![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The civility of war
Nov. 29th, 2006 01:44 pmStop me if you've heard this one. A Republican has two horses and he keeps mixing them up. One day, his friend, a Democrat, comes over and they discuss his plight.
"Have you tried cutting one's tail?" suggests the Dem.
"Yes, but it grew back," lamented the Rep.
"How about painting a mark on the side of one of them?" came another suggestion from the friend.
"Horses shed, and it came off," replied the crestfallen owner as both stared at the animals in question.
"I know! Why don't you measure them!" cried the Democrat.
At that, the two ran and got a measuring tape, and, sure enough, the black horse was six inches taller than the white horse.
There has been a great deal of discussion this week about whether or not the situation in Iraq has become a civil war. Amid all of the punditry, the most lucid commentary we have heard on the subject to date has come from Former Pres. Jimmy Carter, in an interview on Hardball with David Shuster.
In response to the direct question of whether Iraq is a civil war, Carter said:
"I think it‘s just a matter of semantics. Obviously, the White House says it‘s not a civil war and you say it is. The civil wars in which the [Carter Center*] has been involved in the last few years are much more serious than the situation in Iraq. For instance, we worked for 19 years trying to bring peace to southern Sudan, in which two million were killed. And we just finished holding an election, the first Democratic election in the Republic of Congo, where four million people have died in the last eight years.
So comparatively speaking, to the American Civil War and to those, it‘s not a civil war. But I don‘t argue with the semantics of it. "
At this point, Shuster keeps pressing him.
SHUSTER: "Well, is Iraq headed in that direction?
And there was a U.N. report which suggested already 650,000 civilians have been killed. Do you think it has the potential of being as bad as the Sudan?"
CARTER: "I don‘t think so because Sudan was horrendous in that two million people died. And now they have some elements of peace there.
But it‘s obviously serious in Iraq. And I don‘t think that American intervention, even if we wanted to exert the power of our military force there, could successfully interrupt the internecine violence that is killing people still on the streets. "
So Mr. Carter will call it internecine violence, but not civil war because he's been on the ground in the midst of real civil wars and this is small in comparison. But he also acknowledges that no amount of US intervention is going to fix Iraq.
Skip down a bit and watch Mr. Carter take Shuster to school. This exchange was telling:
SHUSTER: There‘s been a lot of talk, of course, people look at Iraq, the difference between the Sunnis and the Shiites, and the idea that here in Washington, members of Congress, top policy makers are not steeped enough in these differences. If you ask a member of Congress, what is the major difference between a Sunni and a Shia, sometimes they just give you a blank stare.
Are you frustrated at all that Washington doesn‘t know more about the Muslim world, about these sectarian conflicts than we do?
CARTER: Well, I wouldn‘t personally assume that your premise is accurate. You know, I don‘t know what Congressmen know or don‘t know. I would guess the ones that are involved deeply in, say, the Defense Committee and the Appropriations Committee, that have responsibilities for Iraq policy and implementation of it, would become conversant about the difference between the two parties.
But I think it‘s more important to know what the two parties now want and what causes their dissension and their divide than it is to understand the nuances of their religious faith....
Mr. Carter goes on to eloquently describe the conflict in terms even Shuster can understand!
Shuster proves he is out of his depth in this exchange when he tries to throw Rwanda into Mr. Carter's discussion of Palestine:
CARTER: ...So the persecution of the Palestinians now, under the occupying territories—under the occupation forces—is one of the worst examples of human rights deprivation that I know. And I think it‘s—
SHUSTER: Even worse, though, than a place like Rwanda?
CARTER: Yes. I think—yes. You mean, now?
SHUSTER: Yes.
CARTER: Yes.
SHUSTER: The oppression now of the Israelis—of the Palestinians by the Israelis is worse than the situation in Africa like the oppression of Rwanda and the civil war?
