The Conversation: Ignorant Americans, Education Reform, and Budget Changes

Kevin: Here are statistics, according to another dismal article, about the ignorance, negligence, gullibility and shortsightedness of many Americans:

75% can't name more than one of the five freedoms stipulated in the First Amendment

70% did not know what Roe v. Wade was in 1986

75% did not know the duration of a senator's term

80% did not know that each state has 2 senators

60% could not name the 3 branches of government

51% did know that the U.S. dropped the nuclear bomb

15% could not grasp the fact that we have a heliocentric solar system

Harry: But what causes this ignorance among our population? Could it be the education system, or another factor, such as the power of religion on certain areas of the nation? Just a proposition. And what do you do about it? Make government news programs that all are forced to watch?

Kevin: Well, a lot of this is pretty basic stuff one learns in a public school social studies classroom. It shouldn't take a mandatory lecture by the government for someone to pick up on the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. I think the real problem is we just don't have much global awareness because we're so glued to distractions, entertainment and other frivolous media.

Harry: Kevin, you may be correct, but what can you do? How can we limit the distractions?

Kevin: Your point earlier, about government action, was a good one. Maybe the budget could make more room for education since it currently only encompasses just under 3% of the federal budget. What other unnecessary stuff would you cut out from here?

Harry: Besides cutting down on both Medicare and Social Security, I would focus more heavily on reforming the educational system. I feel that, as of now, it is in a sub-optimal state of affairs.

Kevin: You mean privatizing the educational system?

Harry: That's an option, along with raking teachers via a merit system, not a seniority one. That is the main problem I see with the system at this time.

Kevin: So you would get rid of tenure, but what about the broader budget? What would you change? In this Pew poll, 62% said they wanted to increase education, while roughly 40% wanted to decrease health care spending. What do you make of that? And, also, just to support my earlier point about cutting down on defense spending, now 31% of pollsters say they want to increase military spending, a 10% drop in just two years.

Harry: Nowadays, people are looking at large class sizes more than healthcare coverage, at least in the demographic that pole was taken in. All of the reports of America falling behind are shifting the focus of the public to another issue. On education, I would make the system more privatized to save money on the governments part, as the only costs the government would pay would be in subsides, and these could be on a case by case basis. With regards to military spending, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have turned the public away from military spending, which explains the shift in direction.

Kevin: I agree. The government should end its two wars quickly, spend less on military and more on education, and create a lot charter schools. The competition and innovation that would follow would be beneficial. But wouldn't it also be unequally spread across the nation since charter schools are subsidized locally? That is, poorer communities would have inferior schools.

Harry: The two wars that we are currently in cannot be ended very quickly. The charter schools that are created can be distributed (if that is the right word) evenly across the nation. State money could be used as a base for all schools, and then the local communities continue from there with their own money.

Kevin: Right, I understand that all charter schools would start with an even amount of state subsidies. I guess some schools would just end up with inferior facilities due to less local subsidies. With regards to the two wars, you may want to add a third one. The said the US military was winding down in Iraq, but there seems to be no such thing as a full withdrawal since we still have troops in Germany. (There are also probably still private contractors in Iraq.) So that leaves us with Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya now. (A.I.L., as in these bloody wars are 'ailing' our nation's economy, reputation, and troops.)

Harry: We cannot turn completely inwards at a time like this. If we do, then we will be giving up a serious opportunity to influence events in the Arab world that could beneficially impact the U.S. This change must occur gradually. But with a cutback on Social Security, Medicare, and Defense, we can, with time, reform our educational system and withdraw troops from conflicts. 'Gradually' is the key word. We must take this one step at a time. Our withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan must be gradual, or else serious problems could occur. But, we can do it.

Read more...

The Conversation: Libya

Kevin: Here are the Pew poll statistics about how the public views the conflict in Libya: 47% think airstrikes were the right decision, 60% believed involvement in Libya would last "for some time," 39% thought the U.S. coalition lacked a coherent goal, with 46% opting for Gaddafi's ouster and only 43% voting to focus more on civilian protection.

I have a few questions, Harry, but they all pertain the effectiveness of the United States' operations there. How can we be so sure that our involvement will be brief when we have a tendency for setting new records on our nation's longest wars? And how can we be sure that a multilateral effort will not become dysfunctional under an incoherent agenda?

Harry: Involvement in a situation like this cannot be 'brief,' as in six months of operations. However, military involvement can be brief, as we have the resources to move quickly and crush Gaddafi. We also have an obligation to protect civilians, and we can do that by removing Gaddafi. Our efforts at the present time will allow for a stalemate. What about all the civilians under Gaddafi's rule? We must protect them as well. Anyhow, back to my main idea, after Gaddafi is removed from power, we can progressively scale down our military involvement until we leave the area under its new government. Our agenda has been defined under various United Nations resolutions. But, those goals need to be expanded.

