3.  America looks to be firmly on a path to its new role as the USSR, but with new and improved propaganda. Modern history teaches us that an economy driven by military spending will eventually fail. I'm not going to write about the different ways America is emulating the USSR's failed model--the deliberate use of sports rather than art, philosophy, or literature to bring the nation together; a disdain for religion, which often provides non-elites the opportunity to discuss timeless issues; a prosperous mafia or underground economy, which then justifies a larger security state than necessary; executive contempt for checks and balances, including from journalists; and excessive rates of risk-taking and alcoholism--but I urge you to think about why nations that succeed in defeating their enemies often become like them. 

4. I'll end on a happy note: I met one of my heroes, Daniel Ellsberg, last weekend in San Francisco, California. 

Ellsberg is still going strong at 87 years old, his mind sharper than ever. Before explaining that "miracles are possible by ordinary people taking chances," Ellsberg covered wide ground. He spoke of modern-day nuclear weapons able to wreak unimaginable havoc disrupting the world through environmental and food shortage effects, not just immediate murder; the March 10, 1945 firebombing of Tokyo during WWII, a deliberate attack causing the murders of 100,000 civilians, more than Hiroshima; Gorbachev being the most recent Russian leader who would work with the United States (and Reagan) on nuclear de-proliferation; Reagan's proposed plan to shift funding for nukes to missile-defense shields to protect both countries from rogue actors, technology he would then share with Russia (Gorbachev was skeptical about the promise of sharing); his inspiration coming from 5,000 Americans willing to be jailed for their opposition to the Vietnam War; and the CIA's attempt to "terminate [him] with extreme prejudice," to "neutralize," or to "incapacitate [him] totally," a fate he escaped because the CIA assets may have believed they were being set up to take the fall for Nixon. 

How would this American hero want to be remembered? As "part of a movement that ended the Vietnam War and nuclear weapons." Will we honor him and his sacrifices by helping conclude what he started?

Bonus 1: "I firmly believe in sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll but I always wear a condom, never take illegal drugs, and can't sing or dance." -- Anonymous 

Bonus 2: at the seminar, I had lunch with Philip Zimbardo and several others, including a now-discharged military enlistee. To give you an idea of the level of conformity in America post-9/11, I'll share the following story: 

Prior to the Iraq invasion, a 2002 meeting was held with George P. Schultz in attendance. (Mr. Schultz is often viewed as the GOP's strongest living intellectual.) After the military enlistee (now an art dealer) raised his hand questioning the invasion, Mr. Schultz accosted him, pointed a finger in his face, and said, "You've been watching too many Gary Cooper movies--we're not going to wait for them to hit us first." The art dealer said he was shocked at the aggressive reaction to his question and now realizes why almost no one questions the prevailing orthodoxy--they don't want to be kicked out of their "tribe." 

"He who walks in the middle of the roads gets hit from both sides." -- George P. Schultz 

Anyone who doesn't understand power only lasts if it stress-tests itself is unworthy of admiration. 

April 24, 2018

To prevent history from repeating itself, our youth must answer the following question: "How do we create a country that can stress-test its ideas even when its leadership is under severe pressure to take immediate action?" 

A Primer on Modern History

The study of modern history is needlessly complicated. Unfortunately, most history teachers and professors spent their lives in a few countries or studied only a single subject, rendering them unable to provide the context students so desperately need. I have tried below to provide a straightforward framework acceptable to everyone. Without such a framework, historical understanding will fracture, and humanity will continue to repeat the same mistakes.

Since 1945, every single government and military has been focused on attaining or preventing others from attaining nuclear weapons. After the United States dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ending WWII, politicians and military leaders realized existing defense/protection paradigms no longer applied. A country with the most skilled troops, superior munitions, most efficient supply chains, best hygiene (to prevent disease, which often killed more soldiers than active combat), and even superior strategy would not necessarily prevail. Now, only three things mattered: technology and the ability and willingness to use it. Developing brawn had given way to developing brains and gaining (accurate) information.

