When you look at the scenes of devastation and bloodshed in newscasts from Iraq and Lebanon, it's sometimes hard to think of the term "the rules of war" as anything but an oxymoron. But it's an important concept that has not been adequately addressed in any of the supercharged news reporting, analysis, commentary, and outright blather covering the ongoing Middle East conflict.

Over many hundreds of years, as civilization advanced, nation-states formed, and armies grew larger and more capable, the international community came to understand that wars needed to be fought under some commonly-accepted rules in order to keep them within some bounds. These rules, eventually codified in law, tradition and such agreements as the much-quoted and much-misunderstood Geneva Conventions, included such concepts as force used only by recognized and uniformed combatants, proportionality, the protection of civilians, the humane treatment of prisoners of war, and the prohibition of inhumane weapons (such as poisoned or exploding bullets). And those rules have worked pretty well over the years. Until now.

A very good opinion article in yesterday's Washington Post by retired Israeli general Moshe Yaalon is worth your reading. While it can be simplistically read as an attempt to justify Israeli strategy and tactics in the war with Hezbollah, it nevertheless makes a profound point: that the rules of war are being systematically ignored by Hezbollah and its allies at the same time they are used as a cudgel to beat the Israelis...and no one is remarking on it. Did you ever wonder why it is that there is little outrage when twisted Islamic clerics sanctimoniously justify the employment of suicide bombers whose bombs are packed with nails, laced with rat poison, and deliberately targeted at civilians, while there are howls of righteous indignation when the Israeli military, although employing massive force, tries to precisely target specific threats? While the loss of innocent life in Lebanon is a horrific tragedy for which the Israelis are, with some justification, blamed, why is there no concurrent condemnation of Hezbollah's blatant use of the Lebanese population as human shields?

Read Mr Yaalon's article in the context of the pieces I recommended to you in yesterday's post, and think critically about what's going on here. Regular readers of this blog will know that I am not an apologist for either side in the Middle East: there are legitimate claims, issues, and concerns on all sides, and resolution is complicated by the utter unwillingness of some on each side to consider any type of compromise. But it's clear that, if we use adherence to the accepted rules of war as a yardstick, it is Hezbollah and its like that deserve the disgust and condemnation of civilized people everywhere.

Unfortunately, it won't happen. Ask yourself why.

Have a good weekend. Think critically. More thoughts coming over the weekend.

Bilbo

A popular pastime among both liberal and conservative commentators in this country is the castigation of the media for its conservative (if you're liberal) or liberal (if you're a conservative) bias. I don't think there's much question that there is a certain amount of bias built into any news reporting, no matter how objective the reporter tries to be...it's human nature to project our interpretations on what we observe (otherwise, there wouldn't be millions of blogs, would there?).

But no matter how frustrated with our media you may be, the reporting bias of much of the media in the rest of the world, and the Arab world in particular, is utterly astounding. I would call your attention to two recent articles in Jane's Islamic Affairs Analyst: The Faultlines in Arab Media Analysis (July 28, 2006) and Understanding Arab Media Analysis (August 2, 2006), and a July 28th article by Victor Davis Hanson (at www.victorhanson.com) titled, The Vocabulary of Untruth.

The Jane's articles do a masterful job of analyzing how what passes for news analysis in the Arab print and video media is driven by four "sanctities": a distrust of social change; unease with cultural (as opposed to material) importations; disparagement of Arab intellectuals; and antipathy to compromise. Taken together, these lead to analysis of events which focuses on self-pity and the assumed malign actions of a vast Western Jewish conspiracy bent on the subjugation of the Arab Muslim world. For some examples of how the Arab world presents and analyzes the news, you can read the translations available at the Middle East Media Research Institute (www.memri.org). It will leave you little doubt as to why the Islamic world, and the Arabs in particular, are their own worst enemy.