Kevin: We sort of had the same 'progressively-scaling-down-military-involvement' mentality in Iraq, except it took us 8 years to scale down there. Aren't these in-and-out military operations much more complex than they seem? Remember the fiasco during the Somali Civil War/Operation Gothic Serpent? On the other hand, the 1999 bombing campaigns on Yugoslavia were enough to pull Yugoslav troops out of Kosovo and to end a genocide--overall, a successful 3-month campaign despite many civilian casualties. Anyway, back to my original point, these operations are wild cards; they can go either way, often with unintended consequences.

Harry: Gothic Serpent did not go well mainly because of (I'm talking about the Battle of Mogadishu here) improper air support. We have a large coalition backing us here. We can pull off military involvement (what I meant by the 'six months' thing) very quickly. To respond to your other point, all military actions have 'unintended consequences' in some way. In fact, all international actions have these. We can foresee some of the ripples that this involvement will make. We cannot foresee others. But, that does not mean we should not do anything.

Kevin: Sure, we have a lot of manpower and might be able to pull this off in six months or under. But what is meant by 'this': deposing Gaddafi or protecting civilians? Or do they go hand in hand?

Harry: I feel that deposing Gaddafi and protecting civilians do go hand in hand, as Gaddafi is the one attacking civilians in the first place. He also has civilians in his areas, and he will try to engage them in some way. Gaddafi will also wait for the UN to move on to other matters, and then just attack the rebels again. So, if we do not finish the job now, it will come back and bite us.

Kevin: So how do you think this will all play out? Is it like David Brooks says, that Gaddafi could be deposed in three different ways: by being defeated by the rebel army, by voluntarily exiling himself before he gets killed, or by his own minions defecting and leading to the collapse of his entire regime?

Harry: Option number one will not happen now. It could have happened about two weeks after the start of the rebellion. It would be problematic for us if Gaddafi exiles himself, as he is a known terrorist supporter and leader, so I think we will take measures to prevent that from occurring. The third option is the most viable. Gaddafi's lieutenants and mercenaries will stop fighting for him, and either run away or defect. This can occur rather quickly, if we show the proper amount of force.

Kevin: Rather quickly, you say? 200 Tomahawks have been fired already, 193 from the United States. (Talk about equally shared efforts in a coalition. What can you do?) We're also bombing the Libyan army to smithereens and attacking their psyches with radio transmissions telling them that there is little hope in favor of Gaddafi. As Admiral Gortney said recently, "Our message to the regime troops is simple: Stop fighting, stop killing your own people, stop obeying the orders of Colonel Gaddafi."

Harry: This seems rather quickly to me. Yes, we do take a good deal of the costs, but, like you said, it's either that, or nothing gets done. Gaddafi's military will fall apart in about six months or less. Once he cannot pay his men, most of the remaining ones will defect.

Kevin: So what happens after we get rid of Gaddafi? Democracy doesn't just instantly blossom; it takes years of cultivation as we see in Iraq. As the New York Times' Ross Douthat explains, "Twice in the last two decades, in Iraq and the former Yugoslavia, the United States has helped impose a no-flight zone. In both cases, it was just a stepping-stone to further escalation: bombing campaigns, invasion, occupation and nation-building."

Harry: After we remove Gaddafi, we will be able to scale down our military involvement in the situation. After Gaddafi, help must be provided to the Libyans to properly rebuild their nation. But, that will take less money. At that stage, the only military forces there would be involved in reconstruction and aid operations.


Kevin: Less money? Really? Each troop currently deployed in Afghanistan costs $1 million per year. Isn't nation-building usually the most expensive part about this? I thought it took more money and more time.

Read more...

Islam is Peaceful; Man is Violent

Earlier today 12 UN workers were killed by an Afghan mob protesting the burning of the Quran by Florida pastor Terry Jones. Mr. Jones has previously stated, "Islam is of the devil," and was originally planning to burn 200 copies of the Quran. This kind of unfounded generalization can only hurt U.S. interests in the Middle East.

Today Islamic radicals distort the meaning of “jihad” to justify terrorism. But rather than blame religion for violence, blame human nature, blame people.

According to a Pew poll, 35% said Islam is “more likely to encourage violence than other religions.” Many Islamophobics call Islam a “religion of the sword” because Muhammad used violence. But the Prophet was born in the violent milieu of Arabia, where Muslims had to wage jihad (a struggle) to keep the word of God alive.

