What to Feel, What to Do

 

As the grotesque tragedy in Israel-Palestine unfolds, all means of engaging it from afar disintegrate. Those of us who imagined we had seen the ultimate existential nausea postmodernity could induce have been handed a hard lesson. Worse still, it is impossible to know how much harder the lesson will become before it ends, if it ever does.

            Whether it is from cunning or lucky intuition, Hamas has read the moment correctly.  A world in which a man who tortures children can pretend to be President of the United States, and another man who engages in completely unprovoked aggression can talk of “de-Nazification,” is one in which a group of reprobates can, heedless of what it will cost their own neighbors and family in death and destruction, decapitate infants and elders, shout “God is Great,” and call it “anti-colonialism.” We have gone beyond a world in which it is impossible to understand what anything means, and entered a universe in which it is impossible to make anything mean anything at all.

            The cynicism, boorishness, and sheer malevolent stupidity of the current moment make the atrocities that innocent human beings are experiencing even worse. From the perspective of parents (whether Jews, Palestinians, or anyone else) it is always absurd to ask what the death of their children “means.” But both the Netanyahu government and Hamas, in their own ways and to different degrees, have worked tirelessly to achieve an utter void of anything but brutal horror.

            The cynicism of Benjamin Netanyahu has been on display for decades. Nothing he did or did not do justifies the obscenities of October 7^th, but he knowingly and deliberately used his power and pursued a political agenda designed to keep the Palestinian people permanently stateless, humiliated, and bereft of hope. He fostered what was not only a vacuum of power, but of decency, and in a space emptied of decency it can be no surprise that a malignancy like Hamas festered.

            Hamas, for its part, has kept the wheel of farcical cruelty and nihilistic chaos at full spin. The utter justness of the Palestinian cause makes the malicious, deliberate futility of Hamas’s tactics vastly more evil than they would be in the murderous abstract. Anyone who is celebrating Hamas as a ragtag band of “anti-colonialists” has misread the message written on the ground in blood.  Hamas would not have committed such monstrosities if they wanted an end to “colonialism” or anything else. Strife and destruction are their own ends for Hamas. What happens as a result of the carnage is not their concern. They trust that God will dispose. He is great, after all.

That is why Hamas has taken so many hostages. Cheap video technology ensures that if there is a pause in the horror, Hamas can set the wheel spinning again, by uploading to the web a video of hostages being tortured, raped, or murdered. I can feel the eyes of some of my fellow leftists rolling at this assertion. I of course hope I am wrong. I suspect I am not.

It is difficult to know what to feel. Perhaps it is a wonder to feel anything at all. Sorrow and fear are of course understandable, but can lead too easily to demoralization and passivity. Disgust is certainly apt.

I find it impossible to envision how this crisis will end, if it ever does. The Israelis have no constructive options, and even if they did their current leaders could not be trusted to pursue them. What Hamas will do is impossible to predict, except to be sure that whatever they do next will lead to more death and suffering for everyone in Israel-Palestine.

In the face of such utterly senseless tragedy all each person can do is to follow her conscience. I know that the citizens of Israel have a right to live free, secure lives. I know that all the Palestinian people have a right to be full citizens of a sovereign nation. I know that to kill innocent people, in any cause, no matter how just, is wrong. I will continue to speak these truths and work (expending thought, effort and money, donated to the organizations who are engaged on the ground) to see them realized.

The only course of action that is not acceptable now is to give up. That must be said, because the temptation to give up is going to become almost irresistible. As this horror continues, and its sheer pointlessness becomes ever more painful, it will be difficulty not to collapse in despair. Strife and destruction are easy to conjure, cynicism and callousness are easy to perpetuate. But even evil has its limits. If we adamantly refuse to capitulate to the cynics and the thugs, and act as if we have hope, hope can prevail.

An Open Letter to Ambassador Michael Herzog, Israeli Envoy to the United States

 Dear Ambassador Herzog,

 

        I am an American citizen, but I write to you as a Jew, a Zionist, and a human being.

        Like all my family and friends and the vast majority of my compatriots (and virtually all decent people everywhere) I was horrified and heartbroken by the news of the obscene atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7^th. I understand that Israel has a right to defend itself, and is thus obligated to seek the destruction of Hamas to deter such heinous acts being perpetrated by any group in the future. I also understand that the use of human shields by Hamas and the tactical conditions of Gaza make the grim task of responding to the attacks of October 7 in accordance with the laws of war excruciatingly difficult.