The Hanson article presents a devastating critique of how the selection of politically, culturally, and emotionally charged words in news broadcasts slants the coverage to a particular point of view. Hanson's sympathies are obviously with Israel, but his point is still valid - that much of the world's media reporting, especially outside the United States, is heavily biased in favor of the Arab world. Here are two examples of Hanson's analyis of how words are used in reporting the war in Lebanon:

"'Grave concern' is used by Europeans and Arabs who privately concede there is no future for Lebanon unless Hezbollah is destroyed - and it should preferably be done by the 'Zionists' who can then be easily blamed for doing it."

And,

"'Deplore' is usually invoked against Israel by those who themselves have slaughtered noncombatants or allowed them to perish - such as the Russians in Grozny, the Syrians in Hama, or the U.N. in Rwanda and Darfur."

Words matter. As it happens, I have a degree in Linguistics (Penn State, 1973) and a lifelong interest in language and meaning. We need to be critical of how we report and analyze the news, and how we present this analysis...otherwise, we will be no better informed and intelligent than the average mullah or imam whose entire education consists of rote memorization of religious texts more than a thousand years old, unfiltered by any tradition of critical thought.

Listen to the news and read the opinion pages of the newspapers. Listen to the words that are being used, and consider what they may mean in terms of the opinion the reporter or analyst wants you to take away. Then make your own decision on what it all means.

Have a good day. We'll continue this discussion tomorrow.

Bilbo

Grandchildren update!

At a time when war rips the Middle East (still) and poverty, sickness and misery affect much of humanity, it's good to know that there are some things that can still bring joy to my life. Dancing is one. My grandchildren are another.

I spent the last 3 1/2 days being pummelled, tackled, screeched at, cried to, and hugged and cuddled by two of the most beautiful children in the world. Marcy is six: a happy chatterbox who is frighteningly intelligent and helpful to the point of driving you crazy. Joe is three and, like all three-year-olds, has no volume or speed controls: he's full speed ahead and top volume all day long. And Marcy and Joe have a new sibling on the way, due in late September. I feel for my son and daughter-in-law, who will soon have three superturbocharged children to raise. But I'm happy, because I'll soon have three grandchildren to love and spoil, rather than just two.

And if I'm still worn out and exhausted and my ears are still ringing, I'm one of the happiest guys in the world, because I look at these wonderful children and see a little bit of myself carrying the family banner into a future that, sadly, is dangerous and uncertain. I can only hope that better and wiser people than myself can help us pull our collective heads out of our collective ... uh ... fannies and leave a world good enough for beautiful and loving children like these.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

I've decided that the only thing in the world more difficult than figuring out a way to bring peace to the Middle East is figuring out how airline fares are calculated.

Yesterday I spent much of the day trying to get an affordable flight for Agnes and I from Washington DC to Dayton, Ohio to visit our grandchildren. I managed to locate and book flights for a round-trip cost of about $403...painful, but not too bad. But then I discovered I'd asked for the wrong return date - Monday, instead of the previous Sunday. When I made the change, the per-ticket charge zoomed from $403 to $654. Now what kind of silliness is this?

The price of those tickets went up by $251 in the space of about 15 minutes, and made it impossible for both of us to make the trip. So what happened? Did the earth suddenly balloon in size, making the distance to be flown longer and more expensive? Did the airline, during those 15 minutes, suddenly buy more jet fuel at a higher price? Did one of the unions stage a sudden wildcat strike and gain a big raise for its members? I suspect that one reason is that I wanted to fly on Sunday rather than on Monday - since more people want to fly on the weekend, the airlines feel justified in charging you more for the privilege, regardless of what the flight actually costs.

I will never understand airline ticket prices. Evidently, neither do the airlines, since they all seem to operate at huge losses. Some time back I read a wonderful satire of airline pricing that showed what it would be like to buy house paint if hardware stores priced paint the same way the airlines price tickets...it included gems like the paint being more expensive if you are going to paint on the weekend rather than on a weekday, or less expensive if you paint one side of the house on Friday and the other side on the following Monday. I thought it was hysterical and right on the money. But my daughter, who is an international trade compliance analyst at the Department of Commerce, didn't think it was funny at all...to her, worshiping as she does at the festooned altar of economic theory, airline pricing makes perfect sense.

