Richard Rubenstein, Obama, and the state of Israel

I posted recently on the topic of Israel and Iran over at creedible.com. In that piece, I argued that Israel is correct to fear Iran and wise to protect itself. Iran's current leadership has moved from the unsavory to the truly diabolical.

I sent that link to Richard Rubenstein, my distinguished senior colleague at the University Bridgeport, where he served as President from 1995-1999 and continues to serve as a Life Member of the Board of Trustees. Rubenstein taught for many years at Florida State University as the Robert O. Lawton Distinguished Professor of Religion. He is widely known for his seminal works on the Holocaust, treatments of Freud, and interpretations of early Christianity. His recent research interests and publications have focused on roots and implications of Islamic radicalism, especially as they raise essential questions about the future of the West and the state of Israel.

In responding to my views on Iran, Rubenstein sent me a link to a brief video at the New English Review in which he summarizes a longer talk about President Obama. He holds that Obama is the "most radical U.S. president ever" and that Obama believes that the creation of the state of Israel was an historical mistake. These views, holds Rubenstein, are rooted in sympathy for Islam that are tied to Obama's family and background. I have thought about this and find myself (on the whole) disagreeing with him about Obama. I believe that Obama is more shaped and constrained by traditional U.S. attitudes about Israel than the video suggests. I do, however, believe that Rubenstein is correct about worrisome tendencies in U.S. thinking about the state of Israel, but a larger shift in American attitudes, not Obama, is the key worry.

I would like to draw attention to the following concerns:

First, in my view, broad U.S. interest in defending and securing the future of Israel is declining. (This view and those that follow are intuitions, not reports on empirical findings.) Several factors contribute to the decline of U.S. interest in securing Israel. Important among them is that new Evangelicals are more focused on 'spirituality' and 'relationship' than 'history' and 'prophecy.' Christian pietism's ahistorical tendencies do not serve Jews well. Christian pietism can muster little energy to defend the territorial (or even bodily) interests of another--and especially that of Jews.

Second, the new generation of Evangelical Christians is less Calvinist than their forebears. For all of its own weaknesses and absolutism, the Calvinism of American religion has created a uniquely welcoming place for Jews. What remains after Calvinism is sponsorship of Liberal tolerance, but that doctrine is unlikely to lead to aggressive defense of Israel's interests. Tolerance does not diminish the need for the use of political force abroad, and Liberal tolerance is not particularly able to recognize a compromise of Jewish interests.

Third, the Holocaust and WWII generation is dying, and newer generations are less likely to think about the need for Israel in the post-Holocaust environment. There are many good educational initiatives about the Holocaust, but none of them can replace the core teachings of Calvinist Christianity. The broader political salience of defending Israel requires ongoing theological infusions into culture.

Fourth, U.S. geopolitical interests have shifted considerably since the end of the Cold War. International terrorism is a radically different kind of threat, one that erases boundaries of the nation-state.Though U.S interest in Israel is theologically and historically rooted, a larger political consensus about defending Israel has been possible because of the doctrine of political realism. Realists have defended Israel because it is a friendly staging point, should it be needed, for strikes in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. Religiously, the realists were predominantly Calvinist mainline Christians, and these groups are in significant decline. In any event, under conditions of international terrorism and the decline of state sovereignty, a staging point in Israel is less necessary than it was in the Cold War.

Fifth, there is a growing impatience with the grueling wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Strong calls for peace are starting to sound. In subtle and not-so-subtle ways, the U.S. is being asked and pressured to distance itself from Israel. In this sense, Rubenstein is correct in my view to regard Obama suspiciously, but Obama is the tip of the iceberg.

Sixth, President George W. Bush--an Evangelical of the pietistic sort--did considerable damage in the long run to Israel, even though he himself was a fairly steadfast ally. His administration miscalculated the significance of Shi'ism in Iraq and Iran. I share Obama's view that the turn from Afghanistan was too hasty. The U.S. continues to pay for that failure, and it certainly does not benefit Israel. Iran has been empowered, and we may yet need to exercise a military option there. But it is unclear whether there is the political will to do so, should it be necessary. A possible scenario is that the American people will allow Israel to be scapegoated or to be used as a pawn in support of our larger interests.

Tomorrow night I will defend the enduring theological, moral, and political interest the U.S. has in defending Israel. In spite of these worrisome tendencies, I believe there is reason for hope.

Readers's comments, as always, are welcome.

