Partitioning Iraq

The war in Iraq has recently turned 4 years old, having degenerated into an all out civil war. US Military casualties as at April 18^th stand at 3,312 dead and almost 25,000 wounded in action, to make little mention of the 600,000 Iraqis, the Lancet estimates to have died. The current ‘surge’ plan, which began in February (& required an additional 20,000 US troops) aimed to quell insurgent violence, particularly in Baghdad. By any objective analysis, it has had little effect. On the contrary, Iraqi’s are increasingly resentful of their occupiers (if it’s possible to increase your hatred above 100%), with five massive car bombs recently emphasising that point (and killing 198). The Democrat controlled congress is trying vainly to set a timetable to end the war – but their efforts are made in the shadow of Bush’s veto pen – and are not likely to be effective.

So, what’s next? Where are our Aussie Troops (handcuffed to the Coalition Corpse as they are) headed? Is Bush ready to unveil his much anticipated (and probably non-existent) Plan B? Reluctant as the Republicans are to change course, or to take third party advice (even from James Baker), it is most likely that we’ll only be getting more of the same in the near future. However, recent events on the ground in the capital may give us a clue that Bush has finally realised that desperate times call for desperate measures and is at least considering the benefits of partitioning Iraq.

At this stage, no US officials are publicly entertaining the now passé idea of splitting the country into three, but the US 82^nd Airborne Division has begun to experiment with the idea at a local level. A 5km long, 3.6m high wall is being built around the predominantly Sunni district of Adhamiya in Baghdad to protect it from surrounding Shia communities (and insurgents). The wall is reminiscent of the Israeli security barriers, separating it from the Gaza Strip and West Bank – and it serves the same purpose: keeping its people in and the bombers out. Criticism of the move has come thick and fast from the Iraqi PM and ministers (who call it a big prison), while the US have quickly backed away from the wall, claiming it is a temporary measure.

Media hype aside though, the US are running out of options (and ideas) and everything should be on the table. The situation has more parallels with Israel than the physical appearance of the wall. In the absence of a diplomatic path to peace, the remaining options are to fight a protracted guerrilla war – or to retreat to your stronghold. Israeli statistics indicate that their (west bank) barrier has drastically reduced the number of Palestinian infiltrations and suicide bombings on civilians in Israel and in Israeli settlements, though the increased safety has come at the cost of Palestinian freedoms. In short, building a security wall is an extreme measure that blurs some ethical boundaries – but it’s effective.

As the Iraq war progresses the US will be increasingly concerned with what works, and have a shown a clear history of disregarding ethical considerations in past decisions. When shown to be effective in Adhamiya, more and more communities could find themselves hemmed in behind the concrete – and ultimately the partitioning of Iraq could be back up for consideration. If it means stopping the violence and letting the troops come home, that may not be such a bad result.

Be Good or Else

Some of you might be thinking that all this God Delusion stuff is a little bit over the top. There are plenty of people out there who view religion as harmless faith, and a source of hope that should not be taken away, irrespective of its validity. Unfortunately, as Dawkins argues, religion is increasingly a happy breeding ground for extremism, especially in the Middle East, and in North America. There is a pseudo-war being waged by hard core members of both Islam and Christianity in their respective regions, to have their views and beliefs imposed widely and lawfully.

The Dawkins documentary I have talked about (The Root of All Evil?) shows that this war is not necessarily being fought cleanly. A growing number of extremist preachers are intimidating a generation of people to believe – or else. Dawkins interview with Pastor Keenan Roberts (a North American fundamentalist Christian) is a fine example of the sort of behaviour that is now apparently acceptable in parts of the US. The clip, which runs about 5 minutes, is below and showcases Roberts' Hell House production. You can judge for yourself whether you think this sort of production is something young people (or old people for that matter) should be subjected to. I’ll warn you, it’s graphic.