Military budgets prioritized R&D and began to emphasize covert operations. As governments continued competing for the moral high ground, questions became more complex. When was a first strike politically acceptable? How could one determine whether a recruit would keep secrets? How could countries identify the best minds in the world and entice them to relocate? (e.g., Operation Paperclip) 

Such a shift required a mix of intrigue, psychology, persuasion, media influence, and propaganda. Intelligence communities realized they would be key players in the new paradigm and, in an era prior to CCTVs and ubiquitous technological surveillance, reliable human assets and agents would be the difference between victory and defeat. Furthermore, where soft power and persuasion would not work, assassinations and abductions would--preferably through a third party ally. [Evidence: Operation Damocles; Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16 years-old son; Israel assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists Masoud Alimohammadi, Majid Shahriar, Darioush Rezaeinejad, Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, and possibly Ardeshir Hassanpour, mimicking USA's strategy against Germany.] 

Such tactics were not enough for military and intelligence units, which also resorted to false flag operations or coups on a much wider scale. [e.g., Gulf of Tonkin, Lavon Affair/Operation Susannah, Operation Ajax (1953), Operation Musketeer (1956)] Facing potential conflicts between civilian and military objectives, democratic regimes sought to limit international interference with domestic governance, causing ideological splits regarding the balance of law, order, and dissent. As domestic resistance increased, it had the potential to upend military alliances post-WWII, which involved important economic treaties and investments. (See “most favored nation” clause, which used USA's stronger currency to tilt trade in its favor: “The American workman, by 1960, had the highest standard of living in the world, and all due to what they genteelly called ‘the most favored nation’ clause in every commercial transaction with the East.” – Philip K. Dick) 

The failure of Western governments to foresee strong domestic resistance to international policies led to more secrecy in the name of national security, both at home and abroad. The private security industry, not subject to invasive government oversight, began its ascent. British-based Securicor is one example. In 1953, it specialized in delivery and logistics, eventually making its way into the telecom (aka surveillance and data-gathering) business. Today, it is part of G4S, the world's largest security company. With 585,000 employees, G4S is the world's third largest private sector employer and the largest in Europe and Africa. (See the film Logan (2017) for a dystopian view of the possible evolution of private security firms.) 

Returning to the 1960s, covert operations and violations of territorial sovereignty (Operation Menu) became more accepted within governments as the United States began to realize its superior armaments were not enough in Vietnam. As nuclear energy and more lethal weapons accelerated the risks of being outside established alliances, countries and military leaders were forced into one of two camps: pro-Soviet Union (which in practice often meant pro-China) and pro-American. Meanwhile, existing and aspiring world leaders learned that favorable (or in the case of Vietnam, unfavorable) media coverage and asymmetrical warfare—later used by Osama bin Laden—could defeat larger powers or at least convince them to leave. Like private security firms, the general media industries--in this case, television and radio--began their steady ascent. 

Its ability to influence world affairs now jeopardized by increasing Chinese and Soviet influence in Asia and Eastern Europe as well as domestic turmoil, America began addressing matters under its direct control more forcefully. American police started using the same tactics as the military and intelligence communities on their own people. (Potential lesson: once the military uses a particular strategy successfully, it is only a matter of time before the civilian government deploys similar strategies.) 

Surveillance, infiltration, and financially-debilitating lawsuits were used against antiwar groups and activists from MLK to Muhammad Ali to John Lennon. The term “law and order” became a justification for a proxy war against protesters, later morphing into President Reagan’s "War on Drugs." Ironically, countervailing forces that bolstered social change came partly from the military, which had relied on greater female participation in the private workforce during wartime as well as soldiers of color, including but not limited to Jackie Robinson. 

Politicians like America's Joseph McCarthy had used the media to blacklist anyone deemed an adversarial nonconformist in the 1950s at the same time the Soviet Union and its satellite forces were blacklisting and jailing dissidents.As power-hungry politicians gained more power, propaganda against dissenters became more widespread, with police officers in some jurisdictions ordered to attack nonviolent protestors while federal agencies (J. Edgar Hoover) spied on civil rights leaders. As lines between international and domestic operations blurred, the Watergate scandal was a natural and inevitable result. (See The Most Dangerous Man in America (2009).) 

Were it not for the courageous work of American whistleblowers and journalists (e.g., All the President’s Men (1976)), who often ignored conservative legal advice from their employers, secretive operations would have continued without abatement. Unfortunately, civilian resistance movements against the Eastern Establishment were not as strong as ones in the West, thus preserving the East's status quo--a status quo that would later prove to be unsustainable, essentially bankrupting the Soviet Union and ending its petro-military-industrial economic model. 