Whooping Cough and the Future

Tonight I am thinking about the Whooping Cough epidemic in California, which is reported by Jesse McKinley for the New York Times. Between January 1 and June 15,there have been 910 confirmed cases. Pertussis becomes epidemic every three or four years. The United States has ample vaccine but the youngest babies are vulnerable even after they have been vaccinated. In this case the disease is being spread among unvaccinated adults and those who do not have their children vaccinated. The reports focus on immigrants (i.e., impoverished), but there also is a growing tendency among affluent, well-educated parents to eschew vaccination.

In one way at least, pertussis vaccination surfaces issues that linger in this blog in discussions of al-Qaeda and terrorism. On the one hand, there is the issue of justice. The issue of justice is raised by those who cannot afford vaccination or who lack confidence in the medical establishment because they are completely outside its care. On the other hand, there is the issue of fear, vulnerability, and distrust of government. These issues are entailed in the actions of the affluent resisters of vaccination. This group believes that larger social initiatives are likely to be botched. Vaccination runs afoul of an individualistic sense of entitlement.

To move forward as a people--we face immense challenges--we need to fundamentally reconsider social justice and also questions raised by our sense of vulnerability. This a lot to do, and it is human nature to focus on oneself and to ignore others when feeling threatened. As pertussis shows, this sort of self-focus may lead to irrational decisions.

Questions we will need to address will go to the root of our character. Will future generations find us wanting in this respect? Will they see us as petty and fearful, prone to a sense of individualistic entitlement and against the common good? Or will they see that we understood the challenges, looked into our souls, and mounted a serious response to them? Will they see that we re-envisioned basic premises and recast ancient traditions in order to meet our challenges?

Adam Gadahn and the Death Rattle of Al-Qaeda

Tonight I am thinking about the implications of the Adam Gadahn video recently posted on Islamist websites. In the video, Gadahn, an American-born convert to Islam and then to al-Qaeda, opines that Obama is "snakelike," a villain in a crumbling empire--not the change agent he promised to be. Gadahn also threatens that al-Qaeda will launch more devastating attacks against the United States, should Obama (and America) not change course. The video makes the strained point that America is less just than al-Qaeda--strained, that is, unless you admit the assumptions being made by Gadahn.

Gadahn has been indicted for treason for offering material support and providing comfort to al-Qaeda. He is listed by the FBI as one of the most wanted terrorists. The Rewards for Justice Program (U.S. Department of State) will pay up to $1 million for information leading to his arrest.

My main question is, why this video now? To stoke our insecurities? Yes. To make counterclaims for legitimacy? Yes. To show that America and Obama are the real bad guys? Yes.

But more to the point: al-Qaeda fears Obama's approach, recently detailed in the 2010 National Security Strategy. This strategy is considerably more religiously sophisticated than predecessor documents. The focus is not on Islamists or Jihadists--both of which bring in confusing associations, and increase suspicions of many Muslim allies--but on "al-Qa’ida and its affiliates." Obama is seeking to turn the greater Islamic world against al-Qaeda, which has good reason to fear that he will be successful. As we have seen in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Indonesia, when moderates turn against Jihadi movements such as al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiah, the tide turns quickly against extremists. Fareed Zakariah published an excellent piece on this topic in the February 12, 2010 Newsweek.

Al-Qaeda needs the war or terror to be thought of broadly, globally, in order for its global mission to be justified. If the focus is tightened on al-Qaeda (and its violent affiliates), the extremist's ability to recruit is diminished and the legitimacy of their message harder to establish.

By stoking fear--a bigger attack is coming--this video seeks to lend credence to the idea of global war. The problem for al-Qaeda is that we are not fighting a global war, but a war against a few masterminds, some lieutenants, and a few thousand dupes and lackeys. It is clear that the senior leadership is increasingly beleaguered.

Al-Qaeda remains a menace, and we should continue to seek to eliminate its core leaders. In this, we should appeal to and work with Muslims. Those efforts are going to be successful. This video should be heard as a death rattle; it is that.

Going after bin Laden, personally

Tonight I'm pondering Gary Faulkner who, according to news reports such as this one at CNN, went after bin Laden personally.

Reports CNN:

Pakistani authorities announced this week that they had picked up the 50-year-old Colorado man near the border with Afghanistan. Armed with a pistol, sword, night-vision equipment and Christian literature, Faulkner told police that he had been hunting bin Laden since the September, 11, 2001 attacks.

What does, what should, one say about this? Should it be a hearty high-five, a chuckle, condescending pity, a look of concern?

