Arab leaders to Israel: “Take the shot!”

OK, now this is interesting:  apparently, Israel is being encouraged to target and kill the leaders of Hamas—encouraged not by the West, but by Arab leaders.  According to a report posted on Power Line,

Israel’s Maariv reports unnamed heads of Arab states that have passed diplomatic messages to Jerusalem encouraging Israel to kill Iranian funded and trained Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip in response to Hamas’ firing of scores of rockets against Southern Israel during the current “cease fire”.What some Middle East policy analysts and diplomats in Washington may not realize with respect to increasingly optimistic Western assessments of Hamas as a diplomatic partner is that today’s news report in Israel reflects more the rule in Arab capitals than the exception. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak expressed his concern to the Arab press that “Egypt shares a border with Iran following Hamas’ May 2008 rocket assault on the Israeli city of Ashkelon with Iranian manufactured grad rockets.Earlier this month Egyptian Foreign Minister Egypt’s Ahmed Abul Gheit warned that Cairo would never accept an “Islamic emirate” in Gaza—a key stated goal of Hamas. Mohammad Abdallah Al Zulfa, member of The Saudi Shoura Council said yesterday on the Arab network’s Alhurra news program that “Iran is the big threat in today’s world, supporting all the terrorists from Hamas to Hezbollah to some other terrorists that we don’t know their names yet”. “Iran destabilized the region by supporting all the illegal activities and activists such as Hamas. . . .”

Sounds to me like the leaders of Israel’s Arab neighbors have figured out they’re next on the hit list and are hoping to use Israel as a proxy to do what they themselves dare not (because of the PR fallout, and the chance of Iranian retaliation).

A thought or two on Islam

A preacher of my acquaintance was recently asked whether Islam is evil. Being a blunt-spoken sort and not one for pulling his punches, he said, “Yes.” I can’t help thinking that it wasn’t a very helpful answer, in part because it isn’t a very helpful question; it can mean several different things, covering multiple areas of interest and concern.For instance, one might consider this question theologically: is Islam, considered as a body of beliefs about God, evil? As a Christian, I would say that Islam is a religion which preaches a form of works righteousness, thus encouraging people to put their faith in their own efforts rather than in Jesus Christ; as such, it’s as evil as any other such religion, including a number of things which generally pass themselves off as forms of Christianity. This is not to say that there’s no real difference between a given stream of Islam and your typical American church preaching “moralistic therapeutic deism,” but the core theological issue would seem to be the same in both cases. One may call specific versions of Islam evil—the jihadists who plan terrorist attacks and preach suicide bombing as a form of religious martyrdom are clearly teaching something evil—but it seems to me that you can’t call Islam as a whole evil, on a theological level, without saying the same about some ostensibly Christian preachers. (To some, that might be a deterrent to calling Islam evil; to others, it might prompt a re-evaluation of some American religious leaders.)That said, I’m pretty sure that the person who asked that question didn’t have that concern in mind; I suspect that their interest was less theological than political. We might therefore ask, Is Islam necessarily the cause of political evil? I know there are those who are pessimistic and would say “yes” to this because they believe that Islam naturally tends to despotism; but I believe this question is properly answered in the negative. One, even if one agrees that there can be no such thing as a healthy Islamic democracy, modern Western democracy isn’t the only good way to run a country; Morocco, as a constitutional monarchy that has seen significant positive developments over the last couple decades, offers another possible way forward. Two, there are Muslim thinkers at work developing a particular Muslim theological and philosophical groundwork for democracy, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to declare their work a failure before it even has the chance to bear fruit. This is especially true given that we have in Iraq a potential cradle for Islamic democracy, and early signs of its success are encouraging.At this point, someone might object by pointing to evil Islamic governments and leaders, and certainly I have no great opinion of any of the rulers of Iran; but to say that there are evil people who carry the label “Muslim” is not to say even that all Muslims are evil, let alone that Islam itself is evil. After all, there are evil people who claim to be Christian, too; the first person who comes to my mind isn’t a political figure, but Dennis Rader, the BTK Killer, who was an elder in his Lutheran church in Wichita. It’s a severe logical stretch at best to assume that because a person who professes a given faith is evil, that faith must be the cause of their evil.The bottom line: I believe Christianity is true, which logically entails the belief that Islam is false. I think it’s perfectly fair to say that there are streams of Islamic tradition, such as Wahhabism, which are bad news. A sizeable percentage of the world’s terrorists are Muslim, and while I suspect a lot of them (perhaps most of them) would still be pretty malignant people if they’d been raised as Buddhists or Baptists, the fact remains that they both justify and promote their terrorist activity on the grounds of their Muslim beliefs; I think it’s foolish in the extreme to pretend not to see that. But all of that said, it seems to me that treating Islam (and Muslims in general) as if the likes of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al’Zawahiri are representative of what it necessarily means to be Muslim is like holding up Fred Phelps and saying, “This is what a Christian looks like.” A more nuanced evaluation, I think, would be preferable.

