Being a Pacifist in the Middle of a Blood Bath

Even fellow CPTers (Christian Peacemaker Teams) are writing about how hard it is to reconcile their pacifist ideology with what to do to provide real help to real people in real danger from real violence in light of recent events in Syria and Iraq.

I think the word ‘ideology’ is actually the problem.  And I speak only for myself, which is, I think, at the heart of the issue.

I do not proselytize pacifism.  It is simply who I am.  My views and, I hope, my actions, are shaped by this.  But what you do with that is up to you.

It goes something like this in my head: I am not a Yazidi and I am not stuck on a mountaintop with people surrounding me who wish to kill me.  Thus it is not for me to say what they should do.

My pacifism leads me to live out the reality that for the dangerous places in which I find myself, for myself, violence is not, cannot be, the answer.

That does not mean that I do not have violence in my heart.  I do.  It is precisely because of the violence in my heart that I am a (work-in-progress) pacifist – because I know that my violence towards others has absolutely nothing to do with love, not even love of self, and everything to do with satisfying that peculiar hunger that lives within me.

My pacifist understanding leads me to take the route of non-violence, even in resistance to violence from others.  So my mountaintop dangerous experiences are just that – dangerous.  But my response to them is a response of non-violence, even should that mean my own death, for I am convinced that God values the one who would do me harm as much as God values me.  And knowing this with absolute certainty, I cannot be the instrumentality of their demise.  I simply cannot.

For me, this also means that I would never desire that any person act in any way to preserve my life at the expense of their own or someone else’s.  That is a burden I simply cannot carry.  And I know it asks much, perhaps too much, of others, who may well feel that they have become the instrument of my demise by not acting violently towards this proverbial other, should the situation ever come to pass.

But this is not hypothetical for me.  I mean it.  When I joined CPT, I did the work of counting the cost, including the cost of my own life.

In practical terms, what all this means for me is this:

1. Even if it’s a question of me or him, I choose him.

2. If you have to choose me or him, choose him.

3. That might not be your own choice and I will honor that as best I can in the circumstances – because this is not ideology – this is life and it is messy and my choices are not (necessarily) yours.  What does that mean?

a. it means that I still will not kill another person, even if to save you.  I would put myself between you, but I won’t take their life.  I am not who you want with you as a bodyguard or even as a fellow combatant if violent response is what you require as part of the deal.

b. if you’re asking for the help of someone else who will use violence to your aid, I won’t get in your way, for that is your choice rather than mine to make.

I admit to being surprised by fellow CPTers who are particularly troubled with their pacifism because of the recent actions of ISIS.  They are horrific.  But haven’t the behaviors of violent actors always been horrific?  Did it just get real for the first time for you?  Because it’s been real for me for a very long time.  That doesn’t make me smart or special.  But it does make me clear – if this thing we call pacifism is merely ideology, then it deserves to be thrown out with the trash.  The cost of such a way of life only gets paid when there is violence – unjust, horrible, life-threatening, life-taking, cruel, violence.  The question for me has always been – what is to be my response?  And the answer, at least for me, remains unchanged – I will help, but I will not kill.  Perhaps that makes me useless.  That is not my judgment to make.

But consider this about the recent events in Iraq:

1. These things did not happen in a vacuum.  They never do.  This crucible moment was preceded by countless crucible moments in Iraq before, moments which did not even call for violent solutions, during which we did nothing.  If PM Maliki be the problem, his position is one we established and thus do we reap the whirlwind we created.  I am left to wonder why it is so much harder for us to simply work towards an honest form of government interested in the welfare of its people and so much easier for us just to drop bombs.

2. ISIS has been coming for a long time.  Why the surprise?  Even in immediate terms, the world has known for months about their increasing incursions into Iraq.  And largely, we did nothing.  Where, one might ask, are the UN Peacekeepers?  Where the barriers?  Where the practical steps for evacuation from a coming war zone?  Where the stockpiling of supplies for humanitarian aid?  If this is a crisis, it is one we helped create by our large indifference.

3. Where the world’s outcry when PM Maliki and his folk engaged in similar behavior towards their opponents?  Iraq as a nation has not had one moment of rest since the 1990's and the sanctions imposed not on its leader but on its citizens.  How would one reasonably expect anything but chaos and its attendant horrors with a land that has resources others are rapaciously hungry for and the countries of the world aligned around it to use it as their own version of the O. K. Corral?

4. What have the countries around the world done to offer to take the refugees?  They’re on that mountaintop for a reason.  Fleeing a fearsome enemy, they had nowhere else to go.  And why not?  Why are they themselves not being airlifted out?  Because we, the world, won’t have them.

5. Our prejudices want to have it both ways: we want to condemn Muslims around the world, or certainly in the Middle East, as being barbaric monsters while our condemnation focuses on their victims, most of whom are other Muslims.  Which is it?  Are they barbarians?  Or victims?  Or is the truth much simpler – like all of the rest of us, they’re both?

6. Economic, social, and political upheaval create the perfect storm for the worst of humanity’s behaviors to have free reign.  Everything we have done in Iraq for decades has been towards the certain conclusion that we will and have created a failed state.  We cannot claim surprise at the result.  The cry now for the necessity of violent solutions overlooks each and every step down this path we have taken to its inevitable conclusion.  Perhaps weapons are now our only choice.  But that hasn’t always been true.  And weapons will be a poor solution for the long-term welfare of all Iraq’s peoples.  There is always a what next? phase.  Have we given that any thought?  It would seem not.  Which simply repeats the previous pattern and if we do nothing differently, the same results will certainly attain and only the acronyms will change.  We can do better than that.  The question remains whether we will.

_________________________
I wrote this about 6 - 8 weeks ago and decided not to post it at the time.  Since then, the United States, along with some partners, has sent air attacks raining down on Syria and Iraq, too much for some, too little for others.  And hostage demands and executions have continued.  Today one family has publicly said, while asking that their son be spared, that the price demanded by those holding him is a price they cannot meet.  Actually, they have said it is a price they cannot ‘accommodate’, which is a different matter all together.  I understand what they mean.  At least I think I do.  Prayers continue that the killing madness come to an end.  And that includes bullets and armaments stamped ‘made in the USA’ fired from ISIS hands as well as our own.

It is No Accident 2.0

It is no accident that President Obama’s speech calling for war
          by another name was given on September 10 – the eve 
          of an anniversary of horror in the United States.

Last September 10, President Obama gave his address about Syria and its chemical weapons.  This year, the President again addressed a crisis of the Middle East on September 10, at the same time that he was saying, “ISIL is not “Islamic.” No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim.”

At the same time that he decried, by implication, any broad-brush condemnation of Islam, President Obama engaged in appealing to the tendency to broad-brush condemnation of all things Muslim by the very date of his speech, timed so thoughtfully to coincide with but not usurp the commemoration of, September 11, 2001.

