How to choose a President (1)

We have so many presidential candidates this year, maybe we should let the American Idol judges have a go at them before the rest of America has to start voting.

Absent that option, I am going to propose some criteria to winnow the field a bit.

First, the most important qualification to be President of the United States is to possess the maturity of character that is appropriate to the office. Both President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush fell short on this point.

When Mr. Clinton demonstrated immaturity of character to a White House intern, his allies tried to argue that character was not important. In fact, it is the most important of all. The President is not just a policy maker. He represents the country, and it's important that we be represented by a man or woman of good character. It's important for our own self-image as a nation and for our standing in the world.

I once heard a person argue that Mr. Clinton would have made a great president, if he had taken office at least a decade later than he did. That sounds right to me. About ten more years of maturity would have served him well.

George W. Bush's immaturity of character was illustrated when he took the country to war when there were still other options available to him. Perhaps he let Dick Cheney pressure him into a decision that went against his better judgment. Perhaps his public judgment was clouded by his personal animosity toward Saddam Hussein stemming from a 1993 assassination attempt against his father and his wife. The fact is that he didn't pressure the CIA for better and more accurate intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. It doesn't look like he asked the question, "Why do we need to go war now, as opposed to a year from now."

(Continued . . . )

Climbing out of our pit in Iraq

I recently spent some time traveling outside the United States. I discovered that when people found out that I was an American, the conversation often turned to Iraq.

Many of the people I spoke with felt that things would not be as bad as they are today if the U.S. had pulled out after capturing Saddam Hussein. No one who spoke with me felt that the U.S. presence in Iraq today is justified. That didn't necessarily mean that everyone wanted the U.S. to withdraw immediately. In most cases, it meant they wanted the U.S. to define a clear and responsible exit point and move toward that point as quickly as possible.

I have explained my own views elsewhere in this blog. I think President Bushed made the wrong decision in March 2003. He should have postponed military action at least another year.

Having gone to war when he did, I think the President compounded his error by putting too much faith in the power of military force to solve problems.

In a press conference held March 6, 2003, President Bush said:

I'm convinced that a liberated Iraq will be -- will be important for that troubled part of the world. The Iraqi people are plenty capable of governing themselves. Iraq is a sophisticated society. Iraq's got money. Iraq will provide a place where people can see that the Shia and the Sunni and the Kurds can get along in a federation. Iraq will serve as a catalyst for change, positive change.

In hindsight, this statement shows that President Bush is a person of Utopian ideals. But history has shown again and again that the pursuit of Utopia without acknowledging existing realities leads to tragedy. That in large part explains what has happened in Iraq during the past four years. President Bush thought that removing Saddam Hussein would be like blowing up a log jam in a river, and that the dictator's removal would let Iraq move quickly toward its natural destiny as a liberal democracy.

George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld looked at Saddam's Iraq and saw Hitler's Germany. A liberated Germany was important for a troubled post-war Europe. It was capable of governing itself. It was a sophisticated society with money. It showed that its people could get along in a federation, and it served as a catalyst for positive change. Like a Hollywood director filming the umpteen hundredth reenactment of World War II, the U.S. administration thought it could apply the script from the U.S. victory in World War II to Iraq. They were wrong.

There's nothing wrong with having Utopian ideals for the world. In fact, I share the President's ideals. I, too, believe that Iraq, along with all other societies, is eventually destined to become a place where people can live in peace with each other, despite differences of ethnicity and religion. I also believe that the United States has a unique role to play in bringing progress toward that goal.

But there is a pitfall in putting too much faith in the ability of military force to solve problems, and today we find ourselves at the bottom of this pit.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the "surge" strategy is working. Let's hope he is being straight with us about his assessment, and that his assessment is correct. Let's hope that this will lead to an exit point before another year goes by.

Even after withdrawing its troops from Iraq, the United States will need to continue to be engaged with that country and its region. Let's hope, though, that this engagement will be carried out with greater wisdom and sophistication.

Teaching peace in Iraq

The New York Times this morning is reporting on how the handling of Saddam Hussein's execution is causing concern. You can read the UPI summary report in World Peace Herald, or go to the story in the New York Times. (We need your traffic more than they do.)

Many countries have political cultures that have former presidents and dictators being forced into exile, imprisoned, or killed. I think one reason leaders in some countries declare themselves "president for life" is that they know their lives are going to end at the end of their term one way or another.

U.S. officials are frustrated that the Maliki government fails to see how its behavior is "driving the country toward an abyss," the Times said. (UPI)

It is clear that the U.S. needs to make an aggressive effort to educate the Maliki government and Shiite religious leaders about this abyss and the implications of falling into it. If the situation deteriorates into an all out Shiite-Sunni civil war, neither will win. If that civil war deteriorates even further into a war between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran, the whole world will lose.

It is in the interest of the United States and other major world powers to bring the major factions in Iraq to a point where they can decide to get along. Perhaps what is needed in Iraq today is not more troops but more people trained in conflict resolution.

The scent of Saddam's blood

The scent of blood seems to have permeated the Internet following the execution of Saddam Hussein less than 24 hours ago. Like sharks going into a frenzy, bloggers and emailers are circulating celebratory messages and calling for the killing of other well-known world figures as well.

This idea that the world would be a safer place if certain individuals weren't in it is both quaint and naive. Yes, the execution of Saddam Hussein was necessary, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that the world is any safer without him.

UPI International Editor Claude Salhani agrees that the situation in Iraq is actually even more precarious following Saddam's execution.

In World War I, Kaiser Wilhelm was said to be evil, so he was removed. Then there was Hitler, so he was removed. Then there was Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Kim Il Sung, etc. etc. etc. New ones seem to pop up just as quickly as the old ones are removed.

A sane world would look at this and come to the conclusion that it was time to look for means to bring an end to this seemingly endless cycle.

The death of Saddam

It's never a proper cause for celebration when one human being puts an end to the life of another. It may be necessary at times, but it is never a cause for joy.

On one level, I can understand how Shiite and Kurdish Iraqiis, Kuwait and others would react with great joy on hearing the news that Saddam Hussein was dead and that any possibility of his return to power had been eliminated. The suffering that these people endured at the hands of Saddam during his reign can only be fully known by those who experienced it directly.

Still, it is a tragedy that the world arrived at a point where it was found necessary to put a man to death in order to serve the purpose of peace.

The death penalty may serve serve the purpose of justice, which in some cases is seen as a necessary precondition for peace. But the lesson we learn from the world's history is that violence, no matter how well-justified it may be from the perspective of justice, never brings a peace that is sustainable over the long run.

The 20th century began with "the war to end all wars," but the lesson of the 20th century was that this phrase is an oxymoron. War, by its essential nature, cannot bring an end to war. It cannot bring a peace that is sustainable over the long run.

There is talk of increasing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, the idea being that this will bring about a situation where U.S. can effect a substantial withdrawal of troops later on. If military strategists say this will work, we can only hope they know what they are talking about. Still, I cannot escape the feeling that this "surge," as the the White House calls it, or "escalation," as the Democrats prefer to call it, will mark the beginning of an even more tragic chapter in the Iraq war.