Only the quiet ones have true religion

I am listening to the ecstatic singing of Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, the CD is called “Shahen-Shah”.  Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan leads a group of Muslim singers from Pakistan.  The words are in Urdu.

My own meditation as I listen is the variety of beliefs around the world, even within religions considered complete.  For example, the CD would be banned by the Taliban because they don’t like singing.

I would say that the “true believers” are those who hold their religion in their hearts, not those who are willing to kill those who hold different beliefs.  The latter are the insecure ones who can only believe if everybody believes exactly as they do.

Augustine predicted Cheney, Putin, the Taliban, and too many others

“Thus it is that all men want peace in their own society, and they all want it on their own terms.  When they go to war, what they want is to make, if they can, their enemies their own, and to impose on them the victor’s will, and call it a peace.…Sinful man hates the equality of all men under God, and, as though he were God, loves to impose his own sovereignty upon his fellow men.”

Augustine as quoted by Elaine Pagels in “Adam, Eve, and the Serpent.

Too much money or too few voters?

The best antidote to too much money in politics is larger turnouts.  If you don't show up, you are increasing the power of too much money.  If you don't show up and vote then you are increasing the likelihood you will be next on the list to be disenfranchised.

Remember that the aim of most political attack ads is not to get the viewer to vote for a given candidate but to get the viewer to not show up.

If you want to make a difference, don’t watch TV, always vote, and always vote what you believe.

Also, remember that the turnout in Afghanistan was over 50%.  Many of those people showed up at the risk they might come under a terrorist attack.  Can’t we do much better in the U.S. where our only risk of going to the polls is an auto crash?

Military training from outside

Why is an outside military needed to train a country's military on fighting rebels?  If the rebels are so effective against government troops, could it be that the government troops are either unmotivated or corrupt?  In the case of Afghanistan, why has it taken 12 years to train Afghan troops in counterinsurgency.  Shouldn't those who were trained 12 years ago have enough expertise to train others?  Consider that many of the outside trainers had no military experience at the outset of the war in Afghanistan.

From what I've read, the Afghani soldiers are in it for the money, honest or otherwise, or because they were drafted.  Too many of them have no loyalty to the government.

I think U.S. policy long ago should have been: Karzai! Shape up or we ship out!

See also “Insurgencies, outside forces, and good government”.

Let's you and him fight!

“There are people who would love to see America fight their war for them,” Kerry said. “But that is not their choice.”

– "U.S. coming under fire from Mideast allies, who see retrenchment", Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times, 2014-01-24.

Finally, the U.S. is recognizing that it is not the world's policeman and it cannot stop every "bad guy" from harming the "good guys".  Generally when we fight the "bad guys", many of the "good guys" resent the U.S. coming in and disrupting their country.

I often wonder why the U.S. has to "train" a government's soldiers and police in counter-insurgency or whatever.  It seems the ragtag bad guys do quite well with AK-47s and IEDs than the government does with it more powerful weapons.  Could it be that the soldiers and police are in it only because it is a job, they can extort people, and they really don't have much faith in the government?

I often wonder why we don't say to corrupt or ineffective leaders "Shape up or we ship out!"

Insurgencies, outside forces, and good government

Why is it that those seeking to overthrow a government can often do it without outside help other than weapons, but that government forces need outside advisers?

We saw it in Viet Nam where the Viet Cong kept fighting and fighting against both the South Vietnamese government and their U.S. advisers.  It got to the point where the "advisors" were doing more of the fighting than the government forces.

We saw it in Iraq where a large variety of "insurgents" fought against the foreign invaders and then against the Iraqi government as well as each other.  The outside invaders stayed to advise the new government, but that government seems ineffectual against the "insurgents".

We see it in Afghanistan where the Taliban keeps striking at the foreign invaders/advisers and the Afghan government, including local governors as well as the Afghan army and police.

Could the common thread be that all these governments were not only corrupt but not fully supported by the general populations?  Could it be that the only way to put down anti-government forces is to have a strong, dictatorial government or to have wide-spread popular support of a freely elected government?