It was and is manipulative in the extreme.  And it is a calculated effort to stir the American people to again see unknown and unnamed forces from the Middle East as terrifying hordes about to descend upon our borders.

If the cause be just, there is no need or requirement for propaganda or manipulation.  Thus does the very use of such techniques in order to ‘convince’ us of the President’s ‘case’ suggest that it is a weak case at best.


It is no accident that President Obama mentioned Russia 
          in his speech.

“ It is America that has rallied the world against Russian aggression, and in support of the Ukrainian peoples’ right to determine their own destiny,” the President asserted as part of a laundry list of examples of supposed American moral superiority and claimed unique positioning in history as justification for his plan against ISIS (a.k.a. ISIL).

It is no accident that the President mentioned Russia, ally to Syria and global actor in its own right.  Russia perceives itself as having vested interests in the Middle East as well as we do.  Turkey, a NATO member, lies uncomfortably close geographically to Russia from its point of view.

Russia and the United States remain all too willing in the present global climate to continue to fire shots across each other’s proverbial bow and this was yet another from our side of the imaginary trench.

This, I read, as President Obama telling Russia to stay out of it.  Why Russia would listen to us any more than we listen to them I cannot think.


It is no accident that President Obama referred to “Kurdish” in
          addition to “Iraqi” forces – as something separate 
          and distinct.

All due respect to my many Kurdish friends, there is, at least technically, no such thing as “Kurdish forces”.  The President presumably refers to the Peshmerga, the fighting forces originating in the north of Iraq where the Kurds historically reside.

The Peshmerga have remained intact and visible since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, but in more recent years, have largely been absorbed into the Iraqi army in its various permutations, although they do see themselves largely as a separate entity from the rest of the Iraqi army.

But since August, various countries around the world have been arming the Peshmerga.

President Obama said these things last evening:  “These strikes (air strikes against ISIS to date) have . . . given space for Iraqi and Kurdish forces to reclaim key territory.”  and “[These American forces] are needed to support Iraqi and Kurdish forces . . .”

President Obama recognized Kurdish fighting forces as something separate and apart from Iraqi fighting forces, in effect recognizing the Kurdish semi-autonomous region of Iraq as its own separate country.

This gels nicely with the desires of the Kurds themselves.  But it will not end well for them.  Turkey has a substantial Kurdish population that desires to form a Kurdish nation.  The PKK, the Turkish-Kurdish resistance, has been labeled a terrorist organization by Turkey and by the United States.

Iran’s sister organization, PJAK, with similar intentions and tactics to PKK, is actually supplied arms by the United States in order to disrupt that regime.

President Obama glibly names the Kurds as a separate entity in a speech televised around the world, giving hope and quarter to the aims and desires of the Kurdish peoples who have long desired to have their own nation-state.  But he doesn’t mean it.  When Turkey complains, as it has in the past and surely will again, about the impact on its own internal politics with its Kurdish population, Washington will, as it has before, capitulate, for the simple reason that to not capitulate will unite Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey in common cause against the Kurds, which Washington will perceive that it can ill afford (remember Turkey’s strategic importance relative to Russia).

But the Kurds aren’t fools.  They’ve been down this road many times with the West.  Only time will tell what will become of their resolve, but make no mistake, this current violence is an opportunity for the Kurds.  Maybe it’s one they deserve.  I am in no position to judge; but I do know that it will be costly for all involved.

It always is when so many motives with so little power are on the table.


It is no accident that President Obama asserted his ‘authority’ to 
          act as he already has and clearly plans to continue to do, 
          congressional imprimatur or no.

In a December 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe, then Senator Obama said, “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

The only thing that has changed between then and now is that Mr. Obama himself is the one wielding the power.

The President’s assertion last night that he has the authority to act as he already has and plans to continue to do, with the expanded and ominous threat to invade another sovereign nation (Syria) to achieve his stated goals, with or without congressional approval, merely continues the actions of presidents in the aftermath of World War II (the last declared war under the provisions of the constitution that the United States has engaged in).

There is no virtue in announcing ones intention to violate the laws of one’s own nation.  But there is clarity.

And it might be good political strategy for the president to throw down on Congress in this manner, but it isn’t good governance.


It is no accident that President Obama referenced no direct 
          threat to the United States, but raised all of our 
          collective bogey men to stir our fear of what might come.

So ISIL poses a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria, and the broader Middle East – including American citizens, personnel and facilities. If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region – including to the United States. While we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, ISIL leaders have threatened America and our allies. Our intelligence community believes that thousands of foreigners – including Europeans and some Americans – have joined them in Syria and Iraq. Trained and battle-hardened, these fighters could try to return to their home countries and carry out deadly attacks.  -- President Obama's speech of last night

The language the President used was careful but revealing: the only Americans threatened are those living and working in those areas where ISIS/ISIL are located.

But they “could” threaten us.  And although there is no knowledge of any specific plots of attack, there could be.  And those of ISIS/ISIL who are from Europe or the United States “could” come home and attack us.  Just like on September 11.  Except not.

President Bush specifically abandoned any pretense at just war theory in his invasion of Iraq in 2003 and President Obama has never looked back from that dramatic shift in policy.

Everyone who doesn’t like us is a threat to us.  And we to them.  But every threat is not a justification for war or invasion.  And the distinction between ground and air attack is a distinction without a difference in terms of whether it is constitutional or proper.

The distinction between ground and air is simply to assure the American people that its children will not die in the numbers that the children of our enemies will.  In others words, it’s a tactical point rather than a legal or procedural one.  And I, for one, am not particularly interested in debating tactics.

I am interested in a national debate on whether to do this at all.  By simply doing it and then asking permission, our President has taken that privilege and responsibility of citizenship away from us.

And we are the poorer for it.

The shame, however, is ours as much as his, for we have let him do it.

Signs of the Peaceable Kingdom

This Sunday’s lectionary* reading includes a passage from the book of Isaiah in the Hebrew scriptures, which reads in part:  The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, the lion shall eat straw like the ox. . . (Isaiah 65.25).

Since the beginning of November, there have been a startling confluence of signs of hope here on planet earth:

Syria  meets the deadline for destruction of its chemical weapons facilities.  Tomorrow is the deadline for destruction of any stockpiles of chemical weapons there.  The civil war continues in Syria, but the threat of chemical weapons usage has been eliminated and for the time being, the possibility of the world being drawn into armed conflict there averted.  Newswire

Israel/Palestine talks limp on and things look bad as Palestinian negotiators resign in face of announced additional Israeli settlements in the West Bank, but Palestinian President Abbas vows the talks will continue with this team or a new one.   Reuters

Congolese Rebels M23 call for a cease fire and negotiations continue in neighboring Uganda.  Again, it’s not a panacea and the motive for the cease-fire probably has as much to do with the recent military successes of the Congo government, but any reprieve to the level of violence in that nation is a good reprieve.   Yahoo 

Colmobian Government and FARC reach a partial accord with on-going talks on the horizon, making the possibility of an end to the world’s longest running civil war a real possibility for the first time in my lifetime.  Bouvier

Iran & Nuclear Capabilities are on the table, with Iran and the United States engaging in direct talks of this kind (which included a phone call between the two nations’ presidents) for the first time since the hostage takings in 1979.  The talks have stalled as parties with multiple and varying interests jockey for position, but it is crucial that we not miss the point that we are talking!  And there is hope.  Reaves

What are good ordinary people to do?  We have no power, no decision-making authority, we people who are not government or private industry leaders.  What can we possibly do?