In the West, where the status quo was fraying, greater diversity flourished, both strengthening and weakening authoritarian impulses. Taking advantage of distractions in Southeast Asia and Central/South America, some countries decided to cooperate outside U.S. or Soviet-led alliances, much in the same way China would later exploit America’s failure to “pivot to Asia” after the costly and counterproductive 2003 Iraq War. [Examples: creation of ASEAN in 1967; “mid-level” countries like Argentina and Iran working to resume nuclear cooperation, only to see outside events interfere with their relationships, such as the Buenos Aires 1992 embassy bombing, in which neither Argentina nor Iran strangely derived any benefit.]

In 1973, the OPEC embargo added yet another disruptor to the existing world order, namely the integrity of the oil supply chain, which formed the underlying basis of U.S. dollar strength and numerous economic treaties. Post-Nixon and the cessation of active armed conflict between West and East, economic statecraft became the way forward, with America’s mighty Navy and more developed financial markets giving the West a clear advantage. Trade, oil, weapons development, and continued control of nuclear energy would dominate international relations until the birth of the internet in the 1990s. The formal dissolution of the Soviet Union on December 26, 1991 provided America with the opportunity to create what President George Bush, formerly the CIA's Director, called a “new world order” on September 11, 1990, a period lasting until September 11, 2001. America's 2003 invasion of Iraq, driven by falsified pretenses, shattered America's reputation, allowing other countries to vie for global dominance. And here we are. 

© Matthew Mehdi Rafat (2017)

Bonus: another historical pattern is that when two countries enter into a treaty—whether to avoid war or after a conflict—often only one party intends on upholding the terms. The other party uses the break in tensions to disarm—both literally and figuratively—the other signatory, eventually invading the former enemy and prevailing through political chicanery.

Bonus: when we hear the term, "divide and conquer," we typically understand the term absent historical context. After WWII, the British, despite prevailing, were in debt and could not maintain their empire, which once spanned a quarter of the globe. They attempted to break up or partition several areas in order to more easily manage them and to allow Western powers to maintain naval supremacy. Singapore's break from Malaysia is one example--keep the port, leave the land. Divide and conquer. Yet, even with lesser security obligations, European powers, particularly the British and the French, could not afford empire status. By the time of the Vietnam War, Europe had effectively handed off empire duties and corresponding security--both for Westerners living abroad as well as Western-owned businesses--to the United States. 

Bonus: from Allison J. Truitt's Dreaming of Money in Ho Chi Minh City (2013): "The United States' massive military expenditures in Southeast Asia led to the collapse of its ability to maintain the dollar's fixed value relative to gold. When the US government put an end to the dollar's convertibility in 1971, it ushered in a new era of more flexible and more volatile exchange rates." 

Bonus: counterpoint from Singapore's Kishore Mahbubani's Has the West Lost It? (2018)

Bonus: if you enjoyed this post, you may also like this one: Ports, Finance, Power, and Free Trade. 

Bonus: "History... is not merely something to be read... On the contrary, the great force of history comes from the fact that we carry it within us, are unconsciously controlled by it in many ways, and history is literally present in all that we do.  It could scarcely be otherwise, since it is to history that we owe our frames of reference, our identities, and our aspirations." -- James Baldwin, USA (1965) 

Uncomfortable Questions about Germany for Americans

I am not a history expert, but I proffer several questions historians ought to ask about Nazi Germany: 

1.  When Adolf Hitler was appointed or elected, who were the alternatives? Were they more distasteful than Hitler in some way? 

2. It seems clear the first way to isolate a minority is through laws. (Violence is too obvious and its showcasing results in weakening the image of law and order.) 

What were the first laws that targeted minorities? What did the enforcement of those laws look like? How did the national government incentivize local police to turn against their own residents or at least to look the other way? 

3. What were immigration patterns from 1919 to 1937? Which types of persons moved away Which types of persons stayed? (Government employees? Recent immigrants? Affluent and/or educated residents?)

4.  Obviously, propaganda existed, but how was it made pervasive? For example, did the government arrest certain people and highlight their situations extensively? Did they use coercion to silence or blacklist persons who questioned the status quo? What specific methods did they use to dissuade behavior they deemed unacceptable? 

5.  What were marriage, divorce, and childbirth rates in Germany from 1900 to 1945? Can we break down statistics by each year to see useful patterns?

6.  What were immigration patterns--both legal and unauthorized--into Germany from 1900 to 1945? (Germany had to have been at least moderately diverse to generate backlash against "outsiders.") 

