Two conferences this week, thus not communicating with the outside world.
The conferences are dealing with two fascinating topics: (a) assistance in conflict zones, how to do it without having a negative impact on the conflict; and (b) communities in conflict zones that develop strategies in order to keep out of the conflict.
I really should blog more of the conversations in my office.
For example, several moons ago when the Iraqi army was disbanded, we asked each other what this meant in terms of the situation. The consensus around our table was that there were many tensions in Iraq and the disbanding of the army would only serve to heighten them. We agreed that you can't put 300,000 people out of work and expect anything good. We also agreed that you can't reduce options for 300,000 armed people and expect anything good. In other words: the level of violence was about to go up. Part of the problem - for us and our communication strategies - was this seemed so obvious that it hardly seemed relevant to bring it into wider discussion.
So, in the spirit of trying to scare the beejesus out of you, my friends, I offer this recent gem from my office:
As I was leaving on my most recent trip, headed off to the Middle East, one of my colleagues suggested that I check the date of the International Atomic Energy Agency's deadline for Iran. She suggested that if my trip overlapped with that date, I ought to be prepared for the security crackdown that would follow the Israeli bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities. The deadline was November 24th - tomorrow - and, thankfully, I was scheduled to be home before then.
Iran has since agreed to a three month suspension of their uranium enrichment program. The new "deadline" is the end of February - unless it is decided in Washington and Tel Aviv to preempt Tehran's next temporary suspension - a preemption of the preemption, if you will.
This is not to say that Israel will, absolutely for sure, bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, but around here we think there's a strong likelihood. Sorry.
" We are to practice virtue, not possess it. " - Meister Eckhart
Margaret Hassan is dead. Why?
She was a Westerner, born in Dublin and a subject of Great Britain. She worked for a Western agency, bringing assistance to the distressed. She was an outsider.
That's the story we tell about her. Characteristic is this comment from a BBC reader:
" If there was ever a clear cut signal to all Foreign Civilians to pull out of Iraq, then this is it. We should leave these people to it - enough Western Blood has been spilled. "
Margaret Hassan was a Westerner and they killed her. This is what we say, here in the West, on our front pages and in our media and in our letters to the editor and on our blogs. " She didn't belong and they killed her ".
That's the story, comforting in its way - everything so simple, the issues black and white, all the pieces in their places and a picture of the world neatly and clearly divided into Islam and West, Outsider and Iraqi, Them and Us.
But for one thing: Margaret was not an outsider. There is another story:
Margaret Hassan was an Iraqi. She was a Muslim. While she worked for an international agency, she worked in her own country with her own people.
The people who killed Margaret Hassan see the world starkly divided. Islam against the West. They looked at Margaret and saw only the first story. And in the case of Margaret Hassan they convinced us that was the important story. In the person of Margaret Hassan the world had a bridge between Islam and the West, but when the crisis came, we denied Margaret her own story and denied the connection.
The terrorists are winning. They are winning because we agree to their definitions and their divisions.
I'm back in the US for two weeks - to celebrate Thanksgiving and run two conferences. Yeah, that's restful. Then I have some meetings in Europe, but I'm taking Mrs Martial with me and we'll spend a few extra days relaxing in Paris before our annual tour of the Eastern Seaboard.
We've both been to Paris, but never with each other and neither of us has been there in over a decade. That will be very, very nice.
Four long years ago I was corresponding with a friend about our hopes and fears for Bush's Administration. I opined that the saving grace of having Colin Powell in the Administration was that he appeared to dislike Dick Cheney - especially Cheney's cavalier attitude toward the lives of American soldiers.1
Powell, I wrote, is taking the job precisely because he stills sees it as his duty to protect his men.
. . .
1 I grant that I had no direct evidence of this, but it was a surmise based on things swirling through the mediasphere as it existed then - none of which I bothered to catalogue. I don't typically footnote my personal correspondence (yeah, I know, sloppy), blogs were barely crawling on the tide-washed shore in those days, and media outlets and their watchdogs didn't yet archive everything for posterity, so I don't remember the precise sources.
Believe it or not, during the 2000 campaign we (meaning Americans) really did discuss whether Bush would invade Iraq and under what circumstances. Yes, some of us even considered how he might manufacture those circumstances. I was an humanitarian interventionist in those days, much to the annoyance of many colleagues who had to listen to the case for intervention one time too many (thus I was something of an Iraq hawk, though in truth more of a Zimbabwe and Afghanistan hawk).