There are lots of political possibilities, but for now, I leave those to the wiser in such things.

For now, I am focusing on the spiritual dimension to these challenges and I am setting myself to praying . . . specifically . . . continuously . . . concretely . . . for the peaceable kingdom God intends for the world to come into fruition . . . and my prayer goes something like this . . .

God of All Good Who Wills All Good . . . step closer in, I pray . . . keep us no more at arms’ length . . . embrace us like a parent protecting a small child from itself . . . hold us tight into Your love . . . Your ways . . . in this moment of wondrous possibility, open our eyes to Your dreams, Your vision . . . implant Your heart within each and all of us so firmly that we can imagine no other course save Yours . . . still our warring madness . . . help us move from self interest to universal care and concern and action . . . plug our ears against defeatism and the notion that war is the only way . . . unpack our imagination to the large possibilities of Your peace . . . for those who sit down at table together, knit the moments of humor and trust and empathy into a tapestry in which peace holds at the center of all . . . bless the baby steps we make towards peace into something even we could not have imagined . . . unite us around the world in the call to pray, seeking Your wisdom, Your will, Your ways.  Help us all to be brave and do the hard thing of not hitting back.  Help the negotiators to ignore the distraction of those who would subvert their work.  Love us all into Your peace.  Amen.

I wonder what God will do in these hearts, including my own.

Won’t you too join in praying for possibilities we never imagined?


__________________
*'lectionary' refers to a 3-year cycle of readings from the Bible in the Christian tradition.  This Sunday's readings include the passage above from Isaiah.

Hasn't September Already Done Enough for War?

Shouldn’t September, of all months, be a month for not-war?  For staying the hand of violence?  For a respite from the spilling of blood?

September, when children return to school, running down hallways chased by the voices of cautioning teachers . . .

September, when planes became weapons and towers fell and people jumped to their own deaths rather than face the violence any longer . . .

September, when in the north, the air turns to the perfect blend of sunshining days and chill nights . . .

September, when in the United States we begin by celebrating laboring men and women and the changes to the good they have brought to all humanity . . .

September, the month of the International Day of Peace . . .

September, when the autumnal equinox bestows the sun’s light equally upon the north and south of the world for one of only two days a year as we of the world share the sunlight and the night equally with each other . . .

September, when at its beginning on an early morning in Poland World War II was begun . . .

September, when the then-USSR agreed to send weapons to Cuba, precipitating the Cuban Missile Crisis (or leading to the withdrawal of US missiles from Turkey, depending on your point of view) . . .

September, when Frederick Douglass began his escape from slavery . . .

September, when The Blitz began . . .

September, when Desmond Tutu became the first black head of South African Anglicans . . .

September, when the blockade of Leningrad began (ending in the deaths of almost one million people) . . .

September, when Steven Biko died . . .

September, when Napoleon first entered Moscow . . .

September, when the Phalangists slaughtered Palestinian refugees in Beirut . . .

September, when the Norman conquest began . . .

September, when the Babi Yar massacre of more than 30,000 Jews near Kiev was done . . .

Hasn’t September done enough already for the cause of war, violence and death?

Syria: When Eddie Prayed

So Eddie prayed

and today the Russians

become 

(very tentative)

allies of thought

with the likes of 

John Kerry and

Hilary Clinton

and 

(perhaps)

Assad himself

seems there might just

be an alternative –

a peace way –

of coming to resolution

and all can claim victory

even the US can claim

(as Mrs. C already has)

that it was the very threat

of force that brought

about the possibility

of peaceful resolution

so you say, Hilary

and for this day

that’s good enough

but not really – for

the warp and woof of

cause and effect are

not so clear as even one

single thread in a

tapestry of events

it will do for today

this claim of victory

if it gets us there

it'll do

oh, 

but how do you know

it was not the threat

of force

but Eddie’s prayers in 

the night?

Praying Syria Through the Night

The call comes early . . . a congregant – a Viet Nam veteran and enthusiast for Jesus and for life, is awakened in the middle of the night . . . he’s been praying ever since . . . praying that God intervene somehow . . . stay the hands of the ones who decide when it comes to this business of war . . .

In his humility, this man thinks it’s not much, this praying he does in the middle of the night.

But what I hear are the words of James, The prayer of a person living right with God is something powerful to be reckoned with.  –James 5.16 (The Message).

Eddie reads me what he has written, for his prayers are so big they must be put to paper.

The words flow out of his heart and onto the page . . . wisdom for leaders . . . a better way . . . let the two sides sit down together . . . the unspoken words the most eloquent of all . . . help . . . save us from ourselves . . . we need You . . .

Somehow Eddie ends by thanking me, when I know it is I who should be thanking him, for I stand reminded that when the Holy Spirit awakens you in the night, it’s time to get on your knees.

Of No Reputation

We humans, and particularly we Christians, spend (translate: waste) an awful lot of time when we worry about our reputations.  The King James version of Phillippians reminds us, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:  Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:  But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men . . .”   –Philippians 2.5-7 (KJV).

Jesus has absolutely no concern about his own reputation.  If he had, he would have avoided many of those with whom he consorted.  And not just the obvious ones like the women everyone loves to paint as whores.  The fishermen added nothing to Jesus’ gloss.  They brought nothing to the table in terms of Jesus’ cred (well, except for his street cred, of course – in some places, fishermen are cool).

If our ‘credibility’ as a nation is in the top 5 reasons to bomb Syria (and it is: recall the ‘red line’ language – the President is challenged to bomb because he said he would; and he has responded that he will because he said he would), we’re in big moral trouble.

As I’ve quoted before from an old-timer in AA, what other people think about me is none of my business.

To kill other people, to destroy their homes, their possessions, their land, for the sake of what other people will think about me (whether I be an individual or a nation) is nonsense of the basest kind.

It is factually flawed, for it presumes that the destruction will shape the opinions of others towards me in the direction I intend (which almost never happens).

It’s the childhood myth that I am center stage and that I control the thoughts/choices/actions of others in the drama of events that I (mistakenly) believe I can control.  It grants no freedom of choice/action/thought to the other, whoever that may be – the intended ‘target’ of my action.

It’s the unwillingness to even consider changing my mind or admitting I made a foolish commitment in the first place.  Or to borrow from Ralph Waldo Emerson, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

It is to presuppose that I can measure such things as reputation, which I cannot.

It is to presuppose being of my word to be more important than the lives of others. [Read the story of Jepthah and the sacrifice of his daughter for the sake of his (unsought) promise to God in Judges 11 for a heart-breaking lesson in kept promises].

