As a point of information to perhaps gain some perspective on the business of Empire in the middle of Afghan-war debate, some facts to consider:

• In 2007, there were 22,000 deaths globally due to acts of terrorism; over half were Muslim.

• Each year, 9,125,000 human beings die due to poverty and malnutrition.

At the risk of being accused of over-simplifying the issue, in light of the above stats, the point of our funding priorities has to be brought up.

It strikes me that in regard to US foreign policy one of the best things we could focus on, aside from solely defending American interests, is to make a difference by saving lives and improving people’s quality of life for those most threatened. This, in turn, helps America because it gains us friends showing a responsible and balanced direction of our intention to do the most good in the world.

What are we doing in Afghanistan? Why are we there?

Putting aside reasons like economic strategy or chess-like positioning to counter world powers for a moment, consider the terrorism arguments (the most popular justifications given in the main stream).

We are in Afghanistan not to prevent the unpreventable, say, an isolated suicide bombing here in America. We are in Afghanistan to stop the re-emergence of a terrorist “safe-haven” that would eventually mount an attack on America rivaling 9/11.

This is where “fighting terrorism” as a justification for prolonged military occupation doesn’t hold water.

Because a counter argument that’s just as plausible immediately pops out, that being, an American military Empire conducting combat operations in multiple countries in the Near East and Middle East, will guarantee heightened motivation for our enemies to attack back — here at home. The longer the occupation, the greater the chances for backfire. From this perspective, at a certain point, maybe after eight or nine years of being in country, withdrawal is the best course.

Interminable militaristic behavior will always create determined opposition. Geopolitics, in this way, follows a well-known rule in physics: for every action, there’s an equal and opposite reaction. In the case of our enemies, human ingenuity will find a way to exact revenge and more violence. There’s a moment when “running out the clock” and hoping things will get better won’t work for our current posture in Iraq and Afghanistan, because the clock that’s really ticking in the minds of our detractors, is:

When will the United States implode economically because it can no longer borrow money to make war?

We are a debtor nation like no other, and all our “banking creativity” not only caused the recent global economic crisis, but allowing US debt to rise exponentially has produced an Achilles heel that could bring down the giant.

What branch of the Department of Defense deals with this threat to national security?

Domestic manufacturing dismantled, industry pieced out, good jobs shipped overseas – all this paints a picture of the strong self-reliant American eagle slowly boiling into a paper tiger. Producers morphed into dependent debt-ridden consumers.

This is a potentially much greater tragedy for our nation; much greater than the difficult task of looking in the mirror, taking inventory and redefining the manner in which our country makes decisions on how to spend tax payer’s money or how we project force. The economic, military and real collapse of over-extended Empires is well trodden ground in world history: British, Roman, Ottoman, et al.

We currently maintain, at an exorbitant expense, military superiority over much of the planet with 7000 bases (6000 here, 1000 abroad), and US troops stationed in a shocking 77% of Earth’s nations. The United States military spending exceeds the next 45 highest spending countries in the world, combined. Totaling nearly $1.5 trillion dollars. So this, then, brings up the subject of why we’re really “over there”. And why we spend more money on war preparation and defense than anyone now, or ever.

Are there benefits gained by select interests in perpetuating US addiction to war?

Yes. Over the decades, Eisenhower’s prophesied “complex” has equaled trillions of dollars of benefit.

Are the results of those benefits and the political manipulations that captured them at odds with what would be good overall for America?

Proof’s in the pudding: considering the direction we’ve been taken and the state of the Republic, yes.

Do those select interests have power to direct US foreign and economic policy vis a vis Washington and Congress?

Yes. Money is power. When the famous Supreme Court case Buckley vs. Valeo said money is free speech, the inevitable coalescing of political power around Big Money was enthroned. Free Speech is for sale — someone richer can “buy” a lot more First Amendment than someone else — and that goes for multi-national corporations as well, legally acting as “corporate persons“, another court ruling coercing concentrations of political power straight to the top. Hence, the ability to control the public mind “every bit as much as an army regiments the bodies of its soldiers”, became merely a question of how large the PR campaign. The more cash used to steer opinion, the more predictable the results. This is just one way how our Republic has been replaced with a Corporatocracy.