So, let's do something easy. Hand me that Middle East peace plan again and let's take another look...

Have a good day. Good luck if you're flying...stop by the bank for a loan on the way to the airport.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

I started a new book yesterday - Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different, by Gordon S. Wood. I was drawn to it partly because of my general interest in American history, and partly because it contains a chapter on Aaron Burr, the first famous American traitor. As it happens, if you follow my maternal family tree back far enough, you will find Aaron Burr sitting out on one of the branches...it's not an especially good thing to have a traitor as one's ancestor, but it does give me a personal connection to early American history that makes me want to learn more about those days.

A mere four pages into the book the author writes that, "The United States was founded on a set of beliefs and not, as were other nations, on a common ethnicity, language, or religion." This is a very simple, but very profound statement that's worth thinking about for a minute.

Arab Muslims and Jews are fighting each other in Lebanon and Gaza. In Iraq, Sunni and Shia Muslims are murdering each other at a rapid pace. Muslims and Hindus don't get along in South Asia. Catholics and Protestants coexist warily in Northern Ireland. Hutus and Tutsis massacre each other regularly in Rwanda. Serbs and Croats need NATO troops to keep them apart in Bosnia. Blacks and whites in southern Africa struggle to overcome a legacy of colonialism and racism, not always successfully. And so on.

And yet, somehow, all of these groups and many more live together in America in relative peace and tranquility. In spite of a historical legacy of slavery and institutional racism, blacks and whites in this country manage to live and work together. In any town of any size, you can find numerous churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples in which people of every religion you can think of can worship as they want. And while you can find Little Italy, Little Saigon, Little Ethiopia, Little Havana, or Chinatown in many large cities, the members of all these national and ethnic groups mix and mingle with a minimum of rancor.

Why is it so different here?

As Gordon Wood writes, America was founded on set of beliefs - in equality of opportunity and freedom of religious belief, among others - not as a haven for a particular religion or ethnic group or nationality. As a result, Americans tend to have a historical tolerance for each other's identities that has allowed us to build the most powerful and dynamic nation in history. Perfect? No. But ask yourself this question: which other country, anywhere in the world, has a problem with a vast number of people who try every means, legal and illegal, to get in?

It's not fashionable any more to talk about America as the "melting pot," where new immigrants of all types were melted down and re-formed as Americans. The new idea seems to be America as the "tossed salad," in which we are all tossed together to make a salad of many ingredients, each providing its own flavor to the whole. Whichever view you take, you have to admit that we've got a pretty good thing going here. Perfect, no. The envy (admitted or not) of the world, yes. But in spite of our problems, I can't think of anyplace in the world better to live.

This is why we need to avoid the trap of ethnic background or religious belief as the primary focus of our identity. I don't want to live in a place where my next door neighbor may want to kill me because of my name, my religion, or my skin color, and I don't think you do, either. Understand and protect what we have. Most of the rest of the world would give anything to live in the way we take for granted.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Israel is still pounding Lebanon, Hezbollah is still firing rocket barrages at Israel, Syria and Iran are the very pictures of wounded innocence, and the Secretary of State is en route to the Middle East to negotiate a cease-fire. Yawn.

There's no shortage of "experts" gushing sage wisdom on the situation in the Middle East, and there are the predictable calls from the world community (and particularly the Arab states) that the United States must get involved in negotiating an end to the fighting, because only the United States can put real pressure on Israel.

So, who's putting pressure on Hezbollah? On Syria? On Iran?