For those among us who claim to follow The Way, we forget Jesus’ example of discounting his reputation for the sake of others at the peril of being not followers of His Way, but of our own.

I Will Never Leave Nor Forsake You

Hebrews 13.5: I will never leave nor forsake you.

So I read in preparing for prayer over Syria last night, this God promise the writer of Hebrews sets forth – the context far different as he (presumably) writes about leaving aside the fears and desires created by a lack of material goods.  Or is it?

Was he writing to people starving to death?  To people running for their lives?  To people aching with the fear of never having enough?  to people whose fears had good cause?  I suspect so – there is no need to preach freedom from worry to the rich, the safe, is there?

So maybe this is a word of the Lord for the people of Syria today, this God promise of safe haven and deliverance.  But what can it mean in the midst of real violence, real destruction, real lack?

I cannot presume to say.  Yet the promise stays with me and becomes my prayer for these strangers who are my kin so far away.

Then, perhaps subconsciously harkening back to where the promise is first uttered (in Deuteronomy 31), I think of Moses, his arms uplifted, held in place by Aaron and Hur at his side when he grew weary.

But I mixed my images, holding the Moses image together with the demand that his people be released from captivity.  I forgot the context.  God didn’t, but I did.  Deuteronomy 31's divine promise of eternal presence is in aid of the conquering of the promised land and Aaron and Hur hold Moses’ arms up because his upraised arms assure battle victory to the Israelites.

I cannot escape the imagery of war no matter where I turn.  The irony is lost on me, but perhaps God appreciates the joke as I use these images of battle victory to pray for a turning of hearts and minds away from violence and towards just peace.

There are real combatants on battle fields all over the world today.  Maybe it does make sense to offer prayer for both sides to all these conflicts, prayer that they recall the divine promise to never leave nor forsake. . . maybe were all to remember this God promise, the lasting victory whose name is peace would become real . . . maybe it becomes impossible to lift weapons when, eyes downcast, it is remembered that the ground stood upon is not holy because of the blood shed there, but rather is holy because of the God standing there . . . maybe the feared, implied threat of divine abandonment is so real that it is necessary that we pray that none be left or forsaken . . .

Lord, whatever You do, do not leave them . . . do not leave us.

In Your mercy, hear this prayer.

Syria: Prayer to Thought to Action

Last night, I kept an appointment I made with God and prayed for and about Syria.  What it mostly brought are tears.  But God’s Spirit, as well as opening my heart to the pain of so many, also nudged me to actions – small, one person actions, but actions nevertheless.

And so I returned and promptly wrote an e-mail to all of my elected officials (shout out the Presbyterian Church for making that easy) giving voice to my own concerns about our proposed course of action in Syria and asking them to consider alternatives that would, I pray, bring genuine help and change to the lives of so many there.

And I’ve committed (but not yet done – hold me accountable) to send money to UNHCR for the refugees of Syria.

I don’t know if the letters will make any difference, but I know the money will – even drop-in-the-bucket money helps, even if only for a day, even if only for a moment.

That’s the thing about prayer, isn’t it?

Prayer isn’t wish-fulfillment.  My desires for Syria do not become reality merely because I speak them to God’s ear.  God may move in miraculous ways or God may not (at least not in ways I might recognize).  But always, God will move my own heart whenever I enter the divine presence with heart, eyes, ears and hands wide open.

Always, God will remind me of what needs doing in the my-own-small-part of things.  Always, God will give me the desire as well as the ability to do that which God would have me do from where I stand.  And always, God will sit back and wait to see whether I respond to God’s own promptings.

The trick, the only trick, for me, is to keep those stubborn, self-willed eyes, ears and hands open to the God promtings sent my way.

Sometimes they emerge from within, but just as often, they emerge from the voices of other people.

And most of the time, I won’t even recognize God’s voice as God’s – at least not until later.

But saying yes to God is one of the greatest privileges of being alive.  It is the privilege of being a servant of The One Worthy of Being Served.

For that, I am so thankful.

I’m praying for and about Syria again this evening at 6 p.m.  I hope we’ll join our prayers together.  And who knows what God will have to say to us?

Syria: To Bomb or Not To Bomb

The President says it’s punitive.
The people hear that it will save lives.

The President says it’s to protect Israel.
The people hear that it’s to protect Syrians.

The President says it’s to challenge Iran.
The people hear it’s to challenge Assad.

The President says it’s not about regime change.
Senator McCain hears it’s about regime change.

It is my own view that one of the biggest problems we citizens of the United States have when it comes to political interactions is that we do not listen to our leaders.  We do not hear what they say; we hear what we want them to say.

The second largest problem is that when it comes to contemplated military action, our Congress as a whole debates not whether to but how to.  And as Congress goes, so goes the press by and large.

Thus we are right now in a situation regarding Syria of taking the fact of a strike against that nation as a virtual given, arguing only over the details, when in fact, the whether to at all question is actually the important question of the day.

And thus we are right now in a situation regarding Syria where President Obama is actually being very clear; unfortunately, his citizens are not listening to him.

1. It’s punitive.  Let us take the President at his word: his reason to seek military action against Syria’s government is punitive.  He has actually used the word ‘punitive’.  There are several problems with such an approach:

a. it’s a do-what-I-say-and-not-what-I-do approach to world affairs; and as any (good) parent knows, it’s an approach doomed to fail, for those following and even those not seeming to be paying attention will inevitably do not as we say but as we do.  We supported the use of chemical weapons by Iraq against Iran in the 1980's, to the point of remaining silent in the face of Saddam’s turning those same weapons against his own citizens, the Kurds of the north.  We used white phosphorous on the civilian population of Fallujah.  We will not sign treaties that seek to ban cluster bombs and certain types of land mines.  And even when we do act to oppose such weaponry, we are strangely silent about the manufacturers and holding them accountable.  To claim the moral high ground, it’s axiomatic that one must actually be standing on the moral high ground at the time.

b. If it’s punishment we’re after, there are a whole host of remedies in the international arena.  The International Criminal Court provides a venue for the prosecution of crimes against humanity and what we term war crimes.  The United Nations has vehicles for other remedies, including sanctions, the sending of peacekeepers and inspectors.  In fact, the UN did send inspectors.  Their report has not yet been produced.  Their testing is not yet complete.  To circumvent the United Nations yet again is to effectively say to the world that the United States does not even believe in the possibility of international law and action.  The lone wolf mythology we cling to is costly beyond our ability to imagine, I fear.  And punishment is a poor substitute for a just peace, especially a punishment that seeks to say that killing in a particular way is wrong by killing in a different way, but killing nonetheless.