Secular Humanism

Dawkins - My preferred Evolutionary Biologist

As you can see from yesterdays remarks, this future President has a new preferred evolutionary biologist. You may have even run out and secured your own copy of the God Delusion and feverishly read it overnight. Whether that’s true or not, I still think its worthwhile to clarify how atheism fits into society and perhaps more importantly how it affects this Administrations policies, and politics in general. The basis for my comments below is largely paraphrased from Dawkins’ book, where you could find more details (and a more eloquent discussion).

Regular readers will note that for the life of this campaign I have objected to our (and other) government setting policy on religious grounds. Examples are numerous of course, but bans on gay marriage, restrictions on stem cell research and anti-abortion advocacy are the popular ones. Topically, Americans are currently debating the sense of funding abstinence only sex education programs for teens – not only because they have been shown to be woefully ineffective, but because they omit the sensible teaching of safe sex and contraception. It’s a clear case of religious conviction trumping reason and science – and where people are suffering as a result. You can see that this phenomenon is not only common, but spreading.

So, I'm primarily advocating leadership and law-making using reason and science as a base. People should be free to pursue religion as a personal freedom – but religion should be treated as such. It should no longer be a sacred, discussion-free zone, or an excuse for unsound policy making. We should acknowledge that Christianity is one of many religious faiths, and that’s its holy book – the Bible – is as fallible and contrived as any other work of fiction (For example, a brief history lesson will tell you that the new testament was chosen from amongst some 40 books, multiply translated from Hebrew and Greek, and tarnished by the personal feelings of generations of theologians. In addition, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John almost certainly never met Jesus, and wrote their accounts years after his death using old testament prophecy as their basis.) In its place, I believe our society would be better served by taking our moral direction from a secular humanist philosophy.

Wikipedia, as always says it better than I could: “Secular humanism is a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as warrants of moral reflection and decision-making.” In short, we strip away the prejudices of our millennia old holy book and use the well being of our fellow humans as a guide to right and wrong. For example, we might decide that we value faithfulness and monogamy in our society (articulating a popular call to ‘protect the family’) and this standard could be applied to straight and gay couples equally. It’s a key difference to our current way of thinking.

Equally, the Ten Commandments need no longer be the basis for our ethical direction (granting for a minute that, as many religious apologists insist, they are). Such edicts as “I am your Lord and God”, “You shall have no other gods before Me” and “You shall not make for yourself an idol” – let alone the oft remembered “You shall not covet your neighbour’s wife” arguably need updating. Dawkins suggests the following (from p264 of the God Delusion):

1. Enjoy your own life (so long as it damages nobody else) and leave others to enjoy theirs in private, whatever their inclinations, which are none of your business.

2. Do not discriminate or oppress on the basis of sex, race or (as far as possible) species.

3. Do not indoctrinate your children. Teach them how to think for themselves, how to evaluate evidence, and how to disagree with you.

4. Value the future on a timescale longer than your own.

These are by no means definitive, as far as Dawkins, or I am concerned. They serve merely to stimulate you to think about the way you would ideally like your society to be governed, free from religious bias. Hopefully this taste of reason will get you to read the God Delusion, but I’m not finished hammering this point just yet, so stay tuned if you need some convincing yet.

Richard Dawkins

As I mentioned, my recent stint away from the public eye was spent not only perfecting my bunker shot – but discovering the case against God. Like millions of other people I recently bought a copy of The God Delusion, written by British Evolutionary Biologist Richard Dawkins. This most recent publication follows a life time of works that have explored the issues of evolution, genetics and religion. Since 1995, Dawkins has held Oxford’s Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science – but more importantly he has found himself at the forefront of the growing debate over the existence of God.

At a time when Religion is reaching a peak in our politics and the very fabric of our society, it is a brave man who stands against the tide. But stand he does. Dawkins eloquently and simply lays out a cohesive and logical argument not just against the existence of a God – but also points to the harm done by the entrenchment of this faith across generations. He argues that as a people we indoctrinate our children in a chosen ideology, often segregating them in specialist schools, and teach them above all else to revere Religious Faith as a topic which cannot and should not be challenged – and yet which is not substantiated by a shred of evidence.

