Middle East Speech

I just listened to the President's Middle East speech from the State Department. I suspect he will be faulted on all sides, as usual--particularly because it's such an incredibly fraught and tricky situation that there are no ready, one-size-fits-all answers; and because this country can no longer step in and solve other people's problems. Obama rightly defers to the people of each country to resolve their own issues. He did, however, in this speech, come up with a clear statement of what America does, and does not support, and of the values our policy should be guided by. I was particularly glad that he made a point of insisting on the rights of women, and that he addressed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with both forthrightness and sympathy, and with an emphasis on the need for proactive compromise on both sides.

We can now expect the pundits to carry on interminably, until they find something else to argue about.

iMatterMarch

I heard about iMatterMarch.org while listening to MSNBC over lunch today. This is the most heartening thing I have heard about on the political scene for an awful long time, an effort by teenagers to assert their right to inherit a habitable planet. They march, they protest and, on the practical level, they are bringing lawsuits in the attempt to compel the federal and state governments to take action to protect the environment. Here's what these young people say, and ask for:

Top climate scientists have determined what is needed to get our atmosphere balanced again at 350 ppm within a century.

• peak emissions in 2011
• least a 6% reduction in global CO2 emissions every year
• 100 gigaton reforestation (especially in the tropics)

These youngsters deserve our support. They have taken it upon themselves to do what their elders lack the guts to do, with an intelligence and foresight sadly lacking in their seniors. It's their future, and they are right to challenge those who would wish to deprive them of it.

I'm planning to make a contribution to their cause. I hope that readers of these words might do the same.

And, President Obama, pay attention to this opportunity to lend these smart young people the support of your office.

A STEADY HAND

Not much time to spare, today. Still, as I wrote this morning on The Buddha Diaries, I could not let the moment pass without a word of praise for the President's interview on last night's 60 minutes. He was calm, clear, concise in his answers to Steve Kroft's questions. He avoided boasting or self-aggrandizement--though not coy about taking credit where it was appropriate--and came off, I thought, as a steady and reliable "Commander-in-Chief." He stands comfortably head and shoulders--and more!--above the craven contenders for his office, and is remarkable for the ease and comfort with which he handles himself in the most trying of circumstances. I get the sense, watching him, that he has the context of a much larger perspective in mind in all that he says and does, and that he is not easily swayed into rash decisions and actions by the pressures of the moment. I think we are wise to have elected this clear-headed man at a time when our country and the world are rushing toward the precipice. I trust that he will prevail in the 2012 election. I need to believe we have placed the reins in steady, thoughtful hands.

BELIEFS

Today, on The Buddha Diaries, I have some thoughts about the destructive role of "beliefs" in our political process.

Bin Laden: Corpus Delicti

(cross-posted from The Buddha Diaries)

I'm astounded... no, why should I be astounded by this familiar pattern of events. After a few hours of faint praise for Obama, the second-guessing starts.

There is, as I see it, a legitimate moral question as to whether the Osama bin Laden assassination (call it by its name) should have been undertaken in the first place. Had we elected a Buddhist abbott to the White House, he might not have approved it. We didn't. We elected a hard-headed pragmatist with the expectation that he would take responsibility for the nation's business both at home and abroad. World leaders are required to make decisions most of us would shrink from making--including, alas, in a world inhabited by wicked humans as well as by the well-intentioned, decisions about war and peace. Violence is sometimes, for such people, not an option. My own personal qualms about taking a life, in this case, are easy enough to debate because they have no real-life implications or consequences. They are, in a sense, a luxury. And even with those qualms, my thinking is balanced in this case by a sense of justice accomplished.

Once we're past that debate, however, we risk descending into small-minded contention and absurdity. There are thus far four fronts of attack. The first was opened up by the revelation that bin Laden did not have a gun in his hands at the moment of his demise--as though this were some 1950s Hollywood oater whose conventions require the bad guy to draw first. No, this was an assassination, pure and simple. Clearly, from reports I have heard, had the man come forward with his hands in the air in an act of overt surrender, he would not have been gunned down. He did not. A fire fight was in progress. He was, as it were, commander of the fort that was under assault and providing fierce resistance. I'm no expert on the rules of war, but once I'm past my Buddhist qualms, I have no problem with this one.