2. It’s about Israel, not Syria.  The fear about chemical weapons is as much, if not more, about our concern for the people of Israel than it is for the people of Syria.  It is commonly accepted (although not publicly stated) that the source of information/ intelligence about this most recent attack is Israel.  Given its geographical proximity and their historical hostility, Israel is right to be concerned.  Whether Israel’s concerns and ours align in this particular instance is something that should be discussed.  It’s not.  The President has named the concern.  But no one else seems interested in discussing, weighing and evaluating it.  And remember point #1 – this is about punishment.  The President has said so.  There is no goal to save Syrian lives.  There is no reason put forth that the contemplated action by the US will reduce violence in Syria.  Many believe it will have the opposite effect of escalating an already violent conflict.  When acting pre-emptively on behalf of a party such as Israel, we have to at least admit that we’re willing to sacrifice Syrians to do it.

3. Challenging Iran.  Secretary of State John Kerry stated that one reason to strike against Syria is to send a message to Iran, North Korea and others that chemical weapons may not be used with impunity.  Setting aside the cruel irony of the US telling Iran that it will not tolerate chemical weaponry when it was the US that enabled Saddam to use chemical weapons against Iran in the 1980's war (by providing Saddam with critical intelligence on where and when to launch his attack (Democracy Now), are we really going to kill Syrians in order to teach Iran a lesson?  Are we, in so doing, going to ignore the mutual-defense pact between Syria and Iran?  Are we really going to provoke Iran and its allies, drawing them into (or further into) this conflict?  Did we learn nothing about how global conflicts begin from World War I?  Are we really interested in restarting the practice of proxy wars we retired with the Cold War?  Are we really ignoring Russia and China in all this?  Are we really so immature as to believe that to explore alternatives to military air strikes is ‘doing nothing’?  Is our press so ineffectual as to ignore these vital questions?

4. It’s not about regime change.  President Obama (who will be making the decisions, no matter with whom he consults) has been very clear: he is not seeking regime change.  Senator McCain is not listening and insists that regime change is what must occur.  The problem I see is that following the course of either man does nothing to reduce or eliminate the bloodbath that is Syria today.  We the people would do well to remember that we’re not in this to save the Syrians.  This is not the good guys versus bad guys stuff of movies.  This is exactly what our President is saying it is: killing some Syrians, destroying some territory, to show the Syrian leadership that doing what we’ve said not to do will cost him because we said it would.  It’s a penalty.  No more, no less.

What might we do instead if we’re really interested in helping Syrians?

1. If you’re a praying person, pray.  One of the most important lessons I’ve learned about prayer (wish I could recall the source) is that God does not reverse the past.  What has happened already has happened already and it will not be undone.  Prayer, effective prayer, deals with the present and the future.  For those of us in the United States particularly, we might pray for wisdom, patience, forbearance, and mercy on the part of our leadership.   We might pray that our own eyes be opened to new pathways of peace and the strength, courage and dedication of resources to make them happen.  Weaponry as a problem-solving technique has become too easy in our time.  Military solutions are our go-to position all too often, ironic given its largely ineffectiveness at meeting our stated goals of peace.  This praying isn’t about patriotism.  It isn’t about having our own way.  It isn’t about undoing the past.  It’s about being empowered by the God of all to do right in the world and by the world.  The work of doing right is hard.  It takes lots of time and effort and money.  And it doesn’t often get a parade at the end.  And sometimes it gets a cross.  For a Christian at least, that shouldn’t be a surprise.  So let us praying people pray like we mean it and live like we believe it.

2. Invest in peace and the ways of peace.  We might marshal our impressive resources in the cause of just peace -- for at no time in our nation's history have we dedicated the resources for peace preparedness that we do to war preparedness. What might we do now?

a. we might pony up really big money to make refugee camps and other sites genuine places of safe haven.  On an individual basis, we might donate money to UNHCR (United Nations High Commission on Refugees) to provide for the masses of Syrian refugees (shout out to Jon Stewart on the Daily Show for highlighting this issue and way to help on September 3's show).

b. We might mobilize massive numbers of trained peacemakers, mediators and folks trained in the ways not merely of conflict resolution but also of building a civil society based upon universal humanitarian goals. We mobilize our military - why not our non-military?   And there are Syrians who are trying desperately to build and rebuild their own civil society.

c. We might ask our elected leadership to stop any support for the rebels in Syria unless and until they attend peace talks in Geneva.  We might ask other nations supporting the Assad regime (Russia and Iran) to do the same.

d. We might start punishing those who produce chemical weapons in international tribunals.

e. When it comes to the dedication of troops, we might use the United Nations - peacekeepers from the UN actually have a pretty good track record - a fact that gets overlooked. (and yes, I remember Rwanda).

f. We might wait for the UN inspection team to come back with its report/findings. I am no fan of Mr. Putin, but he actually asked a pretty good question - why would Assad use chemical weapons exactly when the UN inspection team was in country? Assad might be a monster, but is he really that much of an idiot?

g. If the goal is punishment,  we might treat this as a crime.  If so,

(1) proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required. Shouldn't we have the same level of proof for the killing of many as we do of the killing of one? and

(2) there are already processes in place in the international community for that. So charge Assad with crimes against humanity and prosecute him for them.

(3) If, on the other hand, the goal is to stop or reduce the numbers of civilians from being killed, we have to remember that this is a civil war and all sides are armed to varying degrees and all sides are using violence to impose their will both upon the civilians as well as the opposition. The only thing I know to change that dynamic (other than a clear winner, which rarely happens) is negotiated peace. The bottom line for me is that the answer to grab our guns just hasn't been effective, ever, at reducing or eliminating the numbers of the dead -- it's only been effective at giving one side or the other clear victory after the bloodbath.  Isn't it well past time to commit , really commit, to the ways of peace?

(4) A side note worth remembering: the other day NPR interviewed 2 sisters in Syria - they were of opposite opinions. Family. One favored the rebels and hated the Assad regime for its cruelties. The other feared the rebels, particularly as a woman, certain that her own life would not be worth much if they were to prevail. When I jump into someone else's fight, I'd better have a good idea about all that's at stake. Ask the Iraqis.

When I take up a gun, a bomb, or any instrumentality of violence, I am not stopping people dying. What I'm doing is simply changing the cast of characters who will die.

And logically, if I am 'letting' people die by not bombing Syria, am I then responsible if the bombing results not in less deaths but more, if Assad increases rather than decreases his attacks on the civilian population?

We can't predict with certainty the outcomes of actions because we're not in control of the universe of possibilities. That doesn't mean we do nothing. But it does mean that we dare not act surprised when our efforts to 'help' backfire with more violence that we participated in escalating.  ( See Slate report on the increase in civilian deaths in which other countries intervene in armed conflict.)

But I remain stuck in pondering whether it really is the best we humans can do when children are dying to drop more bombs that risk killing more children? Why can't we create safe havens for them to run to? Why can't we teach their parents a better way? Why can't we spend the money on things that actually work? I wish I knew.

__________________
Other posts I've written about Syria:  There's a War a Comin; Jumping Rope in the Sand, Candidate Questions on Foreign Policy, and Grading the Debate.

