There are alot of ALL's in that title. With all those all's, one wonders can one become All, and one with universe? Earth, Moon Stars the whole Shabang or Big Bang whichever you prefer. Do other countries with other religions believe this notion which is a medatative Buddahist concept or.........are we as Americans forever regulated to making American Foreign Policy decisions based on a love for the Holy Land ? Christian and Jew. Does American Foreign Policy take into account and respect other religions? This very touchy and very thorny subject was recently discussed on Wednesday before a House of Representatives Committee where Madeline Albright was the "star"afficiendo of all matters of the Almighty based on the fact she wrote the book. The Mighty and the Almighty:Reflections on America, God and World Affairs. The former Secretary of State, diplomat, history professor, Catholic and Jew (what a paradox there)was put on the hot seat and basically in a concentrated nutshell this is what she told the representatives in Wahington on matters concerning the Iraq War, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Jordon and the Middle East.
America cannot go into other countries and paradoxically claim to be there for one thing while doing another. She used the word "paradox" alot when talking of America and other countries. Give up the age old notion that if everything were hunky dory between Isreal and Palestine all battles in the Middle East would be over. America must talk to the Middle Eastern countries. Without talk there is no communication. Without communication, there is no remote chance in hell that any anything will ever be achieved. It can't hurt. It's not a Sissy Boy thing to talk. It is very unwise not to talk. Madeline Albright talks. That's what good diplomats do. Jimmy Carter talks. Judging from the recent article written by Alan Dershowitz and the ensuing Gentile vs Jew "PLAYING THE GOD CARD" discussions, I mean poo flinging we need more discussions and more talk over anything remotely Middle Eastern. This current set of non-talkers need to take a lesson from these people. Madeline Albright is All right . That's not a political wing of anything. She just is. Talk on and Write On! Whattya Think? To talk or not to talk that is the question.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 13
Very timely and thought provoking article. I'm in the middle of the Jimmy Carter book [because of the Dershowitz controversy I must confess] and would like to read Albright's book -- though have to confess also that I'm not a big fan of hers overall. Have to agree that she's a brilliant woman and definitely agree that without talk there is no progress and as my grammy drummed into my head, "where there's a will there's a way." I do believe that making progress on the Israel - Palestine issues are part of the process. Sounds like she's saying not necessary to do that first? Be that as it may, I don't have any confidence in the Bush Administration, whatsoever, that they have any interest or intention of "talking" with "the neighbors" as some of the Senators are wont to call them.
Unfortunately, both Gates and Rice are telling us that Iran is basically full of itself and because they believe we're not in a good position in Iraq that they won't be at their most cooperative; i.e., they just won't be inclined to do what we want them to do. So, apparently, that's it until Rice and Gates decide otherwise [or is it Negroponte who's doing the deciding in that regard?]
What's the old saying? "Talk is cheap?" I guess that tells us what cheapskates our politicians are because they refuse to really talk or maybe I should say really communicate. They make decisions for other nations without talking out their beliefs and solutions to problems. They go in with preconceived ideas and only talk to convince the "other" to agree with us or or face the consequences of our powerful nation's wrath.
One thing that really bothered me way back in 2004, not long after we got into the war in Iraq was during a class seminar, someone brought up the idea that America had really showed how compassionate and caring they were to the people of Iraq because (after bombing them) part of our efforts to aid the civilians there was to take over a shipment of bibles. Now, I had not heard this piece of news before class and I have to admit, it totally floored me to hear it. The girl who was telling about this event was a good Christian girl, raised in a family where the father was a pastor. And, I'm not saying that sarcastically. This girl really cared about people and I could really see where, from a Christian perspective, she and other Christians would be consider this a kind thing to do. And the girl even told me that she thought having the military deliver the Bibles made it even better because it showed that the military wasn't made up of people who had no hearts. So, having them bring in the Bibles would make the Moslems more accepting of them. But, maybe because I'm a Jew, I don't see it the same way. What I thought of when I heard that we had done this was that if I was a Moslem, living in Iraq at the time, and the country that was bombing my homeland, killing my loved ones, brought in a shipment of religious books, I would: a) be appalled at their arrogance, and b) see it as a message from that country that they expected me to accept their religion. It was interesting to see that, when I stated my position, how the room split almost 50/50 into two different factions, those who saw it my way and those who saw it the other girl's way. Even more interesting was that the 50/50 split didn't go down religious lines as I would have expected it to. Some of the kids in the class who had no religion or were non-Christian, but religious saw it the Christian girl's way. Some of the "very Christian" students saw it my way.