CARTER: I‘m not going back into ancient history about Rwanda, but right now, the persecution of the Palestinians is one of the worst examples of human rights abuse I know, because the Palestinians—
SHUSTER: You‘re talking about right now, you‘re not talking about say, a few years ago.
CARTER: I‘m not talking about ancient history, no.
SHUSTER: Rwanda wasn‘t ancient history; it was just a few years ago.
CARTER: You can talk about Rwanda if you want to. I want to talk
about Palestine. What is being done to the Palestinians now is horrendous
in their own territory, by the occupying powers, which is Israel.
They‘ve taken away all the basic human rights of the Palestinians, as was done in South Africa against the blacks. And I make it very plain in this book that the apartheid is not based on racism, as it was in South Africa. But it‘s based on the desire, of a minority of Israelis to acquire land that belongs to the Palestinians and to retain that land, and then to exclude the Palestinians from their own property and subjugate them, so that they can‘t arise and demonstrate their disapproval of being robbed of their own property. That‘s what‘s happening in the West Bank.
And the people in this country, in America, never know about this, they never discuss this, there‘s no debate about it, there‘s no criticism of Israel in this country. And in Israel, there is an intense debate about the issues in this book. In this country, no. "
As an aside, Mr. Carter looks quite well. He has a ready smile and a calm demeanor. He looks like a man who sleeps quite well at night. The record of his good works since his tenure in the Oval Office speaks to his altruism and success as a world leader.
It is, therefore, laughable, when Ed Rogers, certifiable Republican hack, calls Mr. Carter a loser later in the show:
ROGERS: I love the idea of Jimmy Carter picking the next Democrat nominee. From one loser to another, from Jimmy Carter to Al Gore.
If Rogers could accomplish half as much in his lifetime as Mr. Carter has since losing his second bid for the presidency, Rogers might be considered a successful man.
The important question is not whether Iraq is a civil war. The important question is why we are still using our military resources in a fight that we cannot possibly win. Leave it to Mr. Carter to show us the horse of a different color
*Note: I saw the interview. I believe he said "Carter Center" where the transcript reads "inaudible".
"Have you tried cutting one's tail?" suggests the Dem.
"Yes, but it grew back," lamented the Rep.
"How about painting a mark on the side of one of them?" came another suggestion from the friend.
"Horses shed, and it came off," replied the crestfallen owner as both stared at the animals in question.
"I know! Why don't you measure them!" cried the Democrat.
At that, the two ran and got a measuring tape, and, sure enough, the black horse was six inches taller than the white horse.
There has been a great deal of discussion this week about whether or not the situation in Iraq has become a civil war. Amid all of the punditry, the most lucid commentary we have heard on the subject to date has come from Former Pres. Jimmy Carter, in an interview on Hardball with David Shuster.
In response to the direct question of whether Iraq is a civil war, Carter said:
"I think it‘s just a matter of semantics. Obviously, the White House says it‘s not a civil war and you say it is. The civil wars in which the [Carter Center*] has been involved in the last few years are much more serious than the situation in Iraq. For instance, we worked for 19 years trying to bring peace to southern Sudan, in which two million were killed. And we just finished holding an election, the first Democratic election in the Republic of Congo, where four million people have died in the last eight years.
So comparatively speaking, to the American Civil War and to those, it‘s not a civil war. But I don‘t argue with the semantics of it. "
At this point, Shuster keeps pressing him.
SHUSTER: "Well, is Iraq headed in that direction?
And there was a U.N. report which suggested already 650,000 civilians have been killed. Do you think it has the potential of being as bad as the Sudan?"
CARTER: "I don‘t think so because Sudan was horrendous in that two million people died. And now they have some elements of peace there.
But it‘s obviously serious in Iraq. And I don‘t think that American intervention, even if we wanted to exert the power of our military force there, could successfully interrupt the internecine violence that is killing people still on the streets. "
So Mr. Carter will call it internecine violence, but not civil war because he's been on the ground in the midst of real civil wars and this is small in comparison. But he also acknowledges that no amount of US intervention is going to fix Iraq.