         Two wrongs, however, can never make one right. Nothing justifies aggression against innocent civilians, especially the more than one million children who live in Gaza. Israel must give innocent Gazans every chance to dissociate from Hamas and remove themselves from harm's way. Moreover, the humanitarian crisis unfolding right now in Gaza is a war crime and must be redressed. The people of Gaza must have access to food, water, medicine, and shelter. Israel is obligated to provide these necessities to Gazan refugees immediately.

          Remarks such as those by Israeli President Isaac Herzog to the effect that “an entire nation out there…is responsible” are reprehensible and must be retracted. The Palestinian people are human beings, not animals. They are not and cannot be held collectively responsible for the actions of Hamas, any more than the innocent civilians slaughtered on October 7 could be held collectively responsible for the actions of the Israeli government.

            This terrible war is a tragedy and will spawn more tragedy before it is over. But tragedy does not abnegate any individual's or government’s moral duty. The protection of innocent life is and must always be the first principle of any legitimate state, and that protection is owed to both Israelis and Palestinians by all governments. As a world citizen I expect to see Israel obey international law, and in the aftermath of this war to recommit to a robust peace process that is the only means to prevent the repetition of this tragedy.

            Thank you for your attention on this matter, and for conveying my concerns to your superiors. My prayers are with you and with all the people of Israel-Palestine.

 

 

               Sincerely,

 

               Andrew Seth Meyer

               Professor of History

               Brooklyn College

A War that Cannot Be Won

It will be difficult for those who do not know the history of Israel’s origins to understand why, but within the twisted logic of Hamas’s world view, this attack on Israel is very cunning, even ingenious. The principles underpinning Hamas’s tactics show that they have made a close study of their enemy. They comprehend and know precisely how to exploit the most basic ideals at the heart of Israeli politics and society.

            What are these ideals? They are rooted in the Holocaust, which was the final demonic apotheosis of all the forces that the Zionist movement had been created to defeat. During the Holocaust the Nazis did not merely kill Jews; they desecrated and degraded Jewish bodies so as to totally dehumanize them. For the Nazis a Jew was not even deserving of the respect one would give an animal. One was as free to dig in the mouth of a murdered Jewish child for gold or silver as one was to do so in a pile of dirt.

            When most mainstream Zionists (among whom I count myself) call Israel a “Jewish state,” they do not mean that it is one ruled by Jewish law or that works to fulfill Jewish traditions (most of the founding leaders of Zionism, like David Ben Gurion, were atheists). Rather, what makes Israel “Jewish” is that it is a nation fundamentally committed to the principle that Jews are and must be treated as human beings. “Never again” does not merely mean that Israel stands against genocide. It declares that Israel will not allow any government, including its own, to treat any Jew with less than the full dignity of a person. Other governments may be free to treat their soldiers or citizens as dispensable. Israel is not.

            Hamas knows this, and has acted accordingly. The cruel logic of their attack is clear: blanket Israel with enough rockets to overwhelm the Iron Dome defensive system, so as to inflict enough casualties to demand a military response. At the same time, take so many hostages as human shields that a response is impossible, given Israel’s commitment to absolute respect for the lives and dignity of Jews.

            Israel cannot win this war. Whatever happens, whatever Israeli leaders do, however much intelligence and discipline they bring to bear on this crisis, the dilemma cannot be un-puzzled. The choices that face Israeli leaders are impossible, none of their options can bring anything but pain. Israel was already divided and in turmoil before Friday’s atrocities, whenever the smoke clears and the fighting is done that division and turmoil will be even worse.

            But Hamas cannot win this war either. Israel’s critics, in fashioning apologies for Hamas’s tactics, will focus on the very just grievances of the Palestinian people. The problem with such arguments, of course, is that none of the grievances of the Palestinian people can possibly be redressed by this obscenity. Yes, Israel’s obstruction of Palestinian sovereignty is heinous, and yes, this attack raises the price of that obstruction, but it is a price that in the short term will be paid by the Palestinian people themselves, in suffering and death. There are many ways that one might fight the injustice of Israel’s policies. Hamas has chosen means that are deliberately calculated to exacerbate injustice and undermine any hope of peace.

            The lesson of this tragedy is clear: there is no victory but PEACE. The dignity and humanity of one group of people cannot be affirmed by denying the dignity and humanity of any other. Any group which deliberately inflicts death and suffering on others wins nothing for its pains but more death and suffering. The only sustainable future in Israel-Palestine is one in which Jews and Arabs live together as equals. There are many different ways to arrive at that goal (two states, one state, or some union of joined sovereignties), but anyone who is not working toward the end of peace and shared prosperity is digging a hole in which they themselves are sure to be buried. Both sides have committed terrible cruelties that undermine trust and make peace seem impossible. But the struggle for peace is the only fight that can be won.