The situation in Zimbabwe worsens

As the deadlock between Robert Mugabe and the democratic opposition continues—as his intransigent refusal to offer anything but the appearance of power-sharing prevents the formation of a functional government—the cholera epidemic there that began in August is spiraling out of control. According to the Telegraph,

More than 425 people have died since the outbreak in August and the number is expected to rise due to poor sanitation worsted by the onset of the rainy season.Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai has accused the government of under-reporting the deaths, saying that he believed more than 500 people had died and half a million were affected by cholera. Zimbabwe’s dilapidated infrastructure has made clean water a luxury, with many people relying on shallow wells and latrines in their yards. . . .Hopes for easing the humanitarian crisis have dimmed as President Robert Mugabe and Tsvangirai have been locked in a protracted dispute over how to form a unity government after controversial elections earlier this year.Zimbabwe’s economy has collapsed under the weight of the world’s highest inflation rate, last estimated at 231 million per cent in July but believed to be much higher.

If the report in The Independent is correct, even Tsvangirai is understating the scope of the disaster:

A senior official in the health ministry told The Independent yesterday that more than 3,000 people have died from the water-borne disease in the past two weeks, 10 times the widely-reported death toll of just over 300. “But even this higher figure is still an understatement because very few bother to register the deaths of their relatives these days,” said the official, who requested anonymity.He said the health ministry, which once presided over a medical system that was the envy of Africa, had been banned from issuing accurate statistics about the deaths, and that certificates for the fraction of deaths that had been registered were being closely guarded by the home affairs ministry.

As Peter Davies points out, Mugabe isn’t responding to this disaster like a man who cares about his country and its people, either; his actions make clear that all that matters to him is keeping power, never mind the cost.

Mugabe refused to grant entry visas to Zimbabwe for “elder statesmen” Ex US President Carter and former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan last week, when they offered to visit the beleaguered country. Mugabe has much to hide.

Unfortunately, the South African government hasn’t exactly covered itself in glory here; rather than taking a strong stance against Mugabe’s blatantly illegal rule, they’ve essentially aided and abetted him in hanging on to power, and provided him cover as he does so. Zambia and Botswana have shown signs of wanting to stand up to Mugabe, but South Africa is the big power in the region; as long as they refuse to tell him he has to let go of the reins, no one else is going to be able to budge him (short of a sniper with good aim).Pray for Zimbabwe. I had hope for a while there that Mugabe might actually be willing to share power, and that things might get better . . . but short of divine intervention, it isn’t going to happen. Please, pray for Zimbabwe.

Happy Thanksgiving!

I’d hoped to post this earlier, but haven’t been able to connect; but I wanted to wish you all a happy Thanksgiving anyway. I hope you’ve had a wonderful one, full of the spirit of gratitude.And for the people of Mumbai, and especially for those directly affected by yesterday’s attacks, our prayers are with you.