However, as this war got closer, my doubts grew. There was no plan for after. There simply and truly was no plan.
Given that post-war reconstruction happens to be what I do, that was worrying enough to make me go all bitter and ironic, as readers from the early days of this blog will remember.
Given that the way in which the post-war situation has been handled from the very beginning, i.e. without even a passing regard to any of the lessons we've learned about reconstruction over the past sixty years (and my general stance that professionals ought to know the tools of their trade or else find another) and given that the handling itself has been precisely (though surely inadvertently, right?) calibrated to increase the violence rather than lessen it, and given that conflict mitigation during assistance and reconstruction is my direct field of expertise, I am driven nearly blind with rage and black with despair.
This Iraq venture, this boondoggle and quagmire, this unutterably foolish war, this massive and fraudulent waste of precious lives and better-spent billions is a perfect case study in how to fuck things up.
Sitting on the hotel's patio, the leaden sky promising but never quite delivering much needed rain, waiting for lunch and discussing the current situation in the Middle East with a few friends from the international donor community, talk turned toward the recent US elections and their fallout.
Condoleeza Rice's name was raised in the questioning context of what it was felt she had to offer on the myriad issues plaguing the region and specifically what she might bring to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in these days of historic opportunity. Faces around the table twisted into grimaces of mingled disgust, disdain, and weariness. Finally, someone ventured an answer in words:
" Not much. "
. . .
The world, or at least that politically aware and active part of it to which I have talked in recent days, is not encouraged, to put it lightly.
I've seen the suggestion a few times that Iraqi civilians living in Fallujah who didn't evacuate deserved whatever they got. " They were warned, " goes the refrain. " They could have left. " And of course there were many protestations that all or "most" civilians had left Fallujah anyway.
Now we have reports that men between the ages of fifteen and fifty-five were turned back as they tried to leave, turned back into Fallujah. Do they deserve what happened to them, those who tried to leave but were prevented? Do their families, who chose to stay with their husbands, sons, fathers deserve what happened to them? Or should the women and children, the aged and infirm have tried to make their own difficult way across Iraq anyway, on foot, without a man to drive, without a man to converse with strangers, without protection.
Some did, of course. But not all, not by any means. No one wants to be bombed. No one stays at home to die if they have a choice - or think they have a choice. For many, there was no choice.
And just where were they supposed to go in any case? To the refugee camps which were too small for the number fleeing, which were already overburdened, where the possibility of decent shelter and clean water was less than staying at home? To visit relatives elsewhere in Iraq, travelling along roads that are mined, that are crawling with bandits and suspicious, lethally violent Americans? Should they have gone toward Baghdad, toward the Americans, toward the center of the government bent on destroying their town? Or should they have headed toward Ramadi, to another town infested with the armed groups who continue to bring their own brand of misery to the people - and whose presence brought the smartbombs and Marines down on Fallujah? Would they have been safe there?
Where were they supposed to go to find safety and security in a country which is now defined by their absence?
Riding in from the airport to Amman, the taxi driver was delighted to find that this was my first trip to Jordan. He taught me how to find my way around the city, told me what to see if I had the time, described the neighborhoods through which we passed. Like many taxi drivers I've had, he pointed out the location of the American Embassy, though we didn't deviate from our route so as to actually see it.
When he found out that I did humanitarian work, he sighed.
" Baghdad. Many Americans who work in Baghdad live here ."
The question was unspoken, but I answered it. I don't work in Baghdad and am not going there on this trip. He smiled again, but his next words were serious.
" It is very sad in Iraq. They don't trust anybody." Here, we are honest. We love strangers. We will do anything to help. If you leave your bag somewhere, we will find it for you - and nothing will be missing. You have nothing to worry about here. Jordan is not like Iraq.
" Iraqis don't trust. Maybe their family, but no one else. "
History hasn't been kind, the past forty years in particular.
" Yeah, yeah. But now, now they have nothing to trust. The army, disbanding the army was a mistake. Men, thousands!, went home and didn't fight and now they are unemployed. They believed it would be all right. Now they have nothing. They trust nothing. "
Always check to see if there is wireless access. Always.