As an American citizen but a minority, I've left the United States. Whether my absence is temporary remains to be seen. Obviously, I have to return before April of each year to pay taxes, but the more I travel, the more I see other areas of the world that feel like America, pre-9/11. Part of the reason I've left is because I see history repeating itself. 

America elected someone who wasn't presidential but who was still better than the alternative. Vested interests within the opposition/losing political party elevated someone they favored rather than someone more electable, angering their base. 

Economic gains were not distributed to all corners of society, rendering some people vulnerable to propaganda, especially against minorities, tearing apart any common social fabric. Inflation in essential items increased, but without wage increases.

Being part of a group, in and of itself, became worthy of respect and heroism. For instance, merely being part of the military or police entitled someone to automatic respect--regardless of the presence or absence of specific actions. 

This patina of heroism translated into less accountability for certain groups, leading to a "uniform culture" that allowed consolidation of power--and government funding--for special interests, especially the military. 

Economic gains continued not to be diversified, with old and now new special interests caring less and less about results and accountability. All sides in power begin realizing problems involve fundamental issues that cannot be solved unilaterally or that require sacrifices they were elected to avoid implementing. Rhetoric such as "Drain the swamp" becomes muted as the new political establishment resorts to extreme signaling or headlines to avoid losing power or legitimacy. 

Political discourse becomes progressively more toxic, throwing people into two or three camps: 1) yelling to become heard, i.e., the rise of the outrageous as the new normal; 2) taking no substantive positions but remaining agreeable, losing the support of anyone with principles (Note: appeasement comes in many forms, including economic appeasement); or 3) advocating solutions that cannot be implemented without massive changes (i.e., politically impossible solutions that require a dictatorial approach advocates would say they despise). 

In many cases, outliers are highlighted by both sides to justify their political positions or at least to blunt criticism of the status quo. As outliers become used more commonly, the media loses its ability to rally the public to act as a check and balance against government overreach or against the government's honest mistakes. 

Such political toxicity permeates the culture, causing children to grow up in a desensitized as well as unstable environment. For children growing up during a toxic time, the abnormal becomes normal. The children, unlike adults, don't have an earlier time to which they can compare their current lives. The shift from normal to abnormal occurs without any obvious outward signal because the new generation is mimicking the only behavior they know.

Reasonable, empathetic adults see what is going on and leave or self-segregate. They reject such an environment in which to raise or have children or self-segregrate in ways that may require ever-escalating costs to maintain their positions. Many people within this camp will be among the most successful members of society or its most principled--exactly the kind of people who would otherwise stand up effectively for minority rights. Without them present or fully integrated in their communities, little resistance exists against actors wanting to remake society in their own image. 

The lowered number of sensitive, empathetic, principled, or quietly diligent people--whose absence occurs gradually and is therefore difficult to register in any official capacity--causes a collective shift to a new, desensitized normal. At some point, even the less sensitive and empathetic residents realize something is wrong and they, too, leave, self-segregate, or disconnect psychologically from broader society. Yet another barrier of resistance to conformity is removed, leaving strongmen, radicals, and fools to dominate the culture. 

The children in this society grow up to become the new SS. Threats not otherwise perceived by any reasonable person in the previous generation are suddenly seen where few to no new substantive threats actually exist. (e.g., the North Korean nuclear threat is not new; however, NK's increased ability to survive without any need to be connected to countries other than China renders conventional solutions more impotent with each passing year.) This distortion leaves less time--and taxpayer funding--to deal with real problems, the causes of which become less obvious as more time passes. 

Society decays inexorably as more people hold onto power by any means necessary, whether through propaganda (fake news), new laws (CBAs, etc.), or brute force. The inability to resolve fundamental problems means fewer resources to be divided, leaving charity--both psychological and financial--less viable ("compassion fatigue").  Segregation becomes the new normal as fewer people care about others, especially persons who do not look or act like them. 

Segregation is crucial to understanding how a society changes its character because as more and more groups segregate themselves from each other, the information they receive is different. For example, despite living just 15 to 100+ miles away from each other, Community 1 may believe in a totally different reality than Community 2. In addition to making communication and therefore collaboration more difficult, segregation also allows Community 1 to hide its activities from outsiders. To take an extreme example, Community 1 may be brutalizing a minority group, but Community 2 has no realistic way of discovering such activity if the media no longer captivates the general public's attention or continues to lose readers/viewers and therefore status, revenue, income, access, and jobs. In the alternative, a "Neil Postman scenario" may result where excessive information functions the same as deliberate misinformation, leaving too few persons able to ascertain reliable facts, making broad or nationwide cooperation extremely difficult. 