As readers of this blog know, I am very critical of the current US administration and the ineptitude of it's Middle East policies. But I find myself agreeing with Mr Bush that there is no point in negotiating yet another cease-fire unless it can establish the conditions for a larger peace settlement. The problem, of course, is that a cease-fire isn't in anyone's interest right now unless it's Hezbollah...which is in the position of the punch-drunk boxer reeling under his opponents relentless blows and waiting for the bell so he can get a break to regain his strength. Israel, understandably, isn't interested in a cease-fire that will just let Hezbollah rest, rearm, and start over. Iran likes the idea of a crisis that takes attention away from its nuclear programs. The Sunni-majority Arab states, perversely, secretly want Israel to pound the Iranian-backed Sunni Hizbollah forces into the sand so that they don't represent a rallying point for other Sunnis.

And so it goes.

What can Secretary Rice accomplish by flying to the area at this time? In my opinion, not much. She may succeed in getting a cease-fire, but she won't get real peace because no one is interested in peace on anything but their own terms, and all sides are being driven by their most radical elements. I wish the Secretary well and hope she succeeds.

But I'm not holding my breath, and you probably shouldn't hold yours.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

I'm about ready to change themes in this blog for a while, having written quite a bit about religious extremism and its dangers over the last few posts. But before I do, I'd like to call your attention to an important article in last Sunday's Washington Post: it can be found in the Outlook section, and is titled "[Sexism Deleted] in Turkey." The author is Mustafa Akyol, a Turkish journalist, and he writes on the subject of the reform of Islamic tradition in that country - specifically, a move by Turkey's religious authorities to revise the hadiths by removing some of the most violent and mysoginistic statements. The hadiths are the non-Koranic commentary on the words and deeds of the prophet Mohammed, and they represent a very large proportion of the basis of sharia, or Islamic law. The hadiths contain statements like these, which the Turkish revisions would remove:

"Women are imperfect in intellect and religion;"

"If a woman doesn't satisfy her husband's desires, she should choose herself a place in hell;" and,

"Your prayer will be invalid if a donkey, black dog, or a woman passes in front of you."

The full article is very much worth your time in reading. You can find a link to it at the Washington Post website (www.washingtonpost.com) or, if you can find the July 16th issue in your library, the article is on page B2 of the Outlook section. It will make you realize two things: Islam is a religion much in need of reform; and Turkey's tradition of a somewhat gentler interpretation of Islam is a sign of hope in the otherwise poisonous religious atmosphere of the Middle East.

Have a good day. We'll move on to new thoughts on new topics tomorrow.

Bilbo

Yesterday's Washington Post featured a very interesting and timely front-page article titled "A Medical Crisis of Confidence." The basic article discussed the problems that arise when medical treatment and religious beliefs collide. One accompanying article looked at the issue from the point of view of medical professionals who refuse to provide medical treatments (such as abortions, birth control, etc) that they believe violate their religious or ethical principles; a second article looked at the experiences of patients denied treatment they sought which was otherwise guaranteed by the law.

This is a serious issue, and it deserves some serious consideration.

One of the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution is the freedom of religious expression. Article I of the Bill of Rights states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The Founders added this as the very first part of the very first amendment to the Constitution because they lived in a time in which religious intolerance and, indeed, religious warfare was not uncommon, and they wanted to ensure that the nation they were creating would be an oasis of religious tolerance in a world often driven by religious bigotry.

Unfortunately, as the nation becomes more conservative, many people on both sides of the argument are attempting to use the words of the Constitution to bolster their positions. Religious fundamentalists claim protection when they deny services - including otherwise legal medical treatment - to others because such services violate their beliefs; others claim protection from what they claim is discrimination based on their own beliefs or those of the persons who deny them the services they seek.

We are hardly in the position of Iraqis who murder each other because of differing visions of Islam, or of those in the wider Middle East who hate each other because they are Muslims or Jews. But the difference, to me, is one only of degree. When we allow religious beliefs, however deeply held, to drive the provision of medical treatment which is otherwise legal, we are on the downward slope from which the Founders in their wisdom sought to protect us. I do not wish to belittle or minimize anyone's ethics, but I believe it is essential that we recognize what can happen when we allow religious beliefs to drive wedges between us.