Laughter is suggested by the Quixotic nature of the enterprise, but then again bin Laden has committed some of the most Quixotic of all windmill runs--some of which worked dramatically. His most unlikely exploit was to trigger a civilizational war, or more precisely, to trigger a war that could be construed as a civilizational war between Islam and the West. Nearly ten years after 9/11, the United States is the primary force in Afghanistan fighting a protracted war. We are preparing to withdraw from Iraq, but whether there is a successful transition to a truly independent Iraq has yet to be seen.

Bin Laden and al-Qaeda are non-state actors. That is, they aren't identified with or limited to the activities of a single state and thus they are difficult to apprehend or destroy without violating state sovereignty. They can harm a multitude--thus attack a state--but the multitude among whom the hide are innocent. That is, bin Laden is not elected, and he is not responsive to constituents. The U.S. entered the war in Afghanistan because the Taliban provided a safe haven to bin Laden.

Whatever one thinks of Faulkner, he is trying to exploit the reality of being a non-state actor. For this reason he is viewed as crazy by some and as a hero by others. He's the American Rambo, Chuck Norris...a Jesus-preaching Sly Stallone. Given the risk Faulkner was taking, arguably this way of putting it underestimates him.

If we are lucky, many of us will begin to see bin Laden in similarly 'discounted' terms. Bin Laden's primary power resides in and is a product of our minds. Even if bin Laden is eventually killed by a predator drone strike, he ultimately will be defeated by clear thinking, confidence, and conviction. Gary Faulkner's actions are, it seems, detached from reality. It's sad that he's closer to the truth than many of us.

Note: Today, I posted on a related theme at Creedible.com.

I can believe the news today

Check out the New York Times Lens piece Pictures of the Day: Northern Ireland and Elsewhere by Merrill D. Oliver and Karin Roberts, and the Times editorial The Truth about Bloody Sunday.

And Bloody Sunday by U2.



Rest in peace.

Child porn too big for law enforcement? Microsoft steps in. - CSMonitor.com

Child porn too big for law enforcement? Microsoft steps in. - CSMonitor.com

This is an interesting and heartening story. It illustrates, among other things, that large corporations can act with conscience and soul.

I'm not suggesting that corporations such as Microsoft are perfect or saintly. We know that they are not. I am saying that they do have the power to act morally, and I would add that it is quite likely they increase their long-term viability and profitability by doing so.

With AIG's foolishness in the not too distant background and BP's mendacity in the foreground, it is well to remind ourselves that corporate profitability does not require lax ethics. We should expect more from corporations than we do. Were we to do so, the political left-of-center position on corporations would lose much of its cogency.

How we do so--how we begin to build a sense of civic responsibility and efficacy--is a more difficult problem. I suggest that our sense of powerlessness is related to individualism and that much of what passes as criticism of corporations is little more than self-aggrandizing individualism. We need to work on these issues; our viability as a people requires it.

Recommended Reading

RITN recommends the Backgrounder on Al-Qaeda written by Jayshree Bajoria and Greg Bruno for the Council of Foreign Relations.

Bishop Accountability

I encourage readers to visit BishopAccountability.org. This remarkable site aims "to facilitate the accountability of the U.S. bishops under civil, criminal, and canon law." It contains an "abuse tracker," more details of the abuse than you will be able to stomach, reports on dioceses and seminaries, news links, grand jury reports, and more.

I have written previously in this blog on "The Pope's Penance" and "Küng, Weigel, and the Fading of Reality," but this site warrants further comment. The main issue, from my perspective, is that the hierarchy is being called to account by something other than the hierarchy itself. Those calling for accountability are very clear about the need for external standards. The site says that it is maintained by "a small staff and is strictly an educational enterprise," but the winds of real reformation seem to be blowing in it.

It is worth remembering that when Luther nailed the 95 Theses to the door in Wittenberg, he did so as a Catholic, a monk, and professor of theology. He was motivated by the sale of indulgences, but his criticisms tapped into a deeper shift, which had a depth and impact that he did not anticipate. Luther earlier had been shaken by a 1510 trip to Rome where he was confronted with sexual irregularities and worldliness of the priests there. Many have commented on the parallels to the current situation.

Whether the present crisis will precipitate a larger shift is unknown, but it is significant that a large number of people are no longer willing to allow the Holy See or the Roman Curia to pronounce the matter settled. Bishops are being publicly criticized and direct pressure is being applied on the Vatican. This is quite remarkable.

Those of us on the outside of the issue (i.e., those who are not Roman Catholics) have a different perspective and different responsibilities from those on the inside. It takes considerably more courage to confront this issue as an insider.