In Praise of Chris Christie

 

It has taken me a while to get on the Chris Christie bandwagon. To be sure, as soon as he entered the GOP primary race, I was pleased and grateful. The fact that he remains the only Republican candidate who is saying the unvarnished truth about January 6 and the Trump White House is as admirable as it is remarkable. But for various reasons (some of which I will explain below) I discounted the seriousness of Christie's campaign for the presidency. At best I deemed it an act of noblesse oblige: his candidacy could only matter to the extent that it impacted the political fortunes of Donald Trump. I no longer feel that way. Christie is a serious candidate for the presidency, and whatever the outcome of this election his candidacy is going to have an enduring impact.

I confess that Christie's own history colored my initial view of him. I believed (and still do) that Christie ordered the traffic obstruction at the George Washington Bridge meant to punish the mayor of Fort Lee for failing to endorse Christie's gubernatorial campaign in 2013. That was an act of political vengeance so venal it made me blanch to think he might become president some day. It was arguably a foretaste of Trumpism: the use of government power to punish one's political enemies is what defines Trump. 

Perhaps it is a measure of my own weakness of mind that I am now willing to forgive Bridgegate. The world has moved on: we have had such a grotesque monster in the Oval Office that, even if Christie has not repented of his ways, he could not possibly do anything but raise the mean quality of the presidency from the point to which it has sunk. Moreover, even though we are very early in the 2024 race, Christie has already displayed qualities that counterbalance the flaws of Bridgegate.

My conversion began with the news of Christie's trip to the Ukraine. Even before hearing him speak about the visit, I was impressed by the very fact that he undertook it. It was the act of a leader. He knows that many in his party (including the current front runner) are pushing a message that US support for Ukraine is at best a fruitless quagmire, at worst the corrupt quid pro quo for a bribe paid to Hunter Biden. By taking the political risk of visiting Ukraine, Christie both displayed unequivocal support for the embattled nation and developed unimpeachable credibility for speaking to the issue.

My new appreciation for Christie was solidified by seeing him speak this morning on live cable television. Morning Joe hosted Christie during the "C segment" of the broadcast, placing him at a table with Al Sharpton and Richard Haas. It was the kind of candid forum that few career politicians have either the courage, the intelligence, or the verbal skill to endure. Both of the other guests grilled him with tough questions about racial issues and foreign policy, and he provided answers that, if not completely spontaneous (Christie has a gift for making talking points and stump speeches sound extemporaneous), were thoughtful and substantive. He either has the right values, or he literally does a good enough impression of them for government work.

I was especially impressed by Christie's discussion of Ukraine. He is critical of the Biden administration in ways that are forceful without being unrealistic. He decried the wisdom of giving Ukraine only enough weapons to keep them from losing. Giving Zelensky everything he is asking for still might not change the tide of battle, Christie conceded, but expecting the Ukrainian military to produce results while facing an 11 to 1 disadvantage in artillery and airpower is ridiculous. If the US is serious about supporting Ukraine, we must provide them with the weapons that will give them a fighting chance, including enough F-15 fighters to make a difference.

It is a message that deserves a hearing, and that would make for an excellent debate during the national presidential campaign. In a sane world, Christie would sail to the Republican nomination. Though the dynamics of the primary race massively favor Donald Trump at the moment, I would not count Christie out.

It is difficult for me to imagine a scenario in which I would vote for Christie over Biden. His positions on reproductive freedom, climate change, and entitlements are all deal breakers for any lifelong Democrat. But I must concede that his winning the nomination, and even the presidency, would be a positive development for the nation. Christie is a competent and conscientious politician, and for our constitutional order to survive there has to be a place for such people in both of the major political parties. Unless and until we can go back to a situation in which the Republican Party is a habitat in which someone like Chris Christie can thrive, our democracy remains in peril of collapse.

Israel is Gone, Zionism Remains

The vote of the Knesset curbing the power of the Supreme Court to review legislation marks the end of Israel. This may be difficult to understand for some people, but its reasons are quite simple. Israel was only ever sustainable within certain parameters. Those parameters have been violated, and so Israel is lost.

It is a common misconception that Israel grew out of a religious movement. This is understandable, since so much of the iconography that identifies Israel internationally (the Star of David on the national flag, the name "Israel" itself, drawn from the Hebrew Bible) is religious. But the founders of Israel were secular humanists- by and large socialists and atheists. David Ben Gurion, Israel's first (and until recently longest-serving) Prime Minister, took much more inspiration from Vladimir Lenin than he did from Moses Maimonides. 