In this future, everyone wonders how such normal, nice people changed in just a few decades. Most people are convinced by academics and media that some unique phenomenon occurred in the past. Some historians highlight positive outliers to provide people with hope when they ought to be warning that atrophy has occurred in every society and could occur again, right here. Otherwise reasonable people have left or spend their time battling misinformation, leaving them exhausted or with less time to contemplate solutions to fundamental problems--the same ones that continue unabated as distractions and noise increase. 

More people leave or self-segregate through laws, legal agreements, harsher police enforcement, and/or physical barriers. Society's only hope is to allow more immigrants who still believe in the country's advertised principles, which are no longer actually true. Whether the government and existing residents allow new immigrants or some other source of fresh idealism to save their country dictates the direction of the society's future. Many countries, after a certain point in this cycle, choose war. 

From Bremmer's Superpower

The key is the youth. Do they choose the old ways, or do they forge a new path? 

Wash, rinse, repeat. 

Bonus: when my family came to America, I remember being assisted by multiple native-born Americans who took pride in assisting my conservative and socially awkward father. (Like father, like son.) I remember this kindness vividly, even though I did not communicate verbally with any of the persons I saw. I was too young and, as noted, socially awkward. 

Yet, I still remember minute details: the family from Davenport who took the time to guide my family around unfamiliar territory, but who became separated at a highway offramp, leaving us to attempt to re-connect unsuccessfully in an era without cell phones or GPS. Being separated from this family distressed me greatly, even though I was not close with them. Why? I knew these people had made sacrifices to assist us, even if just losing time, and their sacrifice meant something. It meant I felt I was welcome in their community, and if I followed the rules, one day, it could be my community. Do recent immigrants to America have similar assistance and feelings that come with such generous assistance?  If not, how do they forge a bond, if any, with their communities?

Bonus II: my comment above regarding segregation is a precursor and base requirement to Kwame Anthony Appiah's worldview, in which he believes change and tolerance come from getting used to each other, not logic or arguments:

"I am urging that we should learn about people in other places, take an interest in their civilizations, their arguments, their errors, their achievements, not because that will bring us to agreement but because it will help us get used to one another--something we have a powerful need to do in this globalized era. If that is the aim, then the fact that we have all these opportunities for disagreement about values need not put us off. Understanding one another may be hard; it can certainly be interesting. But it doesn't require that we come to agreement." 

Justice Hugo Black on State Secrets

Justice Hugo Black, concurring opinion, joined by Justice William Douglas, New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) 403 U.S. 713, 717:

The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic... [P]aramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die...

More here.

Plus ca change, plus c'est le meme chose

From the 1938 Frank Capra film, You Can't Take It With You:

Lincoln said, "With malice toward none; with charity to all." Nowadays they say, "Think the way I do, or I'll bomb the daylights out of you."

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Military-industrial complex and animal spirits, 1; human wisdom, 0.

Debate on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

In case anyone is interested in my latest attempt at reasoned discourse, check out the comments section of this post.

Excepting Ken's comments, I call it, "The Triumph of Rhetoric over Reason." It's not a pretty day for logic.

Neil Postman, author of Amusing Ourselves to Death, would be both proud and sad that his predictions have come true.

War and its Consequences

I hate showing pictures like this, but it's important to see what "collateral damage" really means:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/05/20095672330997508.html

A US led air strike in Afghanistan is believed to have killed as many as 100 civilians, including many women and children.

This is why war should always be the last resort--no matter how careful anyone is, women and children usually end up paying the price for governments' grand schemes.

On a somewhat related note, President Obama is refusing to release pictures of detainee abuse. It is true that the pictures will be used to recruit terrorists and to fuel fire against American troops, but once the information is made public, America can begin to address the causes of the inhumane conduct and prevent them from happening again. Without disclosure, we look hypocritical when we complain about human rights abuses in other countries. We also run the risk of implicitly condoning inhumane conduct and government secrecy. The worst part is that President Obama switched positions on releasing the pictures, which makes it seem as if the evidence of abuse is so terrible, once the President actually saw the pictures, he thought better than to release them.