Luther's story also shows that insiders can lose that status if they keep asserting their views; they also can leave it behind of their own accord. Much hangs in the balance when the Holy See addresses this issue. RITN will continue examining the issue and invites readers to offer comments.

Chevrolet, Chevy, and Jesus

Join me at creedible.com to discuss religious brands and identity: Chevrolet, Chevy, and Jesus. Get there!

Death by Firing Squad

Tonight I'm thinking about the firing squad. This article at CNN raised the issue for me. I encourage you to read this story, which recounts some of the experiences of a former executioner in Utah, where the firing squad is scheduled to be used again on June 18th to execute Ronnie Lee Gardner. The executioner--unnamed because he still works in law enforcement--says that "I've shot squirrels I've felt worse about" and  "the death penalty ... is nothing more than sending a defective product back to the manufacturer. Let him fix it."

Regardless what one thinks of the death penalty this is a terrible way to think about human life. More worrisome is the number of people who will think it's perfectly acceptable, many of whom will be Christians.

From the perspective of religious studies it is unsurprising that members of religion espouse one thing and do another, or espouse one thing and make choices that are at variance with its implications. I don't want to oversimplify, and there are theological defenses of the death penalty. Also, it's true that many who find the death penalty acceptable would give their lives to protect the unborn or the freedoms of people with whom they disagree about essential matters. On the other side, there are many who find the death penalty abhorrent but would risk their lives, if not take someone else's, to prevent cruelty to an animal, but then go on to support widely available abortions in the third trimester.

Human beings, it seems, have difficulty being consistent about not killing each other. Those who don't kill indirectly sanction it in acts by the military and police. I am among them.

Nonetheless, the death penalty (whether by firing squad, hanging, electrocution, or lethal injection) is a terrible act, even if it does pass muster with concern for justice. For in the death penalty, the ultimate arbiter of human justice takes a life. Here there is no emergency--as in battle, or a police under duress--but the dispassionate act of the judiciary and the workings of the penal system. We are not helped when sheer callousness is the mode of discourse about this terrible act. The fact that it is so prevalent shows, I think, that broad acceptance of the death penalty, if not the death penalty itself, is rooted in deeply atavistic elements of human nature.

note: I posted a video on this topic, over at Theological Prescripts.

DARPA, Chesterton, and Niebuhr

One of my favorite quotations is Reinhold Niebuhr's statement that the 'only empirically verifiable doctrine of Christian faith is the doctrine of original sin.' Apparently, it was first authored or uttered by G.K. Chesterton, the English author and Catholic apologist, and seconded by Niebuhr. Chesterton and Niebuhr's point is that human beings have a tremendous capacity for malicious activity, but it's combined with a staggering ability to be thoughtful, inventive, and caring.

Tonight I'm thinking about the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and especially some of the technologies it is working on. I was directed to DARPA, about which I had been completely ignorant, by POPSCI and Wired Magazine's Danger Room. Read these stories, if you're interested in the desire to "override evolution to create immortal synthetic organisms." No worry, says the Pentagon, the critters have a kill switch. This is more or less precisely what Chesterton and Niebuhr were writing about.

I also checked out DARPA's website, which I encourage RITN readers also to do. I am especially intrigued by the Defense Sciences Office and especially the Strategic Thrust of Materials. A dimension of this thrust focuses on Biologically Inspired Materials. James Bond would be impressed.

For example, there is Z-Man:

The Z-Man program will develop biologically inspired climbing aids that will enable an individual soldier to scale vertical walls constructed of typical building materials without the need for ropes or ladders. The inspiration for these climbing aids is the way geckos, spiders, and small animals scale vertical surfaces by using unique biological systems that enable strong reversible adhesion using van der Waals forces, or by hooking into surface asperities. This program seeks to build synthetic versions of those material systems and then utilize them in a novel climbing aid optimized for efficient human climbing. The overall goal of the program is to enable an individual soldier using Z-Man technologies to scale a vertical surface while carrying a full combat load.

Neato. Then, there's Fracture Putty:

Traumatic battlefield wounds such as compound bone fracture are very difficult to treat, often requiring multiple surgeries and long healing and rehabilitation times. Amputations are not uncommon. Current treatments employing bone screws, plates, and rods are deficient and can themselves lead to further complications.

DARPA seeks to create a dynamic putty-like material which, when packed in/around a compound bone fracture, provides full load-bearing capabilities within days, creates an osteoconductive bone-like internal structure, and degrades over time to harmless resorbable by-products as normal bone regenerates.