There were lots of different conceptual models for the "Jewish homeland" among early Zionists, but the one that prevailed was that of Theodor Herzl. Herzl's ideal won out because it best comported with the emergent norms of 20th century international politics. Like other Zionists, Herzl proposed that, because of the threat of antisemitism, Jews needed a homeland. He was distinctive (though not alone) among Zionists in asserting that this homeland should not only have a Jewish majority, but be sovereign and militarized- a true nation-state. 

But Herzl's Jewish state served secular and liberal ends: the nation existed only to safeguard the rights and freedoms that antisemites sought to deny Jews, not to achieve religious goals. Herzl's second Zionist writing, the novel Altneuland (The Old-New Land) underscored this point. The villain of that novel is a wicked rabbi who tries to turn the Jewish state into a theocracy.

The secular liberal character of Herzl's vision was essential to the success of Israel's founding. Only by guaranteeing that all citizens would be free to choose the level of religious observance they desired was it possible to bring a critical mass of Jews together to face the challenges of establishing an emigre community in Palestine. Only by promising to respect the civil rights of non-Jews living in the new state was Israel able to garner international recognition in 1948.

The liberal safeguards that Herzl cherished were only ever imperfectly realized in the actual operation of the Israeli state, especially for Israel's Arab citizens and the Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories. But the existence of those safeguards, which largely rested on the power of the Israeli judiciary to limit the power of the Knesset and the Prime Minister, has been undermined. Every Israeli's freedom of speech and freedom of conscience is now threatened by the state. Every Palestinian living in the Occupied Territories is now subject to even more arbitrary exercises of state power, and the situation promises to deteriorate further as the current ruling coalition presses forward with its plans to amend Israel's Basic Laws. In the absence of even imperfect protections of civil rights, Israel is unsustainable.

Some might object that I am being unreasonably pessimistic, but such an objection is tendentious. It does not take exceptional political wisdom to know that it is mad to pass a law that sends hundreds of thousands of enraged citizens into the street in a country whose very survival depends on the collective willingness of its people to regularly and routinely risk their lives in its defense. Israeli leaders do not have the luxury of insulting and alienating their fellow citizens to the degree that has become common here in the United States. The body politic cannot survive such strife.

It is likewise mad to move away from democracy in a country whose survival depends on the support of allies that cherish democratic values (even if that cherishing is often rhetorical). The course that the current government is on will diminish the rights of women, and LGBTQ citizens, and of anyone who is not Jewish or who is Jewish but not religiously observant to the standards of orthodoxy. As discrimination and violence towards women, non-Jewish Arabs, and LGBTQ Israelis increases, support for Israel in Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, and Brussels will inevitably recede. 

The hope for Israel is fading, but the hope for Zionism need not. The citizens of Israel who cherish Herzl's secular liberal vision are being outvoted because the demographics of Israel are changing. The answer to this demographic problem is and has always been very simple.Twenty percent of Israel's citizens are non-Jewish Arabs. That is an ENORMOUS community in a country that is as closely polarized as Israel has become. 

Despite being one-fifth of the country, Israel's non-Jewish Arab community has only ever held ONE SEAT in any governing cabinet (the prior government of Prime Minister Naftali Bennett). That is a ridiculous figure. Imagine if, in the years since 1948, there had only been one African-American member of any US president's cabinet. 

There are, of course, mitigating circumstances. Hostility between Jews and non-Jewish Arabs has been intense and frequently violent. Many Israeli Arab citizens have refused to participate in the electoral process for political reasons. But supporters of secular democracy among Israel's Jewish population need allies, and the only community in which they will find those allies in sufficient numbers is the non-Jewish Arab community.

Forging a secular, democratic alliance between Jews and non-Jews will require profound compromise. Israel's non-Jewish Arab citizens will demand that the rights of Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, and East Jerusalem be respected, even to the point of those territories being united with pre-1967 Israel and all inhabitants being given full rights of citizenship. That new nation would most likely have a new name and a new flag.

That would not spell the end of Zionism, however. A democratic nation in which Jews constituted almost 50% of all citizens would still be one in which Jews were better represented than in any other nation on earth. Though such a united state does not comport with Herzl's vision, his was never the sole or defining voice of the Zionist project. Prominent Zionists such as Martin Buber, Henrietta Szold, and Albert Einstein envisioned a homeland that would be shared on the basis of equality and mutual respect between Jews and non-Jews. Now that the caretakers of Herzl's vision have failed, the ideals of Buber and Szold provide the best path for an ethical Zionism to continue.