The wind at Logan airport last night was bad enough that I did not even get off the ground. Tonight I try again.
. . .
From the Silver Lining Department:
We may well get some brilliant pop music over the next four years. There are several strands involved:
First, more mainstream American musicians are bringing a political consciousness into their music. That should accelerate given that youth did in fact vote in record numbers and they largely voted against the incumbent.
Second, serious domestic problems tend to provide fertile ground for escapism. We should soon be hearing some great party songs, as well as some good "I don't give a fuck, live fast and die young" music.
Third, hip-hop is ripe for an outburst of the political back into the mainstream. The artists are there, all they need is an opening.
Fourth, about two-hundred thousand American soldiers will have passed through Iraq by the end of the year. Some of them will come home and start bands. Some of them will rock!
Fifth, one of the biggest records in Europe right now is American Idiot by Green Day. Record companies want to sell around the world too and bands will be asked to go political.
Most of the music of the next four years will suck - as it always does. But here in America we've had good experience with our music when war-mongering Republicans were in office and the domestic situation made making music as viable as any other uncertainty.
. . .
ADDITIONAL: Well that's not the most interesting thing I've ever said, but I wanted to provide some text beyond simply saying I actually posted today because I was still at home. And if I have to have GWB again, I want some fiery pop music too.
See you in a week. It looks extremely likely that I'll be in the Middle East when Arafat dies. That should be very interesting.
Would you trust an expert on Russia to tell you about Poland?
Let's draw the analogy in even starker terms: Would you trust someone who praised Lenin for pushing religion out of the public sphere and suggested that the reason Poles had not achieved the same level of advancement as the Russians was due to their continued Catholicism?
Yeah, that's pretty mean, but how else are we supposed to read Bernard Lewis railing at Arabs for not being Turks?
Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) is pulling out of Iraq. They aren't really a canary in the sense that most people might mean, i.e. that the situation really is so bad that no one can work there. MSF, in my opinion, is often a little quick to pull out and CARE, for example, is generally a better barometer as to the actual difficulty of working in an environment. (Thus, it is interesting that in the context of Iraq CARE left first, though for very specific reasons.)
What is significant about MSF pulling out - and which makes them a "canary" - is that people listen to MSF.
" It's becoming increasingly difficult to operate as an international NGO - non-governmental organisation - in a situation ruled by the 'war on terror'. "
MSF's Marc Joolen is sounding a drumbeat that needs to be heard. The article also refers to MSF's leaving of Afghanistan earlier this year: " [MSF] complained then that because of humanitarian works by the US [military], it was becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between armed forces and aid agencies. " The blurring of the lines between militaries and aid agencies makes providing assistance much more difficult and leads to increased danger for agency staff and, more importantly, the beneficiaries of assistance.
ADDITIONAL: The other way in which MSF is like a canary - and was the place I thought I was going to go with this post when I began it - is that when they leave a country so do a lot of other agencies. You hear about MSF, but you don't hear about the others, and the quality of life for people caught in that conflict drops still further.
This summer, when they saw the Red Sox once again underachieving, with a sub-par and occasionally comical defense, a lack of timely hitting, and a woefully mismanaged bullpen , some Red Sox fans turned to prayer.
"Please, Lord, we don't deserve this humiliation. This is a good team, why can't they play better?"
And, lo, Nomar was traded, the defense was shored up, and the manager stopped thinking so hard. The team went on a tear through the West Division, putting every rival for the Wild Card in the shade, and they ended the season strong as oxen. The first round of the playoffs saw continued smiting - but then the Yankees, always the Yankees.
The Red Sox stumbled and went down to the Yankees three games to none. And nearly all of Red Sox Nation, religious and atheist alike, fell on their knees and beseeched the Lord in whatever fashion seemed most appropriate.
"Oh God (oh god oh god oh god), please, please, PLEASE don't let it end this way! Let our boys win one - just one."
And the Red Sox did.
The prayers increased in intensity and fervency. And the Red Sox won again. And then, in a game so improbable, with a pitching performance out of the mists of legend, the Red Sox won a third game to even the series. Red Sox Nation was stunned, euphoric, and panicked. Prayer seemed to work. And so the prayers were redoubled and even more desperate.