If neither of these intrigue you, check out Negative Index Materials, Nano-Composite Optical Ceramics,  Instant Fire Suppression, or RealNose. RealNose is "a 'nose' constructed from actual olfactory receptors that further leverages the components of the canine olfactory system to create a breakthrough detection system with potential capabilities beyond that of a canine."

I am a political realist. I follow Niebuhr in that, too. Essentially, realism says that we should be prepared to respond to those who threaten us or try to harm us. This includes a military dimension. I support just war theory.

Niebuhr's theological realism, however, reflexively called all power into question. As a free society, we should consider the kinds of military options we want our government to sponsor and pursue. I, for one, support projects such as Z-Man and Fracture Putty but not immortal designer-gene bugs. I am happy that this information is publicly accessible.

What are your thoughts?

A Connecticut Jirga

Join me at Creedible.com for a discussion of the Afghani jirga's support of President Hamid Karzai to approach lower-level members of the Taliban with an offering of peace.

The U.S. National Security Strategy, Reaction 3

This is my third (and final) reaction to the National Security Strategy (NSS) that President Obama transmitted to Congress on May 27, 2010. I posted on this topic previously in this blog here and then here.

The strategy as a whole is a defense of American hegemony that could have been written in broad outlines by the Bush Administration. The attacks of 9/11 continue to serve as a primary reference point and our response to al-Qa’ida is set forth as quintessentially representative of our national security interests and approach. Says the strategy, “The dark side of this globalized world came to the forefront for the American people on September 11, 2001” (NSS 1) and commits us to “disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qa’ida and its affiliates through a com­prehensive strategy…” (4). Though the strategy is framed as a reaction to al-Qa’ida, it “reject[s] the notion that al-Qa’ida represents any religious authority. They are not religious leaders, they are killers; and neither Islam nor any other religion condones the slaughter of innocents” (22).”

The strategy paints a grim picture of threats, of biological and nuclear weapons possibly falling into the wrong hands. Yet it also calls to “Resist Fear and Overreaction” holding that “if we respond with fear, we allow violent extremists to succeed far beyond the initial impact of their attacks, or attempted attacks—altering our society and enlarging the standing of al-Qa’ida and its terrorist affiliates far beyond its actual reach” (22).

At the heart of the strategy is a call for a “Whole of Government Approach,” consisting of integrated use of defense, diplomacy, economic renewal here at home, development initiatives abroad, Homeland Security, intelligence gathering, shaping global opinion through strategic communications, and relying upon initiatives of the American People and the private sector (NSS 14-16). In sum, “This strategy calls for a comprehensive range of national actions, and a broad conception of what con­stitutes our national security. Above all, it is about renewing our leadership by calling upon what is best about America—our innovation and capacity; our openness and moral imagination” (NSS 51).

There is also a strong emphasis of universal values, to wit:

The United States believes certain values are universal and will work to promote them worldwide. These include an individual’s freedom to speak their mind, assemble without fear, worship as they please, and choose their own leaders; they also include dignity, tolerance, and equality among all people, and the fair and equitable administration of justice. The United States was founded upon a belief in these values. At home, fidelity to these values has extended the promise of America ever more fully, to ever more people. Abroad, these values have been claimed by people of every race, region, and religion. Most nations are parties to international agreements that recognize this commonality. And nations that embrace these values for their citizens are ultimately more successful—and friendly to the United States—than those that do not (35).

Reference to these values functions to limit the use of force by making it a last resort, but the values also legitimize the use of force and construe the nature of our enemies. Aware of the ambiguities involved in defending such values with force, an examplarist approach is commended: “In keeping with the focus on the foundation of our strength and influence, we are promoting universal values abroad by living them at home, and will not seek to impose these values through force” (5). “Our moral leadership is grounded principally in the power of our example…” (10).

A range of other topics are treated within the strategy: from promoting non-proliferation of nuclear weapons to relationships with Iran and North Korea, Arab-Israeli peace and cybersecruity, and reducing our deficit spending while reinvesting in education, energy, food security, and technology.

My overall reaction to the strategy is that this is a wartime document that correctly identifies key perils of our age. I support its realism, though the "Whole of Government" approach is worrisome. Too much integration of the various sectors of our common life will run afoul of the key values of pluralism and differentiation of spheres. I also believe that eventually we need to move beyond viewing 9/11 as the primary reference point for shaping security policy. I say this not to diminish 9/11 but to suggest that if its horror serves as the primary basis for our security policy, the terrorists, not we, fundamentally determine our approach. The strategy's appeal to our deepest values holds greater promise, and eventually we need to base our actions primarily on them, and not in response to al-Qa’ida.