Afghanistan
The conclusion that I reach below will in some of your minds require me to turn in my Liberal card, but read on and see that my argument actually supports minority rights and altruism, liberal attitudes if ever there were any.
In a sense the President didn’t have much choice about what to do next in Afghanistan, and it does make one wonder a little bit what took so long; but I believe that there was never any real doubt that the President would call for more troops to join the fight; it just took time to decide on the right number of troops, how they would be phased in, how we could envision an eventual end to the fight, and how to present it to the American people in the midst of other pressing matters such as most notably getting people back to work in our almost-devastated economy, repairing relations around the world, trying to do something about the Israel-Palestinian issue, preparing a U.S. position on climate change, and working to assure that some form of health-insurance reform gets through Congress. The Administration is able to multi-task, but everything slows down a bit when there are so many high-priority items on the agenda.
The President and the country had
three choices in Afghanistan, none of them great: (1) begin to leave now,
(2) keep things the same, or (3) increase our involvement.
(1) Leaving now was not an acceptable option from several standpoints. First, for the President it was a no-brainer. We leave now, and he has “lost” Afghanistan and his next election. Second, it would also have been a very bad choice for this country. We would once again have abandoned the people whom we enlisted as allies against terrorism. The only reason that Afghans are allowing the Taliban back into the rural parts of their country is that they see the Taliban as inevitable and that they do not believe that the U. S. has the will to clean out the Taliban and protect the Afghans. We should not make these fears a reality because doing so would not only be a blow to our nation’s honor but, in pragmatic terms, a blow to our being taken seriously in the future when we seek to make alliances with any other country for our mutual interest. Third, although there do not appear to be any direct benefits to U. S. interests in the narrow sense of preventing terrorist attacks from again being incubated in Afghanistan, we do have an interest in the stability of the Middle East, and a Taliban victory in Afghanistan would further shift the balance of power to fundamentalist Islam, strengthening Iran and the overall jihad against Israel and the U.S. Fourth, the Taliban are very, very bad; their return would mark the end of freedom and opportunity for women in Afghanistan, not to mention disaster, even death for all religious minorities and gays. I have to admit, however, that as strongly as I would want to prevent such a catastrophe for the people of Afghanistan, that alone would not justify our continued presence there; unfortunately, Afghanistan is only one of many places in the world where human rights are suppressed or imperiled; and we do not have the power to “fix” all these places. Still, as we are already in Afghanistan on a mission to benefit ourselves, it is an added bonus that we can do something of profound moral rightness to benefit these hapless people. Fifth, and finally, we should not be talking about our exit strategy; it’s the Taliban who needs an exit strategy, not us.
(2) Keeping things the same was also unacceptable; it would have either resulted in a delayed version of option (1) or simply have postponed the hard decisions for another day, during which time more of our soldiers, contractors, and Afghan citizens would have been killed. Our presence there would have become less and less acceptable both to Americans and Afghanis, and nothing would have been accomplished other than prolonging the misery. At the end of the delay, we would still have to decide whether to leave or to escalate our involvement to the point of having a chance to do the job right.
(3) Increasing our troop presence was also not a good option: there will be more carnage on all sides, and we risk further alienating some portions of Afghan society as well as the Arab/Islamic world in general. And, there is a significant possibility that the surge will not work, not to mention a strong chance that there is no way we can keep Afghanistan from collapsing without remaining there indefinitely. I believe, however, that success is not impossible; and that a surge is our only hope of avoiding some or all of the dire consequences of failure that I have enumerated above. I disagree with those who say that because we have already routed Al Qaeda from Afghanistan our mission has been accomplished. As I stated earlier, if a radical Islamic regime takes over, it is bad for everybody. The Iraq war was a nonsensical, disastrous diversion having nothing to do with real anti-terrorism; and one of its worst effects was to cause us to neglect the struggle in Afghanistan. President Obama has already in the past 10 months increased our troop strength there significantly, re-directing our attention to where it should have been all along. He needs to continue to build up our forces there until he at least has a chance to complete the job so incompetently executed by Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld.