One thing I learned from the many discussions held in that class was that in moments like those, when we totally disagreed with each other's beliefs, if we took the time to listen RESPECTFULLY to each other and really tried to LISTEN to what was being said, we didn't necessarily agree with each other, but there was so much less animosity than when an issue came up that was really emotional and we didn't want to hear what someone else was saying. We didn't always agree after a debate, but we understood the other person's viewpoint a lot more.
Maybe what we need is less Foreign Policy and more Understanding of Foreign Peoples and Nations. I know some people believe that those in the Middle East would never accept any point of view coming from us. But, I wonder, if we weren't so much powerful than they, if we were all on equal footing, if they may listen more than they do now.
One of my teachers who was about 6 foot tall one day stood in front of the class and asked "If I represent the United States Defence Budget, at 6 feet tall, how tall would you say the budget of every other country in the entire world if combined would reach?" The answer was about 2 feet. So, the entire rest of the world, if they put all of their Defence budgets together to try to "gang up on us" would only be about 1/3 of what our's is. It's hard for me to believe that any other country would feel like they could deal with us on an equal basis knowing that.
Any thoughts?
// Maybe what we need is less Foreign Policy and more Understanding of Foreign Peoples and Nations.//
This in and of itself would be a "policy" which alas seems to bear no resemblance to what our so-called decision makers and planners subscribe to doing -- except as a military tactic; i.e., Rumsfeld saying, "as the enemy adapts we adapt." Casy [just like Rice] seems to be taking somewhat the same tack when he says, "the Iranians are acting in a very negative way in many respects. My view is that when the Iranians are prepared to play a constructive role in dealing with some of these problems then there might be opportunities for engagement." In other words, the other guy has to go first and show me something and then maybe we'll talk. Then they'll continue to pore over intel which is probably as flawed as ever -- since we still don't have very many operatives fluent in the lanaguage or the culture. OJT, I guess, but always from a militaristic bent. [Have you read the book about sheltered life in the green zone -- "The Emerald City"? -- I haven't]
Interesting about the inverse in the 50/50 split. I think it was very wrong [strategically], immoral and illegal to go in the first place. Given the situation now, not sure how we could reach the Iraqi's [the violence seems to have a life of its own], but do hope and pray that there is a possiblity for diplomacy in the region at large. Don't think we'd better count on the current team though. Think they will just go through the motions and sloooowwly foot drag their way down the roadmap to peace -- if they're not able to succeed in provoking an outright confrontation.
Re: Emerald City -- believe that it's not just Bible's being introduced -- abstinence [ABC's] and other singularly obtuse approaches. Guess that's the "provincial" part of the "Provincial Reconstruction Teams."
General Michael Hayden, CIA Director, is telling the House Foreign Relations Committee, on Thursday, that he has developed a rather dark view of the Iranian's intent vis a vis Iraq and that "there is a clear line of evidence that the Iranians want to hurt us, punish us, hurt us in Iraq, and tie us down in Iraq so that our other options in the region would be limited. . .the Iranians are emboldened by the 'perceived' victory of Hezbollah" in the recent Lebanon-Israel dust up. [do we believe it?]
She is honest enough to admit that perfection just does not happen in foreign affairs. There are times that you have to sign a treaty with a wacko tyrant like Qaddafi. I'm sure that makes it depressing to work in that area sometimes, but you also have a chance to save alot of lives and do alot of good. Sometimes it is better to end a war than to shoot the guy who started it. Sometimes not- Hitler for example was never going to stop causing trouble.
Over the last few years, the "black and white" world view of the neocons has started to look pretty stupid. Albright's way might be better.
Yes, we do tend to devolve into the "us" and "them" difficulty, and polarization along religious lines complicates that. Like some people have a hard time with Jimmy Carter vis a vis the Shah of Iran , I have a bone to pick with Albright and Clinton et al for Rawanda. Another instance where we all agreed to look the other way, until it was too late. The Sudan is still a nightmare and Iraq has become one while elite interests haggle over the oil fields -- notice how the price of crude has dropped? Let's see how long that lasts. No, I could never be a diplomat.
you have composed a very well written article here that offers a very smooth read. I have enjoyed reading your article and you make some great points and see it in a light that I had never thought about before. Thanks for sharing with us.
My granddaughter just did an essay and presentation on the Aztec world...and the massacres and force put on them that destroyed an entire nation...was most interesting in talking about what is going on today...What about the Aboriginals in Australia right now...an entire class of people, taken over...and not respected for who they are or how they handled their land and world...is it any better for them? What about...the American Indians...and what was their land...just some food for thought.....that I have been thinking about in our occupation of Iraq and the reason for it....excellent article Missy!!
I adore Missy's commentsand her point of view. But boy, oh boy don't get her started. That energizer bunny mouth and brain and fingers will type so fast, it's a wonder how her brain keeps up with her fingers sometimes. You go girl. Hijack my thread.