There's a War a-Comin'

Can you feel it?
The winds of war are in the air
no one yet bands together
to begin the songs of hope
and opposition that are the
sure signs that war is upon us,
but upon us it is

and this time, it’s name is Syria

and the Republocrats
and the Democans
band together
for war makes common
cause of us all (well, almost)

the case is making and made
righteousness walks the land
concern for brothers we do
not know the justness of whose
cause we cannot weigh become
our pole star

and I sit and wonder why
it is so much easier
so much more necessary
urgent
claiming
to kill those who kill
than to protect those
who would be killed

is it really so simple
that all the big boys and
girls can so easily turn
fodder into money? as they
align to arm one against the
other?

do the reasons matter as we
align and realign and realign
yet again to wage yet another
blood bath in that part of the
world my own people call
the Middle where the only
centrality we can find is the
desire, the need, the rage,
to kill and kill and kill again?

I want to tell God we’re better than this.
Seems I was wrong – again.

Jumping Rope in the Sand

Jumping rope in the sand is as hard as it sounds.  And that, it seems to me, is Iraq today -- lots of dust up with precious few measurable results.

Looking at pictures the other day, I came across this one – me in the juba (robe) and hijab (head covering) in the hot sand of the Syrian desert along the Iraqi border, jumping rope with Iraqi Palestinian children, escaped from the madness in Iraq to the safe haven of Syria.

It was 2005.

It would be the last time I would see many of them, these brave souls who crossed a desert through dangerous territory seeking a better life in their own hoped-for Promised Land - anywhere but Iraq.

Today people travel in the other direction, running from the violence in Syria.  But where will they run to?  The violence in Iraq continues.

Although I can read and hear reports on Syria easily enough, to find out about violence in Iraq on any given day, I have to troll the English versions of Middle Eastern news outlets.  The West is silent on Iraq.

Thousands of mercenaries remain in Iraq on the US taxpayer’s dime.  They are controlled now not by the military, but by the State Department.

And astonishingly, nobody outside of government seems to know exactly how many are still there.

But in case we miss the significance,

1. Syrians are now fleeing their own country and seeking safe haven in neighboring countries, including Iraq.  Iraq says it cannot house them.  Whether they can or cannot, Iraq is safe haven for no one.  Kurdpress News Agency

2. Mercenaries hired by the United States of America continue to occupy military bases and protect the ‘oil interests’ of the United States in Iraq, in addition to providing security for State Department personnel.  In essence, we have a private army operating inside Iraq at the direction of our State Department.

3. Violence and bloodshed continue (see link above).  And we continue to not hold ourselves the least bit accountable.  GRIID

4. Oh, I forgot.  The war in Iraq is over.  Except it isn’t.

And somewhere in the desert, maybe another American woman jumps rope to distract refugee children from the fear and the hunger and the danger.  Maybe she too looks up at the sky with the children and promises in her broken Arabic that they will be connected even when she leaves because they look upon the same stars in the night sky.  Maybe she too lifts her juba and makes herself look silly to coax a smile from sad young faces, if only for a moment.

21 Questions for the Candidates on Foreign Policy: Just a Suggestion

Here are some suggested questions for next week's foreign policy debate.  I really don't want to waste a single minute on how it's been gotten wrong or right in the last four or even last twelve years.  I want to know where we go from here.  And in order to know, as best we can when it comes to predicting future behaviors, I have some questions.

1. Why must Israel be our ‘special’ friend?  Why isn’t it enough that we are allies?  Shouldn’t our goal be to be ‘friends’ with all the nations of the world?  Does speaking ‘for’ human rights for Palestinians equate in your mind to speaking ‘against’ Israel?

2. Why should we arm anyone around the world?  There is a call to arm folks in Syria, which overlooks the obvious question of why arm anyone.  In Syria in particular, who would you arm?  Why?

3. When will either of you bring all our troops (mercenaries/private contractors included) home from Iraq?

4. What is the tipping point for you in moving away from sanctions and towards military solutions (including nuclear attack) against Iran?  In other words, what would trigger a justification for war or military action against Iran?

5. What WWIII dangers do you see right now in the world?  What about Syria/Turkey/Iran/Russia/China/US alignments in regards to the Syrian civil war?  Do you see a danger there of missteps that might lead to global conflict?  What will you do to avoid that?

6. Explain to the American people exactly upon what legal basis, national and international, you would place US ships in the Strait of Hormuz?  Iran has threatened to blockade its own territorial waters in the Strait.  Upon what basis do you claim that the United States would have the justification to militarily oppose such an action?  Do you have any other basis for such a position than ‘because we can’?  Or that cutting off oil (even if done perfectly legally) ‘threatens our national interests abroad’?  Why would it be militarily actionable for Iran to police its own waters however it sees fit?  Please bear in mind that inconvenient or costly or even economically catastrophic is not militarily actionable, else we would have tanks parked on Wall Street.

7. Drones – yes or no.  Usage of drones inevitably takes the position that the lives of civilians, often children, are expendable, more expendable than our own troops.  After all, they aren’t our kids.  How do you justify that?  Will you at least acknowledge that modern warfare as waged by the United States has abandoned even the pretense of acting to protect civilians on all sides?

8. What do you believe solved the Cuban Missile Crisis?  Was it military strength?  Diplomacy?  Some combination?  We teach our children that it was military strength alone that averted nuclear war between the US and the then USSR, omitting from the narrative the behind-the-scenes negotiating that took place whereby the USSR withdrew its missiles from Cuba and we withdrew ours from Turkey.

9. Do you perceive engaging in diplomacy as a sign of weakness or of strength and why?

10. When, if ever, should the United States apologize on the world stage?  When have we gotten it wrong in the last 10-20 years?  Should we admit that?  Why or why not?

11. Name your top 5 principal advisors on matters of foreign policy – the people upon whose advice you most rely.  What is their experience/where and for whom have they worked in the past?  What do they bring to the table as far as you’re concerned?

12. Name one naysayer on matters of foreign policy to whom you regularly listen – someone who sees the world very differently than you do and tells you so.  Name one time when that person changed your mind and why.

13. Name the most important religious principle of your own faith that governs your views on how the United States interacts with other countries and why.

14. Name one person from history whose leadership in world affairs shapes how you think on these issues and one lesson you learned from that person.

15. You are both espousing Christians.  How does your faith inform you on matters of foreign policy?  Specifically, Jesus taught that the other, the enemy, the one not of our tribe, is in fact our neighbor, whom we are to love even as we love ourselves.  How do you see that maxim of the Christian faith played out in your presidency?

16. Constitutionally, the president is the commander-in-chief.  Why, in your view, is this role important to be held by a civilian?  How does investing the duties of commander-in-chief in the civilian office of the presidency serve and promote the public welfare?

17. Surveillance of citizens of the United States by the CIA and other intelligence agencies of the federal government – do you favor or oppose and why?