A geopolitical reconsideration of the Council of Elrond

Have you ever wondered whether it was wise of Elrond to commit the Elves to the coalition fighting the Global War on Sauron? Given the results for the Elves, might it not have been better to hold themselves back from the GWOS and seek a negotiated peace? After all, unlike those hasty, testosterone-poisoned Men and militaristic Dwarves, the Elves had the historical perspective to understand Sauron’s rightful grievances; shouldn’t they have accepted their duty to meet with Sauron without preconditions in an effort to hear his concerns and reach a solution with which everyone could be happy? Certainly, the Elves had the historical perspective to see the longstanding racism and other deep-seated sins of their coalition partners, and of their own community as well; how could they commit themselves to such bloodshed for the sake of such a thoroughly flawed set of societies when the path of peace was available to them?If these considerations have ever bothered you, or if you’re sufficiently open-minded to give them their proper weight, know that you are not alone; a distinguished panel of geopolitical experts recently sat down to discuss them. Their conversation merits serious attention from all thoughtful students of international relations and the history of warfare.

Scanning the horizon

I’ve been feeling a real sense of foreboding lately. Part of it (though only part) is political, as anyone who reads this blog can tell, and so there’s definitely a component to this which is merely partisan: I’m convinced our next president is going to be a (very) liberal Democrat, and I don’t believe the policies which liberal Democrats support are best for America, which is why I typically vote Republican. That’s a matter of differences of opinion, nothing more; part of the deal in a democracy is that sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose, and in the long run by the grace of God you hope it all balances itself out. So far in the history of this nation, in the long run by the grace of God it mostly has.

I don’t believe a liberal Democratic administration will be good for our economy, but that doesn’t really bother me; I’m probably too spoiled anyway, and even if the times wax comparatively bad, my family and I will still have things infinitely better than some of our friends elsewhere in the world. The children who will never be born due to liberal Democratic policies on abortion weigh far more heavily on me (and don’t try to argue the canard that GOP policies have raised the abortion rate—that one’s been thoroughly debunked), as do other likely changes on the social side. But even so, that’s politics; that’s how the system works.

What isn’t just politics is that I see heavy weather ahead. The “end of history” celebrated by Francis Fukuyama turned out to be nothing more than a Weimar holiday followed by the rebirth of aggressive fascism—this time in Islamic garb—as a major force on the world stage, the rise of China, the reassertion of Russian power, and the ongoing spread of WMD technologies. There are some nasty cancers growing in the global body politic, and they aren’t responding to herbal therapies. This isn’t helped by the current deflation of the global economy, which creates its own set of problems which must be addressed. From a political perspective, one may say that this candidate would be better than that candidate, but there is no conceivable candidate we could put up with the confidence that they would “fix the problems,” because the problems are simply too big. The situation of our world, as usual, is not amenable to a political solution, though it helps when politics at least manages to produce leaders who can move us in the right direction.

This is why what really bothers me about the upcoming election is not that we’re going to electa liberal Democrat, but that we’re electing one who I’m increasingly convinced is manifestly unprepared and unqualified for the job. I didn’t feel this concern four years ago, even though I had far less respect for either John Kerry or John Edwards than I do for either Barack Obama or Joe Biden, and even though I consider McCain/Palin a far superior ticket to Bush/Cheney, and even though I think the issues were just as serious four years ago as now. For that matter, if it were Hillary Clinton running with, say, Harold Ford, I would be far less concerned. Yes, several years ago, I wouldn’t have believed I’d say that, but between her Senate tenure and her campaign, she did a lot to change my opinion of her; and love her or hate her (there seems to be little middle ground), Sen. Clinton is someone who gets things done.

To be sure, I would have disagreed with many of the things she did over the next four years—as, I should note, I’ve disagreed with many of the things our incumbent president has done over the last eight, despite the (R) after his name—and I think her campaign has shown significant weaknesses in her administrative ability, and as such, I personally would not have considered her a good president; but I believe she would have been at least a moderately effective president, and possibly quite a bit more, and one whom Democrats would have judged successful. The key here is that I think Sen. Clinton is capable of saying with Orrin Knox (the fictional senior senator from Illinois in Allen Drury’s Advise and Consent), “I don’t give a **** about being liked, but I intend to be respected,” and as such I believe she can stand up to people and face them down when the situation calls for it. This is a crucially important ability in a president, and never more than in their dealings with the leaders of other nations who bear America ill will.