Strong words indeed, but words which are well supported by science. Dawkins speaks at length about the elegant way in which Evolution (and Darwinian Natural Selection) explains the diversity and complexity of life as we know it. His emphasis here is not only a reflection of his own specialty but a rebuttal of a commonly employed argument for God that points to irreducible complexity as evidence. As in: “Eagles are so complex that they couldn’t have developed by chance, therefore God exists”. For brevity, you’ll have to take my word for it that this is an ill founded argument, and maybe I’ll have a separate post on evolution (considering the stat that half of Americans believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old!). Suffice to say that Evolution has nothing to do with random chance, and the reality that it is still treated as a theory by some, appals me.

Dawkins additionally addresses the question the Origin of Life, which is particularly relevant as it has become for some, the last bastion of God. While even some of religious persuasions believe in Evolution, they claim that it was set in motion by a Divine architect. Strikingly, he immediately asks (I paraphrase) If God created the universe, who created God? Indeed. Again for brevity, his argument for the Origin of Life (a highly improbable event) is based on the billions of billions of universes in existence, and the necessity for only one life starting event to take place before evolution took over.

Clearly, I’m not doing the man justice by summarising his whole book into a couple of paragraphs. I can only implore you to read it and judge for yourself. He systematically addresses and debunks many of the common myths of religion like: “I believe because my bible says so”, “how would I know right from wrong without my religion”, “My life would be empty without my Faith”… and so forth. He challenges the growing tide of evangelical fanatics (he calls them the American Taliban) whose influence in America is worrying at the least. In the coming weeks I might raise a couple here, because each requires some discussion (You could also check out Dawkins recent documentary The Root of All Evil? - which covers similar ground).

Overall, Dawkins argues (compellingly) that we could actually be much happier, more moral beings if we would cast aside blind faith and re-learn the ability to ask questions and search for evidence. The physical world is so wondrous and awe inspiring in itself that it is perhaps better to live a full life now - rather than a life lived in pursuit of false hope. Implicit in all this is also the equitable treatment of all our fellow humans on the basis of mutually agreed morals and ethics, in contrast to those passed to us from a bronze-age book. His world view, contrary to expectations is actually much rosier than the one many have now. It’s a brave book by a brilliant man, and I urge you to read it as soon as you can.

The clip that follows will give you a taste of his reasoning. While it seems facetious, think about what he’s saying.

Petty Politics

I’ve been away from my posting station this past week, refocusing my Presidential ambitions and working (in a related matter) on my Presidential golf game. You’ll be pleased to know that both are well on track. I also stumbled across the enlightened writings of evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins – but more on that at a later date.

The first news I heard on returning to the real world (other than 60 minutes’ hard hitting Wolf Man report) was that my man Rudd had ‘slipped up’. According to media reports he was privy to an elaborate ploy to stage an Anzac Day service in Vietnam, an hour before dawn – to coincide with his Channel 7 Sunrise commitments. In response, he was getting the sharp side of his mate (Workplace Relations Minister) Joe Hockey’s tongue and John Howard was making every effort to use the controversy in his favour. Howard’s much quoted remark on the subject: "I think it will leave a bad taste in the mouths of a lot of people. Having read the stuff in the newspapers, and that is essentially my knowledge of it; it doesn't look as though Mr Rudd's original protestations were correct.” – showed that he didn’t let his ignorance on the matter stop him from issuing a condemnation. (I hope the PM doesn’t get all his info from the papers, or we’re in trouble.) Ultimately, both Rudd and Hockey have decided to quit their weekly Sunrise appearance, citing the difficulty in continuing in the current political climate.

I’ve got a few issues with all this. Firstly, given that I’m no fan of breakfast television or of Kochie in particular (though he is twenty of Karl Stefanovic) – the weekly political spot was watchable. Two senior politicians from opposing parties showed the maturity to appear on TV together to be reasonably fair dinkum and to try and convey their messages to the mainstream of society. They even walked the Kokoda Trail together. It was refreshing to say the least.