18. The Patriot Act’s provision making the education of persons or groups on non-violence, peaceful resolution to conflict and utilization of legal recourse an act of terror if provided to persons labeled by the government as terrorists – what, in your view, is the purpose of prohibiting such skills, intended to help people move away from violence and towards peace in solving problems?  How does this provision promote the national security interests of the United States, if at all?  To Mr. Romney – if elected president, would you keep this provision intact or move to rescind it?

19. NAFTA and CAFTA and other free trade agreements are attacked by working people of the countries with whom we have these agreements as decimating their livelihoods.  What changes, if any, would you make to these agreements?  How do these agreements benefit working people in the US or abroad?

20. Please as best you are able refrain in speaking in sound bites or slogans and address the role of the United Nations from your point of view – addressing specifically its positives and not its negatives.  What does the United Nations do well in your view?  Name at least one success story of the United Nations from your point of view.

21. There is much discussion about the Republican strategy regarding taxes of having a pledge, a precommitment, if you will, not to engage in tax-increasing behaviors.  Will you make such a pledge here and now to the American people when it comes to engaging in military action around the world?  Will you pledge not to engage in military action around the world unless you have first sought and obtained from Congress a formal declaration of war?  If you will not, why not?

Grading the Debate

Grading the Debate

My Scoring of the 1st 2012 Presidential Debate

With an important post-script about Syria & Turkey

I score President Obama the winner over Governor Romney by a score of 26-10.

How did I arrive at a score?  I flowed the debate, as best I could.  Even though this was not actually a debate in any sense of the word, I scored it as if it were and to that end, I took each candidate at their word (leaving my own pre-knowledge outside the room and leaving fact checking to others).

Clash is the debate concept that each debater meets the issue(s) raised by their opponent directly and responds, with evidence rather than with mere assertion.  Mostly what I ended up scoring was clash or the lack of clash.  This approach was in order to capture, as best I was able, the content of what each candidate had to say in relation to what the other said, which is the essence of debate.  If there weren't an opponent in the room, there would be no debate.

Round 1 - The economy and jobs: Obama claimed to have created 5 million new jobs, to have saved the automobile industry, that housing is on the rise, and that money saved from the two wars the US has been involved in will be used to ‘rebuild America’, and a plan to close tax loopholes regarding overseas investments, none of which Romney responded to.  5 points Obama.  Both agreed on a need to invest in skill building of the work force and education.  Obama specifically referenced Race to the Top educational reform, the plan to invest in 100,000 additional math and science teachers and to keep tuition affordable, none of which Romeny addressed.  1 point Obama.  Obama referenced developing new energies, increasing American energy production and increased oil and natural gas production, which Romney countered with the fact that energy prices have increased under Obama, public energy leases have been cut in half under Obama and increased development has occurred on private lands, to which Obama did not respond.  1 point Romney.  Romney’s tax savings plan was attacked by Obama with specific figures ($5 trillion in tax cuts, $2 trillion in increased military spending, e.g.), saying that these could not be offset by eliminating tax deductions.  Romney countered with the assertion that it isn’t true, to which Obama responded that the math is clear and it can’t be done without other cuts or tax increases to the middle class.  1 point Obama.  Assuming a nexus between taxes and job creation (as both seemed to do, at least part of the time), Obama claimed to have lowered taxes 18 times to the benefit of small businesses, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.  On Obama’s proposal to raise taxes for those with an income above $250,000, there was clash about what is a small business, how much employment the top tier of small businesses generate, and finally, Romney’s claim that the top tier of 3% of small business owners employ 1/4 of the work force and enactment of Obama’s tax increase would result in a loss of 700,000 jobs, to which Obama did not respond.  1 point Romney.  On the big picture, there was a bit of a tie: Romney’s claim that in the last 4 years, 24 million people have been out of work; and Obama’s claim that under the Clinton/Democrat model, there was record prosperity and under the Bush/Republican plan, there was record financial crisis - 1 point each.

Round 2 - The economy and the deficit: Obama urges the elimination of corporate subsidies to the oil industry, which Romney countered with the fact that the same subsidies were extended by Obama to alternative energy companies, to which Obama did not respond.  1 point Romney.  Obama urged eliminating deductions for corporations such as for corporate jets, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.  Obama claimed a record on deficit reduction of eliminating 77 government programs, 18 educational programs, saving tens of billions in eliminating Medicare fraud and 15 billion in waste, taking 1 trillion out of the budget, a 4 trillion deficit reduction plan, a plan to increase revenues by $1 for every $2.50 in spending cuts, to none of which specifics Romney responded.  1 point Obama.

Round 3 - The economy and entitlements: Noting a problem with the usage of the word ‘entitlements’, Obama said that Romney’s voucher plan is estimated to cost each person covered an average of $6,000 per year, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.  Romney proposes shifting to needs-based coverage, to which Obama did not respond.  1 point Romney.  Romney overall attacks the expense of provision of these benefits, to which Obama responded that Medicare has less administrative costs than private insurance, which also adds in the expense of its profit for doing business.  1 point Obama.  Obama cited AARP claiming that Obamacare extends the life of Medicare by 8 years, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.  Obama said that repeal of Obamacare would cost on average an additional $600 per year in prescription drugs, increase in co-pays, and benefitting only the insurance companies, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.

Round 3a - The economy and government regulation: Romney said that while some regulation is necessary, it can also become excessive and actually do unintended harm, citing Dodd-Frank banking regulations as an example.  Obama did not respond directly to Romney’s challenge about excessive or over-regulation.  1 point Romney.  Obama specifically linked the recent economic crisis to an absence of regulation, with which Romney either agreed or did not expressly refute.  1 point Obama.  Romney said Dodd-Frank hurts the economy with provisions like protecting banks deemed ‘too big to fail’, to which Obama responded that the banks had paid back the monies loaned to them by the government with interest.  1 point Obama.  Romney said that he would keep ‘some’ of the provisions of Dodd-Frank (used as an example of government regulation).  Obama charged that Romney had previously said he would repeal Dodd-Frank, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.

Round 4 - Health Care Romney asserts that Obama cuts Medicare to pay for Obama care and that Obamacare will kill jobs because businesses are less likely to hire workers because of the additional burdens it imposes, to which Obama did not respond.  2 points Romney.  Romney charged that a private unelected board would be making medical decisions for patients under Obamacare, to which Obama responded that the board did not deal with individuals but with industry best practice standards, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.  Obama claims that repeal of Obama care will result in 50 million people without health insurance, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.  Both claimed the provision of health care to be an important goal, but when challenged by Obama to reveal what his plan is, Romney did not respond save to say he would have one.  1 point Obama.  On the Obamacare model and its workability, Obama asserted that it is the same model as that enacted by Romney while governor of Mass. Romney shifted the argument to say that Obamacare did not have bi-partisan support, to which Obama responded that it was a Republican idea using the same plan as that in Mass, with actually the same advisors helping craft it.  1 point Obama.  Romney asserted that according to the CBO, Obamacare would result in 20 million people losing their health insurance, to which Obama did not directly respond.  1 point Romney.  Obama claimed that the rate of growth of health insurance premiums has slowed, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.  Romney asserted that the (federal) government is a bad bet as an organization or institution for saving money, to which Obama did not respond at this point, although Obama had earlier made the case that Medicare administrative costs are lower than private insurance, which when added to profits private companies received, results in savings to the consumer.  No point to either candidate.  Obama challenged Romney’s plan as failing to provide for coverage of pre-existing conditions.  Romney denied that was true.  Obama responded with an explanation of Romney’s plan (which sounded like COBRA), which would not provide universal coverage of pre-existing conditions, to which Romney did not further respond.  1 point Obama.  Romney’s health care policy foundation is his statement, “the private market and individual responsibility always work best”, to which Obama challenged him to explain how he would enact to provide health care and why keep it a secret, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.