I believe that the above are the
hard realities that we face, but it is very troubling to myself for me to take a
hawkish stance. War is at its core a deadly and profoundly immoral game
that world leaders play to obtain and maintain their power, executed in the name
of people who do not want war, wrongly pitting one nationality or culture
against another, and carried out by young men and women who risk their lives,
directed by leaders safe in the comfort of their palaces. When we are attacked
by an evil power, the moral choice is clear; we are not responsible for the
existence of such a war, and we have a moral obligation to protect ourselves;
simply laying down our arms and allowing ourselves to be conquered by some
monstrous regime is not acceptable. Situations like Afghanistan are not so
morally clear: we were attacked on 9/11 by a bunch of international terrorists
who were overwhelmingly from Saudi Arabia, a country whose friendship we
regrettably have to sustain because of oil and other global geo-political
reasons. Afghanistan itself was not responsible, although the Taliban were accomplices. Today another ally, Pakistan, is as much at fault as anyone in any
future terrorist attacks that may occur; yet we also have to remain friends with
them for a whole host of reasons that we can loosely characterize as a
balance-of-power imperative, especially balance-of-nuclear power. This is where
the question of whether being involved in war is right or wrong gets extremely
messy; it makes the temptation simply to leave and wash our hands of the matter
very strong; and it leads us again to question our judgment as it brings forth
the image of us making armchair decisions about war in which men and women will
die, the latter’s calculus about the necessity for this war justifiably
differing from those of us whose lives are not directly at stake.
I recently watched the History Channel’s epic new series WWII in HD; and it served to reinforce several conflicted ideas that I have about war. It reaffirmed that war is probably the greatest and most senseless evil that humans can inflict on each other; but it also made obvious the degree of commitment our country had in that war in contrast to our current conflicts. Hundreds of thousands of Americans lost their lives, making it seem silly that we fail to execute a war to a successful conclusion today because we are afraid to sacrifice "merely" a few thousand lives. Of course we immediately correct that impression, not only because every life is valuable whether it is a few thousand or a few hundred thousand, but also because we know that there is a significant difference now: we simply are not sure that the war in Afghanistan is worth fighting or losing a single life for. I have listed some reasons why it is worth fighting for; but they pale in comparison with the justification for beating back Hitler, Fascism, and a fanatical and murderous Japan. Ultimately, however, I have to draw the predominant lesson from WWII that once we have embarked upon a war (a just war, even if the justification is not as strong as we would prefer), the only morally defensible thing to do is to complete it as quickly and decisively as possible.
It could be argued that Afghanistan is simply not salvageable no matter what we do, but I am not so sure about that. The Japanese were every bit as fanatical as the Taliban and just as willing to fight for an indefinite length of time to spread their warped ideology throughout the entire world. The only thing that prevented their continued fighting (and the same was true of Germany) was the prospect of complete and utter annihilation. After our victory was decisive, there was no more threat of Japanese or German terrorism to speak of; and in fact these countries became strong democracies and allies. I think that we have the same chance in Afghanistan to show the Taliban that we believe in our cause, and that by the way they and all their sympathizers will be wiped off the face of the earth if they do not unconditionally surrender. My concern is not that 30,000 troops is too much but that it may not be enough.
The day after the speech
Well, this is a feeling to which I am not accustomed: I like Obama's policy but not the speech. As I said above, I am opposed to an announced withdrawal date. Rather than broadcasting that intention to the enemy, Obama should have whispered into Karzai's ear, "Buddy, you've got 18 months; get moving; otherwise, you're toast." The policy itself is reasonably sound because the pace of withdrawal was made contingent on conditions at the time: he could easily reduce the force from 100,000 to 90,000, keep his promise, and continue fighting. The "exit strategy" seems to have been sop thrown to Democrats, and was the cowardly part of an otherwise courageous decision. I also think that the President missed an opportunity to use his persuasive powers of oratory to have made a ringing call to arms. The people need to understand on an emotional level what this war means; it was the wrong time to be "no-drama Obama." Finally, there's a big problem with narrowing this struggle to one against Al Qaeda: there aren't but 100 left in Afghanistan: 100,000+ troops against 100 men; that's ludicrous. No, the enemy is Islamic extremism; and the Taliban is every bit as much our enemy as Al Qaeda, in part because the former enables the latter.