Next, of course, is the burial at sea. Was it Muslim enough? And why dispose of the corpus delicti? Who will now believe that he is actually dead? We should have preserved the body as evidence... I actually thought this was a rather brilliant solution. No place of burial, no martyr's shrine. A Muslim ceremony to show respect for the religion, not the man. And slip the corpse into the ocean, an anonymous presence in an anonymous location, and hopefully lost to the world's consciousness.

And then the photos. The hunger for evidence, in part perhaps, but also for sensation. Obama's choice was a wise one, in my view. He reminds us frequently to ask ourselves, what kind of a country do we want to be? Do we want, in this instance, to be the kind of country that makes public exhibition of its violence? To produce the bloody pictures would be the equivalent of that gruesome medieval practice of impaling the victim's head on a pike and raising it above the castle walls. It would be an open taunting of those to whom we wish to show our humanity, a further provocation and incitement to violence among those to whom we wish to preach the values of peace and tolerance.

And finally, Geronimo. I confess that I was taken aback at first by the code name that seemed to have been assigned to Osama bin Laden. But then I read, in the exhaustive New York Times report, I think, that it was the operation that was code-named Geronimo; bin Laden's code name was "Jackpot"--a far more appropriate association. I'm hoping/assuming that this was a confusion promulgated by the media. It would have been insensitive, to say the least, to have honored this mass-murderer with the name of a brave man who had the courage and audacity put his life on the line in the service of his people--in much the same way as those intrepid Navy Seals who conducted the operation. If I have it right, it would seem entirely fitting and in no way disrespectful to the history of our native Americans, but rather a fine way of honoring their hero.

I have yet to see this last point clarified. I hope I'm right. On all other points, I support the President's decisions and remain in awe of the cool-headed, meticulous planning and execution of this unpleasant but historically necessary operation.

STRENGTH & DETERMINATION

I defer today to the New York Times editorial, The Myth of Mr. Obama's Weakness. I agree with the concluding hope, that we can now leave the pusillanimous and opportunistic personal attacks on Obama's character behind, and get on with a discussion of the real issues that we face.

OBAMA/OSAMA

(From today's entry in The Buddha Diaries...)

So what's a Buddhist to say about last night's news? The death of Osama bin Laden came as a huge surprise, with the President interrupting our evening with his announcement. Do we condemn the taking of life, or celebrate the demise of a man whose past actions and future intentions are equally and unquestionably evil? In an ideal world, retribution is hardly a noble, less still a Buddhist practice. It can be said to merely perpetuate the cycle of violence and to generate unwished-for karmic response. On the other hand, in the real world, I'll confess to a certain satisfaction, and a sense of justice fulfilled.

Will the careful preparation and apparently impeccable execution of this operation do anything to silence--or even quiet--those critics who complain about Obama's equanimity and patience, his insistence on examining a situation from all sides, with an eye to the eventual outcome? Probably not. And yet the story, insofar as it is known to date, suggests that he brought all those qualities to bear, along with a great deal of courage. The action was surely fraught with risks. It could have very easily ended up like Jimmy Carter's disastrous--and widely ridiculed--attempt to rescue the American hostages in Iran. Its success was just as surely due to the several months that were devoted, since last August, to the verification of intelligence and the meticulous planning. It was, from all I hear, a faultless operation, for which we have not only the skills of the special forces involved, but also the rigor of their commander to thank.

The statement announcing the event was also classical Obama. He carefully avoided boasting, claimed an appropriate amount of credit for himself and was generous with the credit he assigned to others--including his predecessor, whose rash abandonment of the hunt for Osama in favor of a dubious and unrelated war proved a grave setback to his promise for justice. In reminding the American people that this was not a part of some war against Islam, he wisely and generously recalled the same assertion made by George W. Bush in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. His tone was measured, calm, authoritative, and he projected a quiet, confident strength--beside which his current critics and opponents look like a bunch of ill-informed and mean-spirited hysterics. Chalk a big one up for Obama in the political sphere.

And then... retribution is one thing. Prevention is another. Being of a generation who remember such things, here's a question I ask myself: knowing what we now know about 20th century history--and had we been able--could we, should we have assassinated Adolf Hitler in the later 1930s, before he unleashed his madness on the world? Should we, if we could, assassinate Colonel Muammar Ghadaffi today? Where there's a deadly snake that threatens whole populations and that could be clearly and cleanly rendered harmless by decapitation, are we right to cut off its head? My head and heart say one thing; my gut says something else entirely.

Any thoughts?