Round 5 - The Role of Government - what is government’s ‘mission’?  After outlining their general principles about the role of government, the debate focused on education and the question of whether providing education or improving the quality thereof is a role of the federal government.  It is to that portion that I addressed my judgments, making no score on the two men’s statements of principles.  Obama alleged that Romney would cut the education budget by 20%; Romney said he wouldn’t.  No points.  Romney offered his school voucher proposal, to which Obama did not respond.  1 point Romney.  Romney attacked Obama on things like investments in green technologies and an implied attack of corruption (saying that Obama gave federal green monies to campaign contributors).  This was off topic, as Romney never tied it to education.  No points.  Obama cited his program of linking community colleges with industry, providing training for students, who are guaranteed a job at the end of the program as an example of the role the government can play in education, to which Romney did not resopnd.  1 point Obama.  Obama also cited his program which eliminates banks as ‘middlemen’ in student loans, saving students on the cost of repaying their loans, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.

Round 6 - Governing and gridlock Both men spoke about their aspirations and approaches.  No points.

On the substance of any debate, which is comprised of the often boring details and minutia of an issue, the winner was clear on my flow chart.  Mr. Romney tended to speak in broad terms.  That does not mean what he had to say was either unimportant or untrue.  It does mean that when it comes to debate, there was often little upon which to judge his performance.

Some general observations about the style aspects and other random thoughts

1. Pundits asked for a substantive debate.  Even observing that Gov. Romney spoke more generally, both men in fact gave a substantive debate, outlining their worldviews when it comes to governing and at least some of their particular ideas about how we go about achieving their vision for the United States.  The sadly ironic thing is that it was that very provision of substance that results in many claiming Mr. Obama ‘lost’ the debate on style points, which simply demonstrates that we apparently have absolutely no interest in how we are going to be governed and are only concerned about whether we like the person, or think the person is most like us, or some other such ephemera.

2. Here’s my take on who you should vote for, for whatever it’s worth: if you believe that government should get out of your way, be the least intrusive as possible in your journey towards your dream, leave it entirely to you to choose, whether you choose badly or well, vote for a Republican.  If you believe government should help you and provide for the common good, even if not your own particular good, then vote for a Democrat.  It is a philosophical difference.  It does not mean that one is necessarily morally superior to the other.  And the fact is that most of us believe government should land somewhere in the middle of these two poles.

3. Both men ran roughshod over the moderator.  Mr. Romney was more obvious, interrupting Mr.Lehrer often, even talking over him.  Most seemed to have found that appealing, as Mr. Romney was assertive, like a president should be.  I thought it was just rude.  But Mr. Obama ignored Mr. Lehrer as well; he was just more subtle.  One female commentator noted last night that maybe it’s a gender difference, but she didn’t like it.  I agree.  If you’ve agreed to a format beforehand, honor it.  If you haven’t, don’t tell us you have.

4. I just googled ‘judging the presidential debate by content rather than style’ and got 65 million+ hits, but not one of them was about the debate that actually happened last night.  Not one.  That, I think, is an incredibly sad commentary on us as a people.

Finally, in my blog yesterday, I had a couple of questions I wanted answered.  Mr. Romney answered the questions I had for him:

Mr. Romney, if you wish to eliminate or substantially change the approach of progressive taxation, as your talking points suggest, upon what basis do you claim that this shift actually results in an increase in prosperity for everyone?  And as a subset of that question, if you have to sacrifice one of your taxation goals in order to achieve a balance to the budget, which goal is the most expendable from your point of view?

As I understand his position, Mr. Romney believes that lowered taxes on the wealthy (the job creators, as he describes them) generally frees up more capital for them to invest, which creates more jobs.  He did not say those words.  What he said was, “taxes slow growth”.  I extrapolate the rest, but I think I understand his position.  The second aspect was much more clear: what would Mr. Romney sacrifice to achieve a balance to the budget?  Everything – when it comes to government spending.  Everything except military spending.  And social security.  And education.  And Medicare for those currently receiving it.  But Mr. Romney made it very clear that under no circumstances would he increase taxes.

My question for Mr. Obama was answered as well.

Mr. Obama, given that as president, you are required to work with Congress, how do you propose to enact your economic programs (or any of your programs, for that matter) in the face of organized, concerted congressional opposition?  It is not enough to merely blame Congress.  What do you plan to do about it?

He said that he would take all ideas on board when it comes to solving our problems as a nation, whatever the source.  He said that he would take care to well-describe his plan so that there was understanding about what it is and what it is not.  And he said that occasionally, he would say no, to both friend and foes.

I believe them both.

Now to the hard work of citizenship and deciding where that takes us as a nation and what I intend to do about it when I enter the voting booth.

An important post-script

Yesterday as these two men were preparing to meet and debate, one of them had some other things on his mind, no doubt.

Yesterday Syria (or someone from Syria’s opposition groups) bombed Turkey.  This isn’t the first time.  But it is the first time that Turks were killed.  Five people, including a mother and her three children were killed.  Turkey responded by bombing Syria.  NATO weighed in as did Secretary of State Hilary Clinton.

And Turkey’s military asks its parliament today for the authority to act against Syria.  Early indicators are that this is more symbolic than an actual precursor to outright war between the two nations and thus far, Syria has taken a conciliatory and apologetic approach with Turkey, promising to investigate how this could have happened.

But the border between the two countries is a tense place as Syria’s civil war continues and rebels move into Turkey for cover.

And lest we forget, Syria counts among her allies Iran, Russia and China.

World wars don’t always or often begin in the obvious place.  They begin with a skirmish there, an insult here, a death or two, revenge killings, drawing in of allies, and escalation.

Thus far it seems that in the aftermath, both Turkey and Syria are seeking ways to avoid war with each other – a good thing.  But allies are also being pulled in.

If you do nothing else today about world politics, pray for Syria and Turkey, pray for world leaders, that cooler heads prevail and that escalation is avoided.  In the U.S., pray that the man who you think didn’t have such a great debate last night be filled with wisdom and vision and the courage to resist violence as a problem-solving technique.  Pray like the world depends on it.