This is also a good time to remember how incredibly wrong-headed the Bush policy was, and in so doing to see that Obama's policy is not at all like it. BUSH FOUGHT THE WRONG WAR. It was the wrong war not because it was irrelevant; sadly, it was relevant, just in the wrong way: invading Iraq was one of the worst possible things we could have done. Bad as Saddam Hussein was, his was a secular government that was the enemy of Iran and its wacko Islamic extremism. Hussein had originally been our guy, partly for that very reason. Unfortunately, he got too big for his britches and invaded Kuwait; and we and the rest of the world had to do something about it. Out of that necessity we weakened Iraq to the point where it was not the foil for Iran that it had been, but finishing Hussein off only made things worse: we now have a government in Iraq that is to a considerable extent allied with Iran, a natural turn of events since the majority in Iraq is Shi'a, just like in Iran. The brutality of Hussein, which we all properly decry, was nevertheless useful in that it kept in power the Sunnis, who were the enemies of our enemies, the Shi'a. Obama's policy, though not as unambiguous as I would hope, is still a model of clarity compared with that of the dunderhead Bush. The thing I don't understand is Cheney's role in this; Cheney, though evil, was supposedly smart. Why couldn't he see the folly of invading Iraq? Was it just the testosterone of the bad-aim hunter?
Music
Classical Music is one of my greatest pleasures and occupies my time in many different ways, including much listening and watching via CDs, DVDs, the Internet (the Berlin Philharmonic broadcasts ("The Digital Concert Hall"), both live and archived, are great), and Live in HD broadcasts to movie theaters by the Metropolitan Opera. In addition, I am more of an active participant with my involvement in two chamber groups in my county: Sundays at Three chamber-music series and the Orchestra of St. John's (Howard County's only chamber orchestra). I serve a variety of functions such as treasurer, producer of program brochures, maker of DVDs documenting performances, and occasional rehearsal pianist and page turner.
Here is a sample from Sundays at Three:
We recently co-hosted the Bennewitz Quartet of Prague in our home and gave them a tour of Washington, D. C. They held a master class for middle- and high-school students here and then gave a concert as part of the Candelight Concerts series in Columbia, Maryland. They performed an early Mozart quartet, the Lyric Suite by Alban Berg, and Schubert's Quartet #13. I was favorably impressed by several things: their technique was excellent, and the blend of their instruments was exceptional; but most importantly, they eschewed flashiness and concentrated on honest and probing interpretations of the music. They did not stray very far from tradition but did employ a noticeably spare vibrato, which served the poignancy of the Schubert exceedingly well.
We also had a visit from another talented quartet, the Calder Quartet, seen April 14 on the Tonight Show, as string backup for Airborne Toxic Event.
As dynamic as our string-quartet friends were sublime, the Simon Bolivar youth orchestra conducted by Gustavo Dudamel, a wunderkind himself, turned in the most phenomenal performance of orchestral music of the entire season -- in Washington, D. C.; Houston, and Chicago.
Travel
Our most recent travel was in 2006 and included a 24-day tour of Italy from bottom to top, culminating in a 2-day visit to Salzburg, Austria, to commemorate Mozart's 250th-birthday year. One of many picturesque spots was Portofino, pictured below; but I've saved the best for my new Europe 2006 pages, including Ravello on the Amalfi Coast, and Bellagio on Lake Como, two of the most beautiful places on earth.