Ancient Muslims had no choice but to wage war because they lived in a hostile environment, where it was kill or be killed. The typical code of warfare would seem barbaric to today’s morality. Vengeance was ingrained in society. To limit blood feuds, Arab tribes adhered to the Law of Retribution, similar to “an eye for an eye.” Other traditions included: rape, torture, molestation, mutilation, the murder of noncombatants, and caravan raids, which were considered a “national sport.” As unholy as these occurrences were, eventually Muslims improved the conditions of warfare and outlawed the wanton destruction that was hitherto considered the norm.

Although the Quran contains verses that seem violent, they are exclusively meant for Muhammad’s enemies. The Quran says “slay the polytheists,” “carry the struggle to the hypocrites who deny the faith,” and “fight those who do not believe in God”—but these verses were specifically meant to sanction self-defense against the Quraysh, the biggest threat to Islam back then.

The Quraysh was a group of elitist, capitalist Meccan tribes who held an economic and religious monopoly over Arabia. They controlled and reaped all the financial and political benefits that came with the Kaba, a universal shrine where any pagan Arabian could stop by and worship. This religious and economic hegemony allowed some Qurayshis to become wealthy, while the rest remained poor. When Muhammad preached against inequality and polytheism, he quickly became an enemy of the Quraysh. In order to defend himself and his Ummah, he adopted a “just war theory” known as jihad.

Since Muhammad refuted the notion of a “holy war,” it is unfair to portray Islam as a “religion of the sword.” The Prophet believed war was either just or unjust. Jihad permitted Muslims to struggle against internal sinful obstacles or against external oppression. It was not a religious sanction to wage war, but rather a form of self-defense given “only to those who have been oppressed.”

The doctrine of fighting only in retaliation was perhaps the most telling example of Muhammad’s passiveness. “Do not begin hostilities; God does not like the aggressor,” the Quran says. “But if the enemy desists, then you must also cease hostilities.” While in Medina, the Prophet only ordered bloodless caravan raids against the Qurayash. During the Battle of Badr, Muhammad refused for days to strike first. During the march to the Kaba in 628, Muhammad agreed to a ceasefire and returned home peacefully when he could have easily destroyed the weakened Quraysh. He even spared two Jewish clans that brazenly committed treason, a crime punishable by death. The third Jewish clan that committed treason, the Banu Qurayza, was not so lucky; the clansmen were enslaved and executed. But it was the clan’s protector, not Muhammad, that decided on such a draconian punishment. Thus, in almost every occasion Muhammad preached a peaceful, merciful Islam.

Tolerance and religious freedom are peaceful elements of Islam. “There can be no compulsion in religion,” the Quran says. “To you your religion; to me mine.” After Muslims conquered a region, they did not force its inhabitants to convert, nor did they encourage it. Under Ottoman rule, non-Muslims retained their autonomy and religious freedom because Muslims believed God, Yahweh, and Allah were all the same. These religious communities, known as millets, actually benefited from Islam since they faced lighter taxes and less discrimination. Under the devshirme system, the sultan recruited non-Muslims into the upper echelons of the empire. Not only were Christians and Jews spared, but they were given freedom, autonomy, and opportunities.

In modern times, Islam has been portrayed as a “religion of the sword” locked in irrepressible conflict with the West and the United States, but there are two fallacies with this notion. First, it is people, not religion, that actually partake in conflict; violence, competition and survival are human imperatives. Second, Islamic and Western forms of government are not incompatible. In fact, several prominent Muslims have vouched for an Islamic-Western hybrid style of government.

Consider Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, who vouched for a society that was both modern and Islamic. He wanted to combine an updated version of Shariah law with Western education, social welfare, and democracy. However, the trouble came when Egypt’s Colonel Gamal Abd al-Nasser imprisoned and executed most of the Brotherhood. While in jail, Sayyid Qutb radicalized his Brothers and realized that violence was the easiest way to establish his social goal: the “Islamization” of society. Islam itself did not radicalize Qutb since he was originally a peaceful al-Banna follower. Qutb merely used Islam as a tool to justify violent. He fanaticized religion for his own socio-political goals.

Thus, this idea that Islam is “a religion of the sword” is wrong. Islam calls for peace, tolerance, and religious freedom. Any notion of violence was meant specifically to be passive and retaliatory, and was meant to be used exclusively against the Quraysh. In short, Muslims realized they had to fight to keep the word of Allah alive, and so it is written in the Quran. But that does not exonerate the terrorists responsible for 9/11.

Today, Jihadists cite Muhammad’s violent struggle and twist the Quran to justify their political and social agenda. But the extremists who invoke jihad to murder innocents only speak for themselves. They do not speak for all of Islam, and they certainly do not speak for Muhammad. To paraphrase Reza Aslan, fanaticism is a “false idol” of Islam that, like the false deities of the Kaba, must be purged.

Read more...