The Banality of Evil: It Could Happen in America

I recently had lunch in a restaurant and started chatting with three women near my table. I ordered too much food and offered them some of mine, and they invited me to sit with them. After they found out I was a lawyer, they asked me some questions about a fire in their apartment, and I tried to help them out. (They did not have renters' insurance.) At some point, the conversation moved into religion after they asked about my ethnicity.

I know lots of Mormons, lots of Catholics, and lots of people of other faiths who take their religion seriously. I may not agree with everything my friends say, but I respect their beliefs. I am very thankful to live in a country where reasonable people can agree to disagree, and where I can ignore ignorant bombasts. I've never had substantive discussions with fundamentalist Christians before, and after some time, it became apparent all three women were very conservative and very religious Republicans.

These women looked like your average Californians. One was 22 years old, half-white, half-Mexican, and had some streaks of red dyed into her hair. The other was a 26 years old light-skinned African-American. Her father was a pastor. The last woman was a 30 years old Jamaican-American married to a Laotian with a 8 years old daughter. As far as Americans go, this was a pretty diverse group of people.

We talked about George W. Bush, and all three of them liked him. They said you could not blame all of America's problems on one man. I agreed, saying that it was the entire Bush administration that created major problems, including unnecessarily invading Iraq. (I should have mentioned the compliant Democrats, too.) They said they supported President Obama, and even though they did not vote for him, he was now their president and they would try to support him, too. I thought their attitude was very honorable.

On Iraq, I said it was tragic that 100,000 innocent civilians and 3000+ Americans had died. The women responded that Iraq was not a mistake. I confirmed that they understood Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Trying to come to a middle ground, I said that perhaps at the time of the invasion, some evidence justified going into the country, but now, it's clear Iraq was never a threat to us. Assuming the only justified war is a defensive war based on defending your people and your country, the Iraq war was unjustified. I asked them again if they agreed invading Iraq was a mistake, based on current information. They still said Iraq was not a mistake.

I then said the war created more enemies. When an errant missile blows up your village, are you going to be pro-American or anti-American? In response to this, one of the women told me, "Why are you hating America? You're here now." I was stunned. I knew some people equated patriotism with total acceptance of everything about one's country, good or bad, but I didn't realize how ingrained this blind allegiance could be. I also didn't realize how many Americans felt that any dissent was somehow unAmerican. It is useful to remind ourselves that America's founding document, the Declaration of Independence, was an act of dissent against America's occupiers, the British.

Thomas Jefferson, for example, said the following:

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?

Most codes extend their definitions of treason to acts not really against one’s country. They do not distinguish between acts against the government, and acts against the oppressions of the government. The latter are virtues, yet have furnished more victims to the executioner than the former, because real treasons are rare; oppressions frequent. The unsuccessful strugglers against tyranny have been the chief martyrs of treason laws in all countries.

John Adams, if alive today, might have said the following about President G.W. Bush:

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.

Alexander Hamilton, on fighting against one's own government (Hamilton is arguing for federalism, but he implicitly accepts the notion that Americans can use self-defense against their own government when it betrays them):

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.

In short, dissent is American--blind patriotism is not.

On invading Iraq, the women said that we went there to help them. "They [Iraqis] asked for our help." Again, I was stunned. I thought we invaded Iraq to protect Americans from being attacked on American soil and to force the terrorists to fight "over there." In other words, assuming a finite number of terrorists, if we concentrated the war against them in the Middle East, they would have to expend resources fighting there and would be diverted from spending time plotting against Americans on American soil. No one said anything in response. I had in front of me three normally functioning people who believed that causing the deaths of 100,000+ civilians was our way of helping the Iraqis, and also, that they had asked for it.

The only time I got their attention was when I mentioned the 3000+ Americans who died. I told them why they would want to put Americans' lives at risk when it was clear now Iraq was never a threat to Americans. 100,000+ human beings didn't seem human to them because they lived in a different place, spoke a different language, and believed in a different religion--but mentioning 3000+ Americans made the death toll seem more real to them.

I tried a different approach: I asked them if they had to do it all over again, knowing what they know now, would they still have invaded Iraq? I was essentially asking them whether they'd save the lives of 3000+ Americans and 100,000+ Iraqis. After all, we know now that neither Iraqis nor Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to America. We know now that the war cost trillions of unnecessary dollars, which has reduced our ability to fight the current recession. The women said they would go to war again if given the chance.