I do not believe that any of these things can be said of Barack Obama (except that his campaign, too, has shown significant weaknesses in his administrative ability). He simply has no record of serious accomplishment—he’s never been an objective success in the world outside academia, except at campaigning and winning votes. My brother-in-law, an Obama supporter, assured me recently that he’s gotten a good education; my response was that I don’t question that (though I do wonder why he’s so determined to keep his time at Columbia hidden), but I don’t see that he’s done anything with it. He’s a writer, a thinker, a policy wonk; he’s the guy on the staff who makes a great advisor because he’s full of ideas, but has no instinct for turning any of them into reality. He talks about change, but he doesn’t create it; he talks about compromise and bipartisanship, but isn’t willing to give up anything to make it happen.

As well, and most crucially, he has no history of standing up to his own party, to his own supporters, to his own mentors, unless he’s driven to—and when it comes to conflict between them, as it did recently in Illinois between Gov. Rod Blagojevich and State Senate President Emil Jones (Sen. Obama’s personal kingmaker), he prefers to just avoid the scene altogether. To be effective as a leader requires the willingness to be disliked, to bear the full force of the anger and disappointment of others, and Sen. Obama shows no sign of that as far as I can see.

The thing is, before, it hasn’t mattered. He’s been one of a legislative body, and if he doesn’t bother to vote half the time, the votes will still be held and the business of the session will still go on; and if he doesn’t bother to convene his subcommittee, well, the legislature can work around that to get done what needs doing. And besides, there’s always a higher office to aspire to, and another campaign to run. What happens when he reaches the point when there’s only one of him, and the buck stops at his desk, and there’s nowhere else to go—but down? I don’t see anything to give me confidence in the answer to that question.

And so, my deep presentiment that it will not be well when this nation elects Sen. Obama to its highest office is not just about his conviction that offering ourselves to our enemies as their partner in addressing the problems of this world is a bad way to solve those problems (but a good way to get hurt). It’s not even, really, about my broader sense that his instincts in responding to people and situations point in all the wrong directions. These, again, are concerns at the level of political disagreement, and my unease runs deeper. Let me set them aside for the moment; let me go so far as to stipulate that Joe Biden is right, that when the crisis comes, we just have to trust Barack Obama because “he gets it.” My fear is that even if his instincts are in fact right and he does know the right thing to do, he won’t be able to convert that knowledge to action and actually do it in a successful way. That’s going to be an extremely difficult thing to do in the event of, for instance, my personal worst-case scenario: al’Qaeda setting off a suitcase nuke in or near the US Capitol. It would be difficult for anyone, because let’s be honest: the gap from knowledge to effective, timely action is one of the hardest for us to bridge in this life; one of the reasons why we need true leaders is their ability to do so consistently when it matters most. If Sen. Obama has shown anything like that consistency, I haven’t seen it—and I don’t believe it’s going to just show up when he needs it most.

Don’t think this means I dislike the man. I don’t; I’ve never understood anyway how you can dislike someone you’ve never met, but I see little in him to dislike. I see much that is admirable, and much that I believe would make him a joy to know. He’s clearly a very gifted man; if we were discussing him as, say, a potential SCOTUS nominee for another Democratic administration, I think he’d be hard to argue against. What I just don’t see is the kind of inner strength, resolve, and fortitude that it takes to navigate the storms of the presidency to a successful conclusion—and that worries me deeply. I hope I’m wrong; I’ll be praying hard that I’m wrong. But right now, I just don’t see it.

 

Worrisome thought

Right now, those focusing on Iran are primarily thinking Iran vs. Israel, and understandably so. Another possibility struck me today, however. If I’m right that Barack Obama wins in two weeks, and if he sticks to his promise to begin an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, would that be enough to re-orient Ahmadinejad? Might we not see Iran wait until the withdrawal is well underway, and then invade Iraq? They would have good reason to, from both a tactical and a strategic perspective, if they thought they could catch us at a point when we couldn’t respond effectively; I very much doubt Iraq would be able to mount significant resistance on its own.