Here in the US, it is commonly imagined that Israel was founded to revere Jewish tradition or to fulfill ancient Jewish aspirations. That is simply not true. Israel was founded to protect the rights of Jews to live in dignity and as human beings. That Zionist goal was and remains a noble cause, but it is one for which DEMOCRACY is indispensable. For Zionism to survive, democracy must be preserved, even if it requires that Israel evolve into something new.

The Words that Define "MAGA"

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best...They're sending people that have lots of problems...They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists..."

Those were the words that made an obscenely ignorant and immoral reality TV actor President of the United States. To deny that fact is such an insult to the collective intelligence that it does not merit discussion. These words unleashed a latent energy in the American electorate powerful enough to fuel one of the greatest miscarriages of citizenship in the annals of democracy. They motivated millions of voters to give the nomination once held by Abraham Lincoln to a man who combined the intellect and competence of Homer Simpson with the high ideals of Bugsy Siegel. 

Just as it is a waste of time to argue about whether these words began the rise of MAGA, it is pointless to debate their ultimate significance. They define MAGA as a racist movement, purely and simply. All arguments to the contrary are laughable. Was this an inarticulate attempt by an "ordinary man" to talk about the "problem" of immigration? No. An infinite number of chimpanzees typing on an infinite number of typewriters would not produce a statement as simplistically bigoted as this about "the problem of immigration" more than once in a millennium. 

 The appeal of the statement that launched MAGA was that it gave voice to anger and hatred of "them" (whoever "they" are, from the perspective of the listener). Once that license was issued, the worse demons of human nature were off to the races. MAGA has from the beginning been a politics of hatred and division: "They" are not our compatriots. "They" are not people with whom "we" are compelled to share power. "They" are criminals. "They" are rapists. "They" must not merely be beaten, "they" must be destroyed, if only in political terms (in other words, "they" must be denied protections of any basic rights, "they" must be disenfranchised). 

The aftermath of the 2016 election has shown us exactly the kind of world that the words that birthed MAGA will create. Children stolen from their families. Young girls denied care after being raped. Mobs attacking the Capitol to overturn a free and fair election.  A leader who lets thousands die during the greatest public health crisis in a century, because he is worried about the profitability of his hotels and resorts. A politics of hatred can never be compatible with democracy. Setting one part of the nation at war with another is the tactic of corrupt demagogues and fascists.

The most recent scandal at Fox News reaffirms all these truths about MAGA. The text that evidently "broke the camel’s back" for Tucker Carlson's tenure at Fox contained a line perfectly synonymous with the words that first generated the MAGA movement. Carlson, in describing an attack by three Trump supporters on one Antifa partisan, wrote: "It's not how white men fight."  The lazy racism of the comment requires little analysis. What is significant is that, eight years after the ride down the gilded escalator, the beating heart of the MAGA movement remains the same: "We" are better than "them." 

 My point in rehashing all of this tawdry obscenity is not to indulge in virtue signalling or lament the state of the world. Rather, we should simply recognize the MAGA movement for what it is and act accordingly. Democrats should by all means propose plans to confront issues such as immigration, budget deficits, crime. But we should not pretend to engage debates with MAGA fascists over these questions. 

For MAGA fascists, any question always boils down to how "they" are to blame and must be punished. Arguing with that kind of nonsense is a fool's errand. Develop plans. Propose solutions. If the opposition will debate issues, debate. But if the MAGA fascists simply want to haggle about "them," let them twist in the wind.  Get the message out to those who are not deranged by hatred, and get them to go to the polls and vote.

Moral Quicksand

A recent essay published on Politico describes the issue of “abortion” as political “quicksand” in which the Republican Party is beginning to sink. Where a few years ago polls showed voters split roughly 50/50 over the “abortion issue,” since the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, Republicans have been dealt a series of crushing electoral defeats. The outcomes of these contests have been lopsided, like the 59-41% vote in the August 2022 Kansas referendum which rejected a state constitutional ban on abortion.  The 2022 midterm election and the recent special election to fill a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court were even more powerful statements of general voter hostility to attacks on reproductive freedom.

            Though the political dimensions of this phenomenon are dramatic and “made for television,” it is foolish to be lulled or distracted by the bells and whistles of our profit-driven media machine. Voters, activists, commentators and elected leaders should not treat this as a political issue, because it is not one. It is a question of foundational civil rights that must be protected in law. Anyone who is trying to deprive citizens of their inalienable reproductive rights is assaulting the basic humanity and dignity of millions. The movement to criminalize abortion is thus not properly denoted as “political quicksand,” but as moral quicksand.