What's the answer to the conflict between religious beliefs and the requirements of duty? I don't know. But I do know that I don't want to live in a nation which allows someone to impose their religious beliefs on me. The Constitution allows not only freedom of religion, but freedom from religion...and the abuse thereof.

If you want to see where this can lead, you need only look to Saudi Arabia and ask yourself if this is where you want your country to go.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

I've been pretty serious for the last few posts, but now it's time to turn briefly to the lighter side.

Agnes and I spent the day yesterday as spectators at the Virginia State DanceSport Championships, and had a grand time. If you're one of those who thinks ballroom dance is a pastime for sissies and dilettantes, you might try watching an hour of true championship competition...or even better, try to keep up yourself. Make no mistake: tuxedos, ball gowns, and fancy costumes aside, these are real athletes giving it everything they've got.

Of course, for someone like me who loves to dance, enjoys photography, and has an eye for beautiful ladies in beautiful clothes, it doesn't get much better than this. Watching "Dancing with the Stars," "So You Think You Can Dance," and "Ballroom Bootcamp" on television doesn't come anywhere close to the action and excitement of watching it live in the ballroom, where the music flows through you and you can see the sweat and smell the perfume and feel the energy. If you have to spend a sticky, rainy day indoors, this is how to do it.

On the more serious side (you didn't expect me to be totally lighthearted, did you?), you might consider that in much of the Islamic world, such a contest would be considered the very height of sinful behavior, with narrow-minded clerics urging that the participants be beaten, jailed, or worse. Never forget for a minute that there are those out there who would impose this seventh-century standard of behavior and perceived morality on you if they could.

But for now, let's dance!

Enjoy your Sunday. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

I work (some might instead say "physically occupy office space", but we won't go there) in the Pentagon as a contractor supporting Headquarters US Air Force. The Pentagon is an interesting, exciting, frustrating place to work, where you can see everything from the rankest stupidity to the most moving and inspiring scenes. I want to share one of the latter with you.

As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan drag on, one of the things we often see in the Pentagon is wounded soldiers being treated at Walter Reed Hospital, brought to the building for VIP tours. Even for someone like me who can get pretty emotional, the sight of these young men (and women) missing arms, legs, or eyes; swathed in bandages or encased in casts or cages; can break your heart. These are young people with their whole lives ahead of them who answered a call to something larger than themselves and paid a terrible price. But for all that, it's inspiring to see these wounded soldiers, because the vast majority of them aren't sitting slumped in wheelchairs or limping along feeling sorry for themselves - they're alert, sometimes laughing, grateful for having cheated death, even at such a price. These are real Americans, and if your heart doesn't swell in your chest for them, there's something very, very wrong.

I served 23 years in the Air Force between 1973 and 1996, and never heard a shot fired in anger. I just missed Vietnam, and in subsequent wars and actions in Grenada, Panama, Iraq, and Afghanistan, I was always in staff positions in which I supported the people who actually did the fighting. On the scale of relative sacrifice, long days and nights at a desk in a stuffy office, while important in their own right, don't stack up well against long days and nights in bitter mountains or the burning desert, facing people who want to kill you.

We can never give these young warriors back the life they've lost. But we can - and should - appreciate their sacrifice and support them in any way we can. Whether you agree with the ongoing wars or not - and my position on Iraq is pretty clear - we owe these men and women a debt that can never really be repaid.

If you can publish a blog in which you can castigate religious extremists or tell the President he's made a mistake, remember that it's the Soldier, the Sailor, the Airman, and the Marine who've made it possible...not the well-meaning but naive protester and ivory-tower academic.

Have a good weekend, and thank the veteran who helped make it possible.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo