The Irony that is Afghanistan

     Image via Wikiped

"Soldiers try to talk to villagers. They try to build this trust, but it it isn’t really working. The Afghans know that we will eventually pull out and they will be left to deal with the Taliban, who will chop off the hands of those that collaborated. And that’s why they are so afraid, even though they may not necessarily be happy about Americans being there in the first place. They know that it is only going to be some temporary measure, and that we are not going to stay there long enough to defeat the Taliban to the point that they will not come back.

It shows in every face, and every look that I encountered from Afghans. And of course soldiers see that. They pretty much follow their orders, but I have a feeling that they are lost, in a way."


These words by photographer Dima Gavrysh speak to the tragic irony we face in Afghanistan.  We have been their nine long years but those years have nearly exhausted support for the war at home while gaining us little trust among the people of Afghanistan.  President Obama has re-focused and intensified our efforts in a serious way, but there is now too little time for our efforts to meet with the success they might have almost a decade ago.  Our efforts are haunted, so to speak, by the ghosts of a forgotten war. 


There is a double irony, however, in that the photographer focuses on our troops, but the goal of our troops is to handover responsibility to Afghani soldiers. The outcome of the war, finally, is in their hands. 

Who’s to Blame for BP?

Even as the disaster in the Gulf continues to unfold, so do our efforts to understand how and why it happened. But while concerns over environmental degradation and the billions in lost revenue occupy much of the news, the question of responsibility remains central. And who is responsible? Who is to blame? Unfortunately, the two most popular interpretations offer little help. They do, however, provide useful illustrations of the kind of thinking that helped create the crisis in the first place and they also suggest a deeper interpretation in light of faith in God.

The first interpretation I will call a version of the ‘Great Man’ theory of history....read the full post at Religion Dispatches

What could be more American?

Do you support the building of a mosque at Ground Zero? I wouldn't be surprised to hear this question or a similar one asked during a 2012 Presidential Debate.

The full post can be read at the Presbyterian Outlook blog.

The Church, Culture, and Justice: The Not so Strange Case of Same-Sex Marriage

The Presbyterian Church (USA) gathered for its bi-annual General Assembly (G.A.) has refused to consider a motion that the church allow ministers to officiate marriage ceremonies without regard to the sexual orientation (at least in states that recognize such unions). For those of us who believe that sexual orientation is a gift of God, it is sad and frustrating to see the church refuse to even consider the measure. That the G.A. apparently did so in part because of a clever procedural maneuver is all the more disappointing.  (I acknowledge that “disappointing” does not begin to describe the deep sense of heartbreak and alienation that many persons feel over this and other forms of judgment by the church). Almost simultaneously the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the Defense of [Straight] Marriage Act is unconstitutional.  In other words, the court has done--roughly speaking--what the church opted to avoid altogether. This juxtaposition of the church and the court may seem strange and leave us feeling further distanced from the church that fails not only to live up to its high calling but merely to keep up with culture. 

On further reflection, however, this situation is a reminder of what it means to be protestant. Since our movement’s origins in the 16th century we have been deeply suspicious of the visible or institutional church. The Reformers redefined the church as the people of God subject to the Word of God. Since then the church has had a love/hate relationship with itself. We have recognized that we are the people of God but also that we continually fall short. When a denomination fails, we may be bitterly disappointed, but as protestants we believe that we are not simply called to submit to the church’s authority, not if we believe it has erred on matter of conscience. In such cases we will do what we protestants do, we will protest, but not only that.  We will also look to discern the will of God being done beyond our wills and walls--recognizing that the church is far bigger than any one denomination and that God is far bigger still than all the denominations combined. Indeed, God’s grace abounds, even in the law, sometimes especially in the law.

The Generations: Elders in Revolt (Part One)

Seniors are Strongest Advocates for Change in 2010 - Pew Research Center

Several recent polls indicate that older Republicans (and Americans more generally) appear to be more partisan than younger voters. This poll illustrates the trend well, but one question in particular jumps out: "Would you vote for a candidate willing to compromise with people they disagree with? [J]ust 18% of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents ages 65 and older say they would be more likely to favor a candidate who is willing to make compromises, while more than twice as many (45%) say they would be less likely to vote for such a candidate and 31% say it would make no difference."

The bottom line is that almost half of older Republicans see compromise with Democrats as problematic. This may not seem too terribly significant given our highly partisan context, but this assumption neglects the telling difference between Republicans of different ages. This difference is highly suggestive for those interested in making sense of American culture.

First, there is a deep worry that many of our elders are not wiser, but simply more partisan. Wisdom has traditionally been associated with moderation or temperance. This is true not only in classical interpretations of virtue but also of religion. Moderation has in turn been understood as being closely related with being able to reach agreement with others with whom one disagreed, even strongly. To be sure, there have been many exceptions in which wisdom has been dominated by the courage to resist compromise in the face of great evils. And this is where our present story picks up: almost half of older Republicans see President Obama as a great evil.  Indeed, on this 4th of July many of those celebrating are convinced that ours is another revolutionary moment when tyranny is to be courageously resisted. The hard truth is that this is simply another way of saying that many of our elders are not wiser but more partisan, indeed foolishly so.

In my next post I'll discuss some of the challenges this presents for politics, families, and religion.

The Picture of Success in Afghanistan

Afghanistan’s Civic War - NYTimes.com

With all the focus on the recent Rolling Stone article, this Times article seems to have received little notice. It is one of the best I've read in terms of describing the challenges of the Afghanistan War. In particular it shows U.S. soldiers spending their days tending the multiple layers of local leadership and governance while the Taliban spend their nights disrupting these fragile bonds. The Taliban's work is obviously easier as their purpose is simply to frustrate our efforts by acts of violence and intimidation. One would expect that as our troop levels increase, the Taliban's night visits will become increasingly rare. Should this come to pass, we will have succeeded in Afghanistan. For all the moral complexity of this war, protecting civilians while they sleep may be the clearest duty, though even here tactics may prove otherwise.

An Opening?

Obama relieves McChrystal of his duties

The insubordination of General Stanley McChrystal may yet come to be seen as a key moment in the Afghanistan War and in Barack Obama's presidency, an opening in which critical changes were made. First, in accepting McChrystal's resignation, Obama sends a strong message of the need for unity of purpose, especially in a time of war. Then, in nominating General David Petraeus, Obama gains a military leader capable of bringing that unity about. Indeed, Petraeus is much better suited to lead a campaign that is as much a political effort as a military one. If anyone can deliver success in Afghanistan, it is probably Petraeus. It may even be that we come to look back on this as an opening for bipartisanship, when political leaders came to see the limits of partisan politics and began to repair the idea of a bipartisan foreign policy.

Of course, one might argue that this is nothing more than wishful thinking, but such cynicism overlooks the problematic nature of McChrystal's leadership team, the superiority of Petraeus, and the leadership of the President and political leaders from both parties. If nothing else, it is an opening.