            Religiously conservative pundits such as Ross Douthat have gotten into the habit of complaining that the Christian right’s reception of Dobbs has been “too extreme.” By this reading, there was an optimally “reasonable” course of activism that would have been heralded by the removal of the protections to women’s and families’ rights guaranteed by Roe v. Wade. A set of policies that were “pro-children” rather than “anti-women” would have constituted the agenda of this “reasonable” post-Roe world.

            Such a specious fantasy was at best always a glib pretense, but the reality that has ensued in the wake of Dobbs reveals it to have been a vicious lie. The ten-year old girl forced to travel from Ohio to Indiana to receive an abortion after being raped by a male relative, and the numerous instances of women denied treatment when faced with severe health risks during pregnancy since the Dobbs decision, all stand testimony to a fact that has been crystal clear since Roe v. Wade was first adjudicated: there is no way to “kindly” or “gently” remove the essential safeguards that protect human liberty, autonomy, and dignity.

            Although it is a wonder that mendacious pundits like Douthat can sleep at night, some of the blame for our current morass lies with elected leaders who have been defending reproductive freedom in recent decades. They let the so-called “pro-life” movement pull a con on all of America. The public discourse on reproductive rights has been stuck in a debate over the ethics of abortion, which is patently absurd. Reproductive freedom is not and has never been an issue about the ethics of abortion.

The question at the heart of the debate about reproductive freedom is not whether abortion is wrong, but whether there is any way to morally employ state power to criminalize abortion. The answer to that question is now and has ALWAYS been an emphatic: “NO!” Even if, for the sake of argument, we grant that government has some legitimate authority over what happens inside a woman’s body (which it most certainly DOES NOT), in a nation of 330,000,000 people spread over almost four million square miles, there is no way that government at any level (federal, state, or local) can gather information fast enough to make informed decisions about how many of the three million unwanted pregnancies that occur every year may be “rightfully” terminated (for example, to protect the health of the mother or because they were the result of incest or rape).

Criminalizing abortion cannot be done “reasonably.” It necessarily subjects women to egregiously intrusive forms of government surveillance, unfounded suspicion, and arbitrary restrictions on their medical care. In the best case scenario all women become subject to gratuitous insults to their dignity, as they are forced to plead with petty bureaucrats and lawyers for the basic care to which they should be entitled as citizens and human beings. In the progressively worse (and more likely) case scenarios, millions of women are materially injured, abused, or murdered, as their work and travel are restricted, they are denied critical medical treatment, or as they are forced to carry the offspring of men by whom they have been battered and raped.

Propagandists like Douthat enjoy spreading the myth that the Dobbs decision is the culmination of decades of “grass roots activism” by well-meaning and conscientious people of faith, and that it is just an unfortunate coincidence that the repeal of Roe has coincided with the recent surge of fascist extremism by right wing voters and politicians. But that, of course, is an extension of the lie that there was some “non-authoritarian” path to the removal of safeguards for reproductive freedom in the first place. The remaining minority of Americans who support Dobbs range from the moderately religious to the zealously fanatical. Some of them will be satisfied by very narrow restrictions on abortion that allow liberal exceptions for "rape and incest" and "the life and health of the mother." But many (if not most) of them will only be satisfied by the most draconian ban on abortion "from the moment of conception" in ALL CASES, and will want further controls on common forms of contraception like IUDS, birth control pills, or even condoms. Many (if not most) members of this latter group will want to see restrictions placed on women's travel and even employment, for the protection of the "unborn."

In order to keep the so-called "pro-life voter" coalition coherent enough, in an age of polarized electorates, to continue to control policy, the fanatics have to be appeased. The aftermath of Dobbs has proven this, and is only a foretaste of what is to come. There was thus never any context in which Roe v. Wade could be repealed except a slide toward fascism in the USA. Anyone who claims to dislike the bigotry, racism, sexism, and anti-democratic thuggery of the MAGA movement but to approve of the politics of Dobbs is a liar, full stop.   

Democrats are understandably excited about the results of elections like those in Kansas and Wisconsin. But leaders of all parties should understand the lessons of the past. “Abortion” was a “50/50” issue before Dobbs because elected leaders did not speak  candidly and substantively about the issue of reproductive freedom and what was at stake if Roe v. Wade was repealed. The fact that so many millions of voters who previously told pollsters that they were “pro-life” have showed up at the polls to vote against “pro-life” propositions and candidates in the last year shows that they were surprised by the consequences of Dobbs, and they should not have been. If a candidate, for example, like Hilary Clinton had spoken frankly about what the effects of a repeal of Roe were certain to be, we might not be in this position in the first place.

It is too late to undo those mistakes. But today’s leaders can learn from them. The voters are obviously ready for a discussion about the true moral stakes in the debates over reproductive rights. If elected leaders and political candidates speak to voters with informed candor and moral clarity, the hard work of restoring the safeguards of reproductive freedom can be accomplished.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine: Lessons to Live (or Die) By

 

 Joe Biden’s surprise visit to embattled Ukraine is the latest in a series of adept political maneuvers that have heightened the stakes of that conflict and fostered unity of purpose among the allies standing in defiance of Vladimir Putin. As the war enters its second year, questions of strategy and the search for an “end game” become more urgent. What is the path forward, and how can past experience help us find it?

            Ukraine is the third in a series of object lessons about the nature of modern warfare that have unfolded on the global stage in the past two decades. The conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Ukraine all make manifest a common principle. This truth may be stated succinctly: “An army that believes in its cause will fight; an army that does not believe in its cause will run.”

            This truism might seem too cliché to merit remark, but somehow its significance has eluded leaders throughout the world. To be sure, the lesson is not new. Many conflicts in recorded history, dating back to ancient times, corroborate its validity. But it is worth noting that the world of microchips, satellites, and precision bombs has not altered its saliency. No amount of technology can make warfare a purely mechanical process. Politics remains a durable and determinative factor in military affairs.

            What, then, does a comparison of the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Ukraine demonstrate, and how can such a comparison help world leaders make better decisions moving forward? The collapse of the Iraqi Army in the face of the ISIS assault of 2013 and of the Afghan Army in confrontation with the Taliban in 2021 stands in stark contrast to the resolve demonstrated by the Ukrainian Army in the past year. Juxtaposing the three conflicts demonstrates how decisive political factors can be to military outcomes. Both the Iraqi and Afghan armies possessed equivalent or superior numbers and armament relative to their respective opponents. The Ukrainian Army has been outgunned and outmanned from the very beginning.

            It thus must be very clear to world leaders, particularly the leadership of the NATO Alliance, that morale and motivation played a key role in all these events. But there seems to be a soft bigotry at work in the inferences drawn from these facts. European and American leaders appear to believe that the contrasting levels of commitment displayed by the soldiers of Iraq and Afghanistan on the one hand and the Ukraine on the other may be put down to “cultural” differences. Otherwise it is difficult to explain why NATO leaders are determined to make the same mistakes in Ukraine that they made in Iraq and Afghanistan.

           The people of Iraq and Afghanistan do not lack any of the potential for nationalistic conviction and commitment that the people of Ukraine have been proven to possess. The soldiers of Iraq and Afghanistan did not perform poorly for lack of patriotism, but because at the time of their deployment, their homelands were not true nation-states. Iraq and Afghanistan were both occupied by foreign powers, the leadership in Baghdad and Kabul were denied the autonomy and true powers of sovereign governments.

           This was, ironically (given my above remarks on the ways in which politics can trump technology), made most obvious to the soldiers of Iraq and Afghanistan by the state of their armaments. In Iraq, for example, at the time of the ISIS assault of 2013, the Iraqi Air Force had only two combat airplanes, both Cessna prop planes modified to carry a single Hellfire missile each. That was in contrast to the regime of Saddam Hussein, which had one of the largest air forces in the world, able to deploy hundreds of MiG, Mirage, and Sukhoi fighter aircraft.

This wide disparity in capability was demoralizing to the Iraqi Army of 2013 more for its political significance than its material, technological impact. The government of Saddam had been pathological and widely despised, but its ability to acquire and freely deploy advanced offensive weaponry demonstrated that it was truly sovereign. The Baghdad government of 2013 was just as clearly a client of the United States, prevented from arming their soldiers with the basic tools of a modern army by their colonial masters in Washington D.C.

            The Iraqi Army went up against ISIS with slightly better weaponry. They had light artillery and combat helicopters that ISIS did not possess. But the soldiers of ISIS were animated by religious fervor. They were willing to die in suicide attacks to make up for their inferior firepower. The soldiers of the Iraqi Army, in the face of such zealotry, were being asked to die in defense of a government that was obviously a puppet of Washington D.C. Is it really such a shock that many Iraqi soldiers did not feel this game was worth playing? Virtually the same dynamic was at work in Afghanistan, with identical results.

            The distinctive performance of the Ukrainian Army does not arise from differences in culture, but in context. Their Russian opponents do not exhibit any fraction of the zealous passion that animated ISIS or the Taliban. More importantly, Ukrainian soliders have never had to doubt that their national spirit is exerted in service of a government that is authentically sovereign. The Ukrainian Army was (and is) smaller than that of Russia, but well-armed and well-equipped with the current tools of war.

Moreover, though Ukraine has been materially dependent on foreign support of its war effort, Ukrainian leaders have never allowed such dependence to infringe upon their sovereign autonomy. This was publicly broadcast by Volodimir Zelensky’s famous declaration, in the face of American offers of transport to safety in the early days of the conflict, “I need ammunition, not a ride.” From that moment forward, the people of Ukraine have had reason to be confident that their leaders are setting their own agenda, without deference to the priorities of the US or any other foreign power.

Since the success of the NATO-Ukrainian partnership has depended upon the robustly nationalistic morale of the Ukrainian army and people, the worst thing that NATO leaders could do is to encroach upon or violate the sovereign dignity of Ukraine’s government or leaders. Yet when pundits and officials of the NATO nations speak publicly about the trajectory of the Ukraine conflict, they frequently entertain plans that would deeply offend their Ukrainian partners. A significant constituency among the NATO leadership seem to believe that a negotiated settlement could be reached allowing Russia to continue to occupy the Donbas region, the Crimea, and/or other Ukrainian territory currently held by Russian troops. The people and government of the Ukraine will never assent to such an accord.

It does not take much thought to realize why the same spirit that has animated Ukrainian resistance precludes a peace short of the total expulsion of Russian forces. The clear object of Russia’s offensive was to destroy the Ukrainian nation. For the resolution of this conflict to provide any assurance of Ukraine’s survival, it cannot legitimize the goals or methods of the Russian campaign to any degree. Thus the sanction of Russia’s occupation of any portion of Ukrainian territory will be perceived as tantamount to an invitation to attempt the destruction of Ukraine again, at some time in the indefinite future. Put yourself in the position of any of the middle-aged Ukrainian women who have taken up arms in defense of their homeland, imagine what they think as they look at their granddaughters, wondering if those children will have to live through the same cataclysm again, and you can quickly understand why any resolution of the conflict that does not entail a complete withdrawal of Russian forces will not be politically feasible in Ukraine.

If NATO continues to proceed as if a territorial “compromise” is achievable, the strategic partnership with Ukraine will eventually go sideways, producing outcomes comparable (in kind, if not degree) to what was seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is unlikely, given the robust spirit that has developed among Ukraine’s people and soldiers, that any pressure from or foot-dragging by NATO will shatter Ukrainian morale as was done to the armies of Iraq in 2013 and Afghanistan in 2021. But such a collapse is not impossible, given world enough and time. If you deprive Ukrainian soldiers and citizens of their nationalist aspirations, you deprive them of an asset that has been much more vital to their military success than money, supplies, or munitions.

There are catastrophes that fall short of an unlikely collapse of Ukrainian political will, however. It would be surprising if Volodimir Zelensky’s government had not already begun researching alternative sources of support, should NATO’s will and enthusiasm begin to flag. Kiev could strike out on its own, producing a far more volatile and unpredictable conflict that might induce horrific destruction and loss of life. The effects of such a development on the battlefield, on the internal politics of Ukraine, and on its relationship with the NATO allies could be profoundly tragic. There is little that Russia can do at this juncture to “win” the war, but there is much that NATO could do to lose it. 

What, then, are the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan that can be applied to the conflict in the Ukraine? They boil down to this: success for NATO depends upon treating Ukraine as a genuine strategic partner, and not as a client or proxy. Any attempt to strongarm the government or people of Ukraine into a “compromise” they cannot accept will undermine all the progress toward a just resolution of the conflict that has been made thus far. The final goal of all partners in the anti-Putin coalition must be the total and complete withdrawal of all Russian forces from all of Ukraine. For that to happen, the Ukrainians must be supplied with the tools and weapons that will allow them to mount a successful offensive against superior Russian numbers.

          Vladimir Putin will never be dislodged from the Ukraine by purely diplomatic means. His political survival depends on the claim that this absurd, pointlessly destructive war has achieved some semblance of a strategic goal. For such a claim to be tenable, Putin must hold on to some portion of the Ukrainian territory he has annexed. He will never cease fighting unless his opponents assent to some portion of his territorial claims, but this is a concession that the leaders and people of Ukraine will never give. He thus must be driven out of Ukraine by force. Only when it is clear that his army cannot defend its position inside Ukraine will Putin have motive to come to the negotiating table, on the chance that he can barter an armistice in exchange for exemption from liability for the costs of the war.

            NATO leaders have a stark choice. One option is to totally and unconditionally support the Ukrainians in their campaign to restore the territorial integrity of their homeland. The only other choice is to accept defeat, and to face a world in which Vladimir Putin, to one degree or another, gets to set the rules of international relations. For the sake of the welfare of the global community, we must hope that NATO leaders choose correctly.