"Don't toy with us, God. Don't bring us this far only to punish us. Haven't we suffered enough?"
It was now that another thought became conscious, welling up in the minds of the faithful. Was it the voice of God, working slow and subtly? Was it the hard New England fatalism, bred from the Puritan stock and nurtured, well-watered, for the past century by the Red Sox? Was it karma, the creaking, swinging scales balancing at last? The whispers started when the Red Sox won the second from the Yankees, but with the series tied and the Red Sox on the verge of a miracle they were becoming too loud to ignore:
The Red Sox or John Kerry: choose.
And the Nation howled in anguish, each in their own soul, each in silent terror or denial, fury or bargaining. The prayers hurled into the aether reflected all of these emotions and more.
"Not this choice, oh Lord. Not this one!"
We are not wholly rational creatures, but neither are we wholly attuned to the uncompromising voice of God. Red Sox Nation's spark of skepticism has always been fanned to flame in October, but this year after three brilliant and sleepless nights the Nation transferred its doubt away from the Red Sox - and onto that soft and nagging pressure. No, the Nation said in its collective soul, there is no choice, that voice is not God's, but only the long New England winter.
And the Red Sox won and all of the Nation felt the ecstasy of faith rewarded and belief confirmed, they fell down and spoke in tongues but comprehended one another, they walked on air as well as water, they were drunk without wine (and with it too, of course). The Red Sox were going to the World Series - and they had defeated the Yankees to do it! Oh, it was pleasure to be alive in those days! The hosannahs of praise rose up the heaven.
"Thank you, Lord! Thank you, God! Your mercy is beyond all understanding! But, God, there is just one more thing . . . "
And the thought welled up again: the Red Sox or John Kerry? And this time many in the Nation listened calmly and chose: John Kerry. They then turned back to celebrating the victory over the Yankees ever louder.
And somewhere in the icy vastness between the stars, God whispered, "Too late."
. . .
Yes. It is about Red Sox fans. It's always about us.
Daniel Davies offers a fun party game for the aftermath:
" I think that there should be a requirement at the moment to append the fact that the Democrats got 49% of the popular vote to any portentous sentence one might think about writing about America at the moment. "
The argument that flourishes around Davies' chosen model for illustrating the above point is not so illuminating, but perhaps a kick might be got out of it by some.
My mother reminded me today of something I said, way back on November 18, 2003. I'd told her that the ruling on same-sex marriages that day by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had cost us the 2004 election.
She also reminded me of what I said next:
It's worth it.
We received an e-mail this morning from a European colleague with the above as its subject line. I should probably add that this colleague is NOT leftwing. The world looks upon George Bush and despairs and this does not depend on where anyone stands on the political spectrum. Many people will sympathize, but many more will conclude that we are simply mad.
. . .
Dear --,As I heard it in the news this morning, it is almost certain that Dubya will run for another 4 years . . . It’s a sad day indeed and I wanted to express all my sympathy with the millions of American people who, like you, expressed a different vision of their/our future together.
I’m sorry for America, for peace in the world, for moral integrity, for environmental issues the planet has to face, for the European/US relationship . . . I am sorry for you.
As a devoted European, it makes me realize how necessary it has become to achieve European unity quickly so that we can offer another vision of our common western values, of our Christian heritage. Not the one of the crusaders, but the one of Voltaire.
Please accept all my sympathy again.
Best regards,
. . .
It seems like I just got back from a trip (probably because I did just get back). But I'm off again tomorrow, this time to the Middle East for about a week.
I can't help thinking that the requests on my time are this extensive because the world is getting worse. I also can't help thinking that I need to learn how to say "no". Mrs Martial would dearly like me to learn that lesson.
The issue is that there aren't that many people who can do what I do in the way in which I do it. Yes, there is a whole little - and growing - industry in conflict impact analysis. However, most of it focuses on the context end of that, when in order to actually work better, one needs to focus on the impacts. I must be doing something right because I'm busier than any three other people I know - except for my colleagues in my organization.
I've done a fair amount of training this year of people who now should be able to do some of it, but they need experience - and often they want me along to provide support.
This is not a sob story. I love my work: it is the best job in the world. I only wish there wasn't quite so much work to do . . .
Mrs Martial said incredulously as we flipped on the tv this morning.
"Why is who you love more important than who you kill?"