It’s an obvious shame then that it’s all got to end because of a technicality and because of the PM’s gut reaction to score cheap political points. For starters, its pitch dark an hour before dawn (by definition), making a ceremony hard to stage – while if it was possible, the extra viewers and raised awareness of a prime time ceremony could well have been worth changing the time for. Regular people might have learnt the significance of Long Tan. Is that really an insult to veterans? Aside from the ‘false dawn’ ceremony issue, it is growingly frustrating that every Rudd move is being hyper-scrutinized, as though we’re all waiting for him to explode and knock out a camera man/taxi driver. The reality is, Rudd is no Latham, and the poor Labor leadership of the recent past is no predictor for Rudd’s performance. This is the cost though of a healthy lead in the polls, and no obvious signs of implosion on the horizon.

Ultimately, what leaves a bad taste in my mouth is that it is so hard for two politicians like Rudd and Hockey to try and be good blokes. The baiting and word-slinging seems to be inescapable and the petty politics seems to be the price to be paid for trying. Howard is increasingly desperate to regain his former popularity, knowing all too well that an election called tomorrow would see him out of a job – but his recent behaviour has been juvenile. As we pause in thought for the diggers on the 25^th, perhaps we should also spare a thought for the passing of the Rudd-Hockey experiment in talking directly to the people.

The Rule of Law

There’s a widely known poem called First They Came…, which has been attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller – a German concentration camp survivor. It was written to highlight the inaction of ordinary Germans during the rise of Nazism. Its text is somewhat debated, but Wikipedia assures me it goes something like this:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

The sentiment of the poem has been widely repeated for a variety of causes, to point out the apathy of the people in response to organised campaigns against targeted groups which ultimately expand to engulf us all.

Friends of the Administration, Anti-flag recalled the poem in their recent song Émigré, (“First they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out. Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out. Next they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out. AND THEN THEY CAME FOR ME.”) – which is where I heard it first. Their song speaks broadly of the injustices of the US Administration:

"A hooded prisoner on the bay - These truths let freedom ring
A child Darfur refugee - Home of the free and brave
The ghosts of war who will not sleep - These truths let freedom ring
The poor who drown in bigotry - Will mark your grave"

Guantanamo, Darfur, a multi-front war and poverty; broad themes from Bush’s years at the helm and plenty to worry about without even mentioning illegal wire taps and other eroding civil rights. When I first heard the song, I wondered who our government was coming for first and the answer was obvious.

First they’re coming for the terrorists. Then for the suspected terrorists. Then for the families and friends of the suspected. Then for anyone who ‘looks’ or ‘acts’ like a terrorist (then for anyone who’s holidayed in the Middle East, has a copy of the Koran, or ever eaten a Kebab). The Rule of Law is being crushed under the stampede for security. It’s happening now and its happening here. If we don’t preserve the necessity for evidence, for proof beyond reasonable doubt and innocence until proven guilt - then all is lost. They’ve come for Hicks and for Jihad Jack and not a single piece of evidence has been heard (barring Hicks ‘admission’) – how long before they come for the rest of us and what rights will be left when they do?

Now I'm no terrorist sympathiser, The War on Terror is likely to be the great challenge of our generation. That War though, needs to be fought from whatever moral high ground we can muster and the foundations of our society (like tenets of Law which are non-negotiable) need to be heeded. Kevin Rudd and Labor should be standing firm on this issue and differentiating themselves from the Government, who are following the US lead and putting security fears ahead of the rights of individuals. Our democracy relies heavily on a fair and transparent judicial system. On this there should be no compromise. Not ever.

Go On, Impeach Him

Well, its no secret that I'm a Colbert Report fan. The occasional clip will find its way here, because its not only too funny, but spot on. Sometimes, he just says it better than anyone else. The following clip runs for about 2 mins and dares the Democrats to impeach Bush. Sure its hilarious, but it's also not out of the question.