And a freely elected government cannot really be imposed from outside.

Muslims do speak out

Many have complained that Muslims aren't speaking out about violence perpetrated by some Muslims.  Do all whites speak out against violence against blacks?  Do all blacks speak out against blacks who commit violence?  Do all... speak out against violence or hate spread by people like themselves.  No, most of us try to quietly go about our business, partly not wanting to be involved with hate, partly fearing the haters, partly feeling we don't have the right words, and partly believing we won't be heard.

Here's how two Muslims have spoken out.

"An unlikely fact-checker, an 11-year-old girl, Malala Yousafzai, stood up and defended her right to an education, exposing Taliban’s biggest whopper. In an online blog for BBC, she wrote, 'I will show them the Quran, what Quran says. Quran didn’t say that girls are not allowed to go to school.' Malala also remembered Prophet Muhammad’s advice that, 'Seeking knowledge is obligatory on every Muslim man and Muslim woman.' Using her knowledge and unparalleled courage, Malala repeatedly pleaded with the world to help her people get rid of ignorant and barbaric occupiers." - M. Imran Hayee

Malala Yousafzai, now 14, was shot by Taliban extremists who felt threatened by a girl who threatened their skewed view of their religion and of the world.  How many brave children must be wounded or die before all perpetrators of violence, state actors or not, will see that "Peace is the way."

For more of how important education is where there are few fact checkers who can counter lies, see

"Spreading education in Pakistan harms Taliban", M. Imran Hayee, Duluth News Tribune, 2012-11-06.

If you want more "speaking out", read Dawn of Pakistan, Al-Jazeera, and The Daily Star of Lebanon, all in English.

Afghanistan - Cycle of violence continues

When you reach the end of this entry, you may feel that I could have written more.  I agree, but I felt that anything more would dilute the message.

A single U.S. soldier goes on a rampage in Afghanistan killing 16 civilians.  The Taliban vows to avenge the killings.  When the Taliban attacks the U.S. military, more Afghanis will be killed.  The the Taliban seeks vengeance again, and more Afghanis will be killed.  Each act of violence by one side increases the resolve of the other side to continue the fight.  And on and on it goes.

In the land of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, everybody becomes blind and toothless.

A better strategy to get the U.S. out of Afghanistan would for Afghanis to drop off single flowers at every U.S. base in Afghanistan and simply say, "Please go home."  Every time an Afghani sees a U.S. soldier, he or she should say, "Please go home."

Ku Klux Klan = Al Qaeda?

Too many people think Islam is a violent religion because of the actions of a few.  But one could think the same of Christianity.  Does the Ku Klux Klan or Torquemada represent Christianity?

The Ku Klux Klan terrorized "uppity niggers" for a long list of imagined crimes and terrorized whites from opposing the Ku Klux Klan.  The Klan used the cross as its symbol and even corrupted it by burning crosses in the yards of those who opposed them.  They purported to be defending Christianity, but it wasn't the religion of Jesus.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban terrorize all those who don't agree with them for a long list of imagined crimes.  They have used the Koran as their symbol, but ignore all those parts that don't fit their rigid view.

The Grand Inquisitor Torquemada tortured many people on real or imagined threats to Catholicism.  Jews, Muslims, and Protestants were tortured to get them to confess to not following the "true belief".  Torquemada worked with the blessing of King Phillip of Spain; religious orthodoxy was a means to quell dissent with his policies.

The Iranian government tortures many on real or imagined threats to Islam or its national security.  But isn't it behaving like King Phillip?  Religious orthodoxy is a means to quell dissent with its policies.

There are far too many historical cases of "bad apples" of any major religion; it makes it very easy to argue that any religion is violent.

What doesn't make the news is the multitude of people of all religious faiths who follow the example of the Good Samaritan, offering help to those in need regardless of differences.  On the one hand we have Afghans offering tea to American soldiers who broke down their doors; on the other hand we have Americans sending money to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees for Pakistani flood victims.