The previous trip was in November, 2005: Australia and New Zealand
Highlights included Sydney; the Southern Ocean with the "Twelve Apostles," Kangaroo Island, Melbourne, and Adelaide; and northeastern Australia, with Brisbane, Mount Tamborine, and Heron Island (on the Great Barrier Reef); Christchurch with excursions across the South Island's "Alps," and to the Franz Josef Glacier; two South Island spectaculars, Milford Sound (from Queenstown) and Mount Cook; and the North Island highlights of Wellington and Rotorua (a center of hot springs and Maori culture), including some spectacular land between there and Auckland. Along the way we also saw aboriginal cultures, Antarctic museums, a Lord of the Rings tour, koalas, sheep, kangaroos, sheep, parrots, sheep, penguins, sheep, sheep....
For all travel pages, you can click here or on the Travel button, or click on the links under each topic below.
August, 2005: Alaska
Highlights included Camp Denali, Prince William Sound, and Tracy Fjord. Interesting people included a woman who spends four months of the year operating a forklift at the south pole; an ex-Marine, ex-Forest Ranger, off to seminary to begin a new life as a future priest with likely service to the native peoples of Alaska; and an Alaska Railroad employee from Belarus. One of these days I'll get around to posting some pictures from this trip, but for now proceed to ...
April, 2005: Italy
For pictures and highlights of our 2005 trip to northern Italy, click on Florence 2005 and Venice 2005. All the pictures of Venice are on one page, so it will take a while to load over slow connections.
The Summer of 2004 took us to Italy and Colorado. For picture stories of those trips click on Colorado 2004, Rome 2004, or Sicily 2004.
I have some more pictures to share on my Windows Live space; they include photos from our yard this summer and a few from a trip I made to Puerto Rico in 2002.
We know an excellent artist in New York, Daniel Roberts; to see some of his art, take a look at his website.
You may e-mail me at don<dot>degeorge at iname<dot>com. I leave it to you to assemble my e-mail address into the standard, workable format because I don't want it available here for spammers' computers to harvest.
Tip: Please do me and yourself a favor and set your screen resolution to at least 1024x728. This will allow you to see the full width of these pages without having to scroll. If this makes text hard to read on your monitor, first use your monitor controls to stretch your Windows desktop to fill the screen--those black borders do you no good at all. If text is still too small, use your Web browser's settings to increase the font size. (In Internet Explorer, go to View....Text Size.) With modern monitors there's no need to have your computer screen display text the size of a first-grade primer; make your computer screen look like a book that an adult would read. (Oh, yes, this particular note is in very small type; if you can read this easily, then you can gain desktop space by increasing your screen resolution.)
A few more words on screen resolution: A common rule of thumb is to set 14&15-inch monitors to 800x600, 16&17-inch monitors to 1024x768, and 19-inch and higher monitors to 1280x1024. Based on these rules of thumb, if you have less than a 16-inch monitor, I apologize for your need to scroll on this site; but I must say that unless your computer is very old or you are due for new eyeglasses or you view your monitor from across the room, I disagree with the above rules of thumb. I find that you can set a 15" monitor to 1024x728 if you make the adjustments I mention above. I run 1920x1440 on my 21" monitor and can read this fine print perfectly well even though I have trouble reading the ingredient list on a food package. Furthermore, the suggestion to use a resolution of 1280x1024 is hogwash for anyone viewing graphics or photographs on a computer monitor (and isn't that everybody?) -- this produces a vertically compressed picture that makes things appear too wide. The correct aspect ratio for a computer monitor is 1.33:1; and that means you need to stick to 640x480, 800x600, 1024x728, 1362x1024 (OK, almost no computer offers this resolution, which is what the 1280x1024 should be--there must be some engineering reason for this; otherwise, it makes no sense), 1600x1200, etc. Oh, and while you're at it, be sure that your monitor's refresh rate is set to 70Hz or more; I've seen way too many monitors set at a flickery 60 Hz. For a few of you, your video cards or monitors won't support high-resolution and higher refresh rates at the same time; in that case, I reluctantly suggest that you use lower resolution and higher refresh rate. Thank you for reading my rant on screen resolutions. - Don DeGeorge
This page was last updated on 12/02/09.