Skip down a bit and watch Mr. Carter take Shuster to school. This exchange was telling:
SHUSTER: There‘s been a lot of talk, of course, people look at Iraq, the difference between the Sunnis and the Shiites, and the idea that here in Washington, members of Congress, top policy makers are not steeped enough in these differences. If you ask a member of Congress, what is the major difference between a Sunni and a Shia, sometimes they just give you a blank stare.
Are you frustrated at all that Washington doesn‘t know more about the Muslim world, about these sectarian conflicts than we do?
CARTER: Well, I wouldn‘t personally assume that your premise is accurate. You know, I don‘t know what Congressmen know or don‘t know. I would guess the ones that are involved deeply in, say, the Defense Committee and the Appropriations Committee, that have responsibilities for Iraq policy and implementation of it, would become conversant about the difference between the two parties.
But I think it‘s more important to know what the two parties now want and what causes their dissension and their divide than it is to understand the nuances of their religious faith....
Mr. Carter goes on to eloquently describe the conflict in terms even Shuster can understand!
Shuster proves he is out of his depth in this exchange when he tries to throw Rwanda into Mr. Carter's discussion of Palestine:
CARTER: ...So the persecution of the Palestinians now, under the occupying territories—under the occupation forces—is one of the worst examples of human rights deprivation that I know. And I think it‘s—
SHUSTER: Even worse, though, than a place like Rwanda?
CARTER: Yes. I think—yes. You mean, now?
SHUSTER: Yes.
CARTER: Yes.
SHUSTER: The oppression now of the Israelis—of the Palestinians by the Israelis is worse than the situation in Africa like the oppression of Rwanda and the civil war?
CARTER: I‘m not going back into ancient history about Rwanda, but right now, the persecution of the Palestinians is one of the worst examples of human rights abuse I know, because the Palestinians—
SHUSTER: You‘re talking about right now, you‘re not talking about say, a few years ago.
CARTER: I‘m not talking about ancient history, no.
SHUSTER: Rwanda wasn‘t ancient history; it was just a few years ago.
CARTER: You can talk about Rwanda if you want to. I want to talk
about Palestine. What is being done to the Palestinians now is horrendous
in their own territory, by the occupying powers, which is Israel.
They‘ve taken away all the basic human rights of the Palestinians, as was done in South Africa against the blacks. And I make it very plain in this book that the apartheid is not based on racism, as it was in South Africa. But it‘s based on the desire, of a minority of Israelis to acquire land that belongs to the Palestinians and to retain that land, and then to exclude the Palestinians from their own property and subjugate them, so that they can‘t arise and demonstrate their disapproval of being robbed of their own property. That‘s what‘s happening in the West Bank.
And the people in this country, in America, never know about this, they never discuss this, there‘s no debate about it, there‘s no criticism of Israel in this country. And in Israel, there is an intense debate about the issues in this book. In this country, no. "
As an aside, Mr. Carter looks quite well. He has a ready smile and a calm demeanor. He looks like a man who sleeps quite well at night. The record of his good works since his tenure in the Oval Office speaks to his altruism and success as a world leader.
It is, therefore, laughable, when Ed Rogers, certifiable Republican hack, calls Mr. Carter a loser later in the show:
ROGERS: I love the idea of Jimmy Carter picking the next Democrat nominee. From one loser to another, from Jimmy Carter to Al Gore.
If Rogers could accomplish half as much in his lifetime as Mr. Carter has since losing his second bid for the presidency, Rogers might be considered a successful man.
The important question is not whether Iraq is a civil war. The important question is why we are still using our military resources in a fight that we cannot possibly win. Leave it to Mr. Carter to show us the horse of a different color
*Note: I saw the interview. I believe he said "Carter Center" where the transcript reads "inaudible".