Taxes might have saved the rich from the guillotine

In 18th Century France, the church and the nobility were not taxed.  The burden of taxation was on the bourgeoisie, the laborers, and the small farmers.  As the court became more extravagant and the government more costly, the taxpayers became more dissatisfied.  Eventually the anger grew to the point of revolution, a revolution that often was mob rule*.  Mob rule led to false accusations, and heads rolled.

Even the Tea Partiers of the day, like Robespierre, were not immune to the anger of the mob and to infighting among those who assumed control of the government.

We may see a parallel in the flood-ravaged parts of Pakistan.  The government is not very effective in bringing relief, partly because of so much posturing for power and partly because there is not enough money to do much of what needs to be done.  Oh yes, many of the rich in Pakistan pay little or no taxes.

This situation is providing a huge opening to the Taliban, which is providing relief in some areas.  How much this will increase the overall power of the Taliban remains to be seen.  Remember though, many revolutions were started by small bands, Mao Tse Tung or Fidel Castro.

* Mob rule was one of the things that Founders of the United States feared greatly.  Their distaste for mob rule led them to distrust French innovations, such as the metric system.

Afghanistan - Doing too much for too little?

Fareed Zakaria thinks that the fight against the Taliban is overreach with little result.  He likens it to fighting Italy after Germany has been defeated.  See "Fareed Zakaria Criticizes 'Disproportionate' Afghanistan War on CNN".

We should also look at the reverse situation.  How many Americans would fight a foreign invader?  Suppose there was an Anti-China League that started hitting Chinese targets.  The Chinese, tired of the "American" terrorism, would invade the U.S. with overwhelming force.  Many Americans would resist, even if they did not like the Anti-China League.

For what many call a "Christian" nation, we seem incapable of following the second greatest commandment - do unto others what you would have them do unto you.

Also, why does the Afghan army need so much training when the Taliban has such minimal training?  If the U.S. can't beat the Taliban with all of its sophisticated training and weapons, will an Afghan army beat the Taliban with the same sophisticated training and weapons?  Either a sufficient number of Afghans are opposed to the Taliban to fight the Taliban on similar terms or too few Afghans are willing to risk their lives against the Taliban.

To get out of Afghanistan, invite the Chinese in

Actually, the Chinese are already in Afghanistan.  The Chinese won a bid for a copper mine in Logar province, but according to a recent U.S. survey, there are over a trillion dollars worth of metals and minerals in Afganistan, "U.S. Identifies Vast Riches of Minerals in Afghanistan", James Riesen, New York Times, 2010-06-13.

What if the U.S. gets China more involved in extracting resources from Afghanistan?  Would the Chinese have to bring in their own military to protect their interests?  As the Chinese got more and more involved in mining, would they have to bring in more troops?  They've managed to take over Tibet; would they be able to take over Afghanistan?  Then the Taliban would be direct their ire against these new invaders and the U.S. could slip out.

There are a couple of caveats about this.

First, Logar was the province where several Afghani groups destroyed a 350-vehicle convoy, including tanks? Would the Chinese fare any better?  Would they want to take on that kind of risk?

Second, if China takes over Afghanistan, they might lock out others from access to the mineral riches of Afghanistan.  This could put U.S. companies at a big disadvantage.

A better way would be to promote the mineral wealth as a means for co-operation among all interested parties: large companies that want access, Afghanis that want jobs, Afghanis that want peace, and Afghanis that want political power.  It really comes down to would you rather fight and keep Afghanis poor or would you rather find out ways to benefit all interested parties.

No simple answers in war and peace

For a good overview of the complexities of the Afghan war, read "Stanley McChrystal's Long War", by Dexter Filkins, New York Times, 2009-10-14. It is intended for the New York Times Magazine, 2009-10-18.

Many Afghans would like to live in peace, but a corrupt government and a deadly insurgent force aren't helping them do so. Can a foreign force help them, or does it make matters worse?