The case against Barack Obama, in Joe Biden’s own words

I haven’t yet written about Sen. Biden’s remarks in Seattle this past Saturday because I’ve been sick—I think it was Monday evening before I even did so much as turn on either the TV or the computer (which at least saved me from angsting over the Seahawks)—and I still don’t have a great deal of energy, but I’ve been rather astonished by them; I appreciate the points folks like Hugh Hewitt, Beldar (and also here), Bill Kristol, and Tom Maguire have raised in response, which I think are right on. Beyond my amazement at the extraordinary lack of political discipline shown by the Democratic ticket in fundraisers (it’s amazing that Sen. Biden actually thought it was a good idea to say what he said, but no more so than Sen. Obama’s comments in San Francisco last April), these are the things that really strike me out of all this:One, it’s one thing for me to project a major attack on the US in the first year of an Obama presidency, based just on reading the trends and the tea leaves; it’s quite something else when Sen. Joe Biden, Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and vice-presidential nominee of the Democratic Party—and thus one of the most thoroughly-briefed people in the world, a man who’s been told what almost no one is told—says so. It’s especially something else when he says the attack will come within six months and offers multiple threat axes. Folks, this isn’t just a prediction now, it’s the next best thing to a guarantee: if we elect Sen. Obama in two weeks, sometime next year, we’re going to get hammered. His own running mate assures us of that, and he’s seen as much of the playbook as there is to see.Two, Sen. Biden says, “I think I can be value added” because “I’ve forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know”; this would be more reassuring if his partition plan for Iraq and his recent fantasy about the US and France kicking Hizb’allah out of Lebanon didn’t indicate that he’s forgotten most of what he knew about foreign policy as well.Three, Sen. Biden pre-emptively dismissed the idea that we have the military capability to respond to what’s coming. Saying this in public is nothing less than giving aid and comfort to the enemy; it’s something a braver age would call treason. Such remarks, should the Obama/Biden ticket win next month, will do nothing but embolden the enemies of this nation and make them more willing to attack us; whatever they might believe about our ability to defeat them, they will know that our leaders don’t believe we can defeat them, and that as a consequence they have half the battle won right there. That will only make them more willing and even eager to attack, because it raises the possible rewards and lowers the risk.Four, though I don’t think it’s as obvious as Hewitt thinks that this is what Sen. Biden is talking about, I think he’s right to say that

an Iran-Israel confrontation is coming, and that if Obama is president, America will sit it out with, at best, words that do nothing to support Israel or deter Iran. . . . A President Obama will blink when Iran threatens Israel by approaching the nuclear tripwire. A President Obama will seek to force Israel to live with Iran as a nuclear power capable of either striking Israel or shipping to Hezbollah the means of threatening the very existence of the Jewish state, and the supporters of Israel in the U.S. will be stunned and then angry.

I think he’s right because I don’t think Sen. Obama has the political will to do otherwise. As Dr. Victor Davis Hanson told Hewitt in an interview,

It’s easy to say, as Obama says, it’s a game-changer if Iran were to get a nuclear device. What does that mean, a game-changer? That’s intolerable. What he’s not telling you is that if I choose to make sure that they don’t have a nuclear device, then that means that basically the United States is going to have to impose an embargo or a Naval blockade because the Europeans will still try to profit to the 11th hour, or even a military strike. I, Barack Obama, must be hated by people in Berlin. There’s no more Victory Column great extravaganzas for me. There’s no more fawning interviews with Der Spiegel. It’s going to be hatred from those people. I’m going to be a unilateralist pre-empter, and I’m going to do that, and all the people in the Muslim world and the Arab world that love me and fawn over me are going to hate me as worse than you know what. Okay, I’m willing to do that for a principle. Do you think he’s going to be willing to do that, or John McCain? I’m sorry, but I don’t think that all of that cheap rhetoric about invading Pakistan and a game-changer in Iran is anything other than rhetoric, because I think the problem with Obama is he’s bought into the idea of Vero Possumus, the new presidential seal that he’s promulgating, that the seas are going to cease to rise, that the planet won’t heat up, this is the change that we’ve been waiting for. And he really believe in this Messianic sense that people love him for himself. And he’s not going to be willing to give up that easily.

Unfortunately, messianic leadership only works in combination with messianic wisdom and messianic humility—and those a) are only to be found in the true Messiah, the Son of God, and b) lead not to political victory but to death on a cross. As for messianic leadership without those other components? Well, that doesn’t lead to political victory either, but to true disaster.Five, Sen. Biden’s reason for saying all this to those folks in Seattle was to prepare them to hang in for a terrible two years that will see the Obama administration become terribly unpopular. I wonder if he’s followed that through to realize just how unpopular the Democrats in Congress will likely become as well? Certainly, everything he says supports my own thought that we could see a GOP tidal wave in 2010 wipe out Democratic majorities all over the place. (If so, all the more important that folks like Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, and the others who will lead the GOP going forward take the time to think long, hard, and deeply about how to address the issues our country faces, both domestic and international.) As Hewitt put it, Sen. Biden sees a crisis coming and “suspects that Obama will react to the coming crisis in a way that demoralizes the country and which shatters public confidence in Obama.” I’ve been comparing Sen. Obama to Jimmy Carter ca. 1976, but this is sounding more like the 1979-80 version of Jimmy Carter—and that’s not good news. It’s not good news at all.Six, obviously, Sen. Biden believes that in saying all this, he’s making the case for Obama supporters to stand strong behind their candidate. I don’t. I do believe, however, that he’s underscoring a very important reality. While I’m convinced that electing Barack Obama will only embolden our enemies abroad and weaken our strength at home, and thus worsen the problems we’re facing, these problems, on the whole, have little to do with Barack Obama. He hasn’t done anything to help them, but neither have most of his colleagues, and some of them he could do nothing about. They exist regardless, and will continue to exist regardless, and thus it would be far too facile to say that electing John McCain would mean that we get to avoid them. We don’t. I believe we’ll see better economic policies if he wins, but this will still be a turbulent and trying time for our economy no matter what; and while I believe foreign enemies such as Iran and al’Qaeda will be far more circumspect in the face of a President McCain than a President Obama, they’re not going to just pack up shop, go home, and sit out the next four years if he wins. Far from it: they’ll be working to bring us down either way, and they’ll be a clear and present danger to us either way.All of which is to say: whoever wins, fasten your seatbelts—we’re in for a bumpy ride, and a long, long night.Addendum: here’s what Gov. Palin had to say in response to Sen. Biden’s remarks:

Global poverty as symptom

Today is Blog Action Day 2008, focused on global poverty; I’ve been ruminating on this subject for several days now, which is why I asked the question I did this past Monday. In approaching the subject, I have a couple basic assumptions. One, poverty is the consequence of human sin: we have poor people because our hearts (all of our hearts, not just the hearts of the rich) are evil. Two, poverty is both a systemic result and an individual result of human sin. This is to say that many people are poor because of the sinful acts of individuals, whether themselves (becoming addicted to drugs) or others (grand theft), but this takes place within a reality in which poverty as a whole exists because of the systemic effects of human sin. As such, poverty must be addressed at both the lowest possible level—person by person—and at the level, not merely of the national or even global economic system, but of the national global relational system.What this means, I think, is not that specifically economic responses focused on ameliorating poverty are wrong, but that they’re premature, because the economic condition is a symptom of deeper systemic problems which must first be addressed before economic approaches can truly be effective. On a global scale, Paul Collier (former director of research at the World Bank) has some critically important things to say about this in his book The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries Are Failing and What Can Be Done About It. As Fr. Richard John Neuhaus wrote in his article on Collier’s book,

It is precisely Collier’s argument that poverty itself is not a trap. If poverty were a trap, the whole world would be as poor as it once was. Collier writes: “Nor do I believe that poverty itself is a trap. These development failures occurred against a backdrop of global development success—poverty is something that most people are managing to escape. Since 1980 world poverty has been falling for the first time in history. Nor was it just a matter of Africa. Elsewhere there were also development failures: countries such as Haiti, Laos, Burma, and the Central Asian countries, of which Afghanistan has been the most spectacular. A one-size-fits-all explanation for development failure doesn’t ring true against such diversity.” In sum . . . the great challenge is not world poverty but the plight of the bottom billion.Instead of the “poverty trap,” Collier contends that the bottom billion are caught in four other traps: the conflict trap, involving civil wars and genocides; the natural resource trap, in which oil or other riches deflect attention from economic development; the trap of being landlocked with bad neighbors, which results in the stifling of trade and communications; and the trap of bad governance in a small state, creating pervasive governmental corruption and the undermining of legal economic order.These four traps, individually and working in combination, result in the marginalization of the bottom billion from the dynamics of global development. In this respect and others, Paul Collier’s argument complements and reinforces the analysis offered in John Paul II’s 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus. Marx was wrong, the pope explained, in claiming that the poor are poor because they are exploited by the rich. The great problem is not exploitation but marginalization. With some exceptions, the pope wrote, the poor are poor and getting poorer because they are excluded, or exclude themselves, from the circle of productivity and exchange.

From my own ministry connections to folks in various parts of Africa, that’s spot-on. Countries like Uganda and Zimbabwe are naturally rich—but many or most of the people aren’t, because they’re prevented. In the case of Uganda, the problem is the civil war in the north that began a quarter-century ago and raged unabated until recently; Zimbabwe, of course, has been ruined by Robert Mugabe, its president. These and other traps must be addressed in order for the poor of such nations to have any chance at all of escaping poverty. As Neuhaus continues,

Collier illustrates the conflict trap and the natural resource trap by reference to the rebel leader Laurent Kabila, who, leading his troops across Zaire to seize the government, explained to a journalist that all you need for a successful coup is $10,000 and a satellite phone. With the money, you can buy yourself an army, and with the phone you can, as Kabila did, arrange $500 million worth of deals with corporations that are willing to bet on your winning. This is what Collier calls the natural resource trap, when a country’s possession of oil or diamonds or gold is a curse rather than a blessing, making corruption and conflict more profitable than development. China, which has few qualms about democratic niceties, is busily buying up whoever can be bought in Africa.Throughout the continent, the military is an engine of devastation. . . . Collier reports that in Africa around 40 percent of development aid money inadvertently ends up supporting the military and that in some cases only 1 percent of funds designated for health care, for instance, are used for that purpose.

This is what happens when “corruption and conflict [are] more profitable than development”; indeed, given human sin, it’s what happens any time destructive behavior is (or appears) more profitable than constructive behavior. In the US—which is such a rich nation that even our poor are among the richer people in the world—we have a different set of issues and circumstances surrounding poverty than exist in places like Zimbabwe; but the same fundamental dynamics are in play, and the same four basic traps. Here too, simply spending money isn’t going to fix the problem: we need to change the system by addressing those traps and changing the incentive structure that benefits destructive behavior. Before any assistance to the poor of this country can work on any kind of large scale, we need to set them free.

On Iran: WWRD?

Which is to say, what would Reagan do? It seems to me that the counsel he offered with regard to Khrushchev and the Soviet Union in his 1964 convention speech is well worth hearing today with regard to Ahmadinejad and Iran:

“A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.”—Alexander HamiltonIt seems clear to me that we cannot afford to continue our appeasement of Iran; we need to stand up now and tell the ayatollahs that we will no longer enable them in their pursuit of their agenda. We need to stand up, assert ourselves, and take the opportunity to strangle their adventurism while they’re still economically vulnerable to such an approach; we can cut them off at the knees by doing everything possible to bring crude oil prices down, and then cutting off their supply of refined fuel (gasoline, diesel, kerosene), and we need to do just that. We cannot afford to keep selling them the rope with which they intend to hang us.“Where then is the road to peace? Well, it’s a simple answer after all: you and I have the courage to say to our enemies there is a price we will not pay—there is a point
beyond which they must not advance.”
—Ronald Reagan