That's when it hit me: normal people will believe and do terrible things, as long as they don't see the direct consequences of their beliefs. Like Germans in 1941 who silently accepted their government's gassing of millions of Jews, my American Christian companions believed that their government was doing the right thing to protect them. Most Germans never saw someone getting gassed and then having their teeth pulled. Most Americans have never seen a bomb land on a village, causing a child's family to be wiped out, severed limbs falling everywhere. It's almost like death has become so routine, our brains digest images as if they were from a Hollywood film (with a happy ending, of course). Even thinking about severed children's limbs, I think of an American film, and then of a PBS documentary showing dead children. Even in my own mind, an imaginary death takes precedence over real ones. So when I mentioned a child dying to my lunch companion, she immediately had to block the image by changing the subject into whether I loved America. The real image interfered with her idea of being involved in a just war. It was her own self-defense mechanism.

Blind patriotism makes no room for mistakes--these women were convinced that our country could do no wrong. After the WMD argument was destroyed and the connection to 9/11 absent--what else could they think of to justify their support of the war, but to assign an altruistic motive to the deaths of 3000+ Americans and over 100,000 Iraqi civilians? Their limited viewpoint--the one where 100,000 people were too far away to be real, and yet real enough to ask for "help"--could not handle any unfavorable information. Their mental paradigm required them to believe that their government, as an extension of themselves, was unable to do anything wrong. I've concluded that the most dangerous people are blind patriots. Whenever you refuse to call the unnecessary deaths of 103,000+ human beings a mistake, there is evil there somewhere. And it's utterly, tragically banal.

After my conversation with these women was finished and they had left, another woman told me she had overheard our conversation. Years ago, she had been in a U.N. refugee camp on the border of Cambodia and Thailand. In the camp she was in, Thai troops would come and shoot anyone who didn't have an ID. With only three or four U.N. personnel there to supervise the camp, these executions occurred on a more than rare basis.

She said that some Americans don't get it. The U.S. military, during Nixon's time, bombed Cambodia, which led to the Khmer Rouge, the opposition political party, becoming popular and gaining power (A similar course of events happened with the Nazi Party in Germany). See "Operation Menu," Nixon's 1969-1973 bombing campaign. As we now know, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge wiped out Cambodia, which, up to that point, had been a peaceful nation for centuries. Like the Iraqis, the U.S. government saw the people of Cambodia as nothing more than faceless pawns in a grander scheme. I am sure the American government wanted to help Cambodians, too.

Few people will kill another human being without some kind of greater ideal at work; however, it is the duty of responsible, educated people to remember the ravages of war and to demand that an actual threat exists before advocating war. Americans used to be responsible. When we found out about Nixon's bombing campaign, which killed 100,000+ Cambodians, protests broke out all over America's college campuses. College students died at Kent State. Even Congress acted, passing the Cooper-Church Amendment, which was supposed to limit Nixon's activities. (It did not. Like Bush II, Nixon did what he wanted to do, critics and other government branches be damned.)

Today, Americans have either forgotten history or are willfully ignoring it. My three companions, like the young students in the 1960's, should have been protesting the war once they realized Iraq posed little threat to the United States. Yet, even with the benefit of hindsight, they are willing to allow the deaths of 100,000+ civilians and 3000+ American soldiers. These are normal, sane Americans. They go to church, believe in God, and have families. They will not commit any crimes. They are some of the most dangerous people in America today.

We are so fortunate to live in a country with two vast oceans to protect us against invasion and with two allies as neighbors. We should not spoil our good fortune by allowing average or bloodthirsty Americans to dictate foreign policy. The reality of war--with its torn limbs, dead dreams, and dead bodies--will never fully register as long as most Americans continue to view executions on a big screen instead of next door. Our fortunate distance between death and reality should cause us to be more, not less, wary whenever our leaders argue that 100 or 100,000+ people need to die so that we can be safe.

Furthermore, it is every non-native American's duty to try to interact more with native-born Americans in a respectful manner. Most Americans have not traveled outside of North America. Therefore, the only avenue most Americans have to interact with other cultures is through non-native American residents. It is our duty to try to humanize other cultures for native-born Americans. It is our duty to reach out. It is our duty not to be banal.

Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder. -- Arnold J. Toynbee

Bonus: more here.