A peculiar dysfunction of practiced economics is the need for limitless growth. When combined with the bottomless well of the US Treasury to fund mindless military expansion, this weak spot is an irresistible target vulnerable to profiteers and fiscal opportunists. This dilemma brings everyday Americans to where we are today, faced with wresting back control of our corridors of power to restore the Republic — we must not ignore these parasites compromising our body politic.

It’s my suggestion that, in the big picture, our hand is being forced. Our economy and long-term prosperity is threatened by the fantasy that the US can forever maintain an increasingly expensive war enterprise. We need to ramp down this business of Empire before Lady Liberty gets the wind knocked out of her permanently.

There are easier and less expensive ways to diplomatically achieve our objectives. President Obama speaks of increased engagement with the international c
ommunity – continued reliance on unilateral military solutions would not be part of that portfolio. Obama the candidate and Obama the President are not entirely congruent – in the case of Afghanistan, maybe some of these inconsistencies can work in our favor. In running for President, we heard that Iraq was the dumb war and Afghanistan “just and necessary” countering accusations of Obama being a weak Commander-in-Chief. Some saw this as political positioning, rather than the true aims of our President.

Well, now that he is President, maybe Obama could act on his nuanced understanding of the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq instead of plunging America deeper into endless war.

President Obama should bring the majority of our ground troops home in Afghanistan and maintain an active collaboration with the Afghan military including over-watch responsibilities with air superiority and intelligence to insure no terrorist “safe-haven” would emerge. Special forces could be utilized on the ground in mission-specific operations to insure terrorist containment focusing on the porous 1,500 mile border with Pakistan. No permanent old-school military occupations to fight this asymmetrical and decentralized foe.

This would answer the ‘fighting terrorism’ question with regard to Afghanistan — but other questions remain.

Should we continue to rely so heavily on military solutions and force projection to answer America’s geopolitical challenges into the 21st Century?

How do we as a national family deal with increasing military budgets and escalating force commitments with no end in sight?

In other words, even if we wanted to continue overdependence on militarism, considering our economically weakened condition, is that a burden too heavy to bear? — the risks of fatal economic collapse too great? Do we have a choice, can we even afford continued military expansion?

These are soul searching questions that dig deep down into who and what we are as a people. Avoiding these difficult issues and pretending we’re still in the springtime of America might be easier, summer soldiers sunshine patriots and all. Many activists have experienced at one time or another the life-draining frustrations associated with attempting to unpack the status quo. It is certainly much easier to just decide not to climb that mountain; to acquiesce and to not stand against the river’s mighty flow.

But as Paine said,

He that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman… what we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives everything its value.

America is dear to us all. The idea of America and what it stands for is sacred, and as forces have led her astray, we are compelled to think, speak and act anew to help straighten her course. It is time to face the music of American Empire sounded, and to make sure she doesn’t play out her last coda.

“We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.” ~ Abraham Lincoln

Eight years have passed since that fateful day, a day which we will all remember; an historical pivot point, stirring the passions of people around the world, and steering the great American ship of state. Many have suggested that the concerted direction that the United States took in response to 9/11 was over-reaching, unwise and shortsighted.  

• Overreaching. We now find ourselves embroiled in a continuing occupation of a nation not directly involved in the attacks (Iraq), and chasing down the fantasy of “nation-building” accompanied by military occupation in Afghanistan. Pentagon budget reaches higher and higher levels (2008: $607 Billion). Hundreds of thousands of lives displaced, lost; over a trillion dollars has been spent on this folly. Lesson? The highest levels of restraint and responsibility must be employed when considering war. Sending American soldiers into harm’s way with the inevitable consequence of lives lost should only be an action of last resort — especially so, after being thrown into a reactionary mode after being assaulted like on 9/11.

• Unwise. Responding to an act of international criminality with traditional massed military deployments and occupations (Afghanistan and Iraq) is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. America has fallen victim to one of the most common military blunders: preparing for and fighting the last war (Cold War), instead of meeting the real and present threat on the field with which it resides.

• Shortsighted. Our foes, structurally more akin to drug cartels than state actors, will continue to proliferate beyond the borders of our current occupations in a decentralized and asymmetrical fashion, effectively sidestepping most of our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Meanwhile, America plods down the well-trodden road of waning military empires overextending themselves economically and militarily, depleting our resources, degrading our values and ultimately, losing sight of and defeating our purpose as a nation.

Was the way in which the Bush administration reacted to 9/11 the only option? Was there an alternative path we could explored after the heinous attacks that day?

Criticism of policy in a vacuum of no-solutions is empty, sensational and only instigates unrest, so I’d like to offer some ideas of a different path we could’ve taken after 9/11, and urge the consideration of moving in that direction today. I have always felt that there was a unique opportunity to foster unparalleled transnational cooperation after 9/11 in the formation of an international policing effort to combat criminal acts of terrorism. Needless to say, introducing the possibility of decades-long occupations in the Middle East and Near East would not be part of that alternate strategy. Squandering the sympathies of much of the world, Bush pursued old style war-making and missed this chance for America to rise to a new level of cooperative global leadership.  

When the Heritage Foundation began pumping its “Long War” doctrine in 2003, I recalled some basic war strategy I had learned, that to control your enemy, you make it do what it wants to do. If there was any mystery before 9/11 as to whether US militarism was ever reckless and trigger-happy, after the drum-up to war in Iraq, that was cleared up, playing right into the hands of our detractors.

This was laid out in Heritage’s Long War premise:

But it will take time. Before this is over, the time we spent defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam’s forces in Iraq will be to the timeline of the war on terror as the Korean war and the proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan were to the Cold War — relatively brief flashpoints of action in a long, sustained struggle.

With our current economic recession, is this really a mission we can afford? When factories are being shut down, people losing their jobs, their homes, shouldn’t we re-think where our money’s being spent somewhat?

Counter to ‘Long War’, there is a different path on foreign policy and “global relations” that may benefit America in the long run.  A fraction of the money spent on military spending could be directed towards alleviating extreme poverty in the world; good works would do well to rehabilitate an American image now weighted down by accusations of neo-imperialism.

At a recent gathering of interfaith leaders at Loyola Marymount University, attended by Cardinal Mahony and the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Rebecca Tobias, delivered a keynote address on the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, what they are, where they are today, and some examples of humanitarian legislation brought forward in Congress to articulate of different kind of empire; an empire of humanity, compassion and generosity.

On this anniversary of 9/11, let’s take pause and consider the totality of the trajectory we, as one of the most bountifully blessed nations on Earth, are travelling upon.

Does the constant hyper-vigilant maintenance of over 1000 military installations littered across the landscape of the planet truly reflect what we prioritize as a people?  Or is it possible that we have overreached, and that a little pruning and replanting would be healthy for the American orchard.

Here are the beautiful words Rebecca Tobias offered:

In the spirit of humility, I’d like to offer words of St. Francis of Assisi to keep in mind and to hold in our hearts as we travel together between our circles of connection, “You may be the only Gospel your neighbor ever reads.” The power of your presence may hold the key to improving the lives of those you serve more than you may ever come to know.

Thank you for this opportunity to address the current status of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals — and to share some thoughts about Point7’s intention and achievables which embody spiritually sound principles of governance.

As communities of conscience we have been called upon to forward legislation and societal conditions which appeal to our highest sense of right. We recognize that peace, stability and prosperity are indivisible. In today’s globalized economy, all nations are far more closely tied together than ever before. The current global reach of poverty calls for prompt, decisive and coordinated action to address its causes and mitigate its impact-of paramount importance is the strengthening of necessary mechanisms that will support the Point7 initiative especially in this time of global economic challenge. Early indications show that, not surprisingly, the poor have suffered the most from the financial upheaval of the last year — we cannot allow this to undermine the MDG commitments made in 2000.

Faith and moral leadership has a vital role to play in not only stewarding the values of the MDG’s but also in assuring that practical means of support are made available to those in need. The UN system has come to recognize certain limitations in regard its “institutional memory”; to wit, political actors come and go, whether by election or appointment.  Faith leaders on the other hand, have a much broader and lasting influence in society, as the foundational values they impart, nurtured over a lifespan, help shape what it means to be fully human.

Allow me to relay some of the on-going victories and challenges in meeting MDG benchmarks.(Most Statistical citations are from the updated 2009 UN Millennium Development Goals Report).

Goal 1:  Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger.

Prior to the current economic crisis, the depth of poverty had been reduced in almost every region. However bold strides need to be taken to alleviate the suffering of the nearly 1.4 billion people around the world who subsist on less than $1.25 per day.

Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education.

Political will coupled with targeted investments, have yielded widespread primar
y school enrolment (90%) in all but two regions of the world– we have seen great strides in securing universal primary education, but we are still falling short of the 2015 target when we consider that half of the 72 million children out of school have never been inside a classroom.

Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women.

Women are slowly gaining ground, but progress is again marked by regional differences. Girls still wait for equal access for primary schools-most women remain in positions of low status and face significant social barriers.

Close to two-thirds of all women employed at all toil in vulnerable or unpaid jobs which add to the already heavy burden carried out by women in households in all regions.

Goal 4: Reduce child mortality.

Some good news here — deaths in children have declined steadily worldwide — but it still remains that a child born in a developing country is 13 times more likely to die before their first 5 years of life than a child born in an industrialized nation.

Goal 5: Improve maternal health.

Giving birth safely is still largely a privilege of the rich, and consequently, little progress has been made in saving mothers lives. The key to improving outcomes relies on the presence of skilled health workers at the time of delivery.

Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS and other diseases.

The plight of those affected by AIDS is inspiring new approaches directed to children, their families and their communities. However, knowledge and education about HIV is still unacceptably low. On average only 35% of young men and 19% of young women aged 18 to 24 in developing countries have a thorough and accurate understanding of HIV.

This must change.

Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability.

Spreading awareness of global warming and the dangers of climate change have increased over the last nine years, but far more effort is needed to protect all species and ecosystems under threat. It is important to demonstrate that the world can handle the climate change problem even in the midst of the global economic downturn and seize the innumerable opportunities that exist for green job growth in all regions. This I believe is the new economy that will bring the world together in purpose.

Goal 8: Global Partnership for Development.

Advanced communication technologies bring new opportunities for development. Today, more than one-fifth of the world’s population is now online, but the digital divide is still cavernous in terms of insuring access to information and the tools for resource management that internet connectivity provides. Increased connectivity will help realize goals for health, education, employment and overall poverty reduction.

When I consider the gravity of this condition I am reminded of a passage from an article by Dr. Robert Gilman who describes the perpetuation of poverty as the result of structural violence–and how economically driven processes have conspired to constrain individual agency and collective morality. Structural violence is visited upon all those whose social status denies them access to the fruits of scientific and social progress. This is inhumane and our rigorous pursuance of the MDGs  seek to ameliorate this spiritual and ethical dilemma.

Gilman argues with clarity that, “Perhaps the most hopeful aspect of this whole tragic situation is that essentially everyone in the present system has become a loser. The plight of the starving is obvious, but those who exploit their conditions don’t have much to show for their efforts either – not compared to the quality of life they could have in a society without the tensions generated by this continued exploitation. Especially at a national level–what the rich countries need now is not so much more material wealth, but the opportunity to live in a world at peace. The rich and the poor have become each others’ prisoners. Today’s industrialized societies did not invent this structural violence, but it could not continue without our permission.”

A new social ethos, thankfully, is wielding a profound impact on circumstances and societal mechanisms which will help steward the changes we seek as we work together to realize a more humane system of governance and assuage the suffering of those facing extreme poverty.  

It’s an evolution of sorts which promotes thoughtful and compassionate reflection when decisions are made in the marketplace…it’s the concept of the Triple-Bottom Line–the consideration of human, environmental and organizational needs–weighted in equal measure–when decisions are arrived at in every area of progress as they affect people, planet and profits. This lexicon of governance carried forward offers a broader criteria of how we truly define sustainable economic and societal success by those of us who possess the capacity to share much. Introducing and expediting the Triple Bottom Line in our organizational relationships stand to foster conditions which will serve to legitimize our highest ideals; this Copernican shift deserves our attention–as it has been embraced with much success throughout the UN system, civil society and private enterprise.

In essence, we are legislating compassion. Cultivating a plan. Implementing a practical ‘strategy of generosity’.

In the same regard Point7 is the cornerstone of multilateral legislative initiatives which serve to recognize ‘the Other’ as an embodiment of the Sacred, and affirms that that all in the human family are fundamentally valuable for who they are–and not merely instrumentally valuable only for what they do/or for what they consume in the marketplace.

Here in the US, faith and democracy are at their best when in partnership. One of many legislative offerings posited in the spirit of Point7 is HRes 1078 which calls for the adoption of a Global Marshall Plan in express concordance with the UN’s MDG’s and also stands as a noteworthy example of interfaith collaboration which concretizes the highest ideals of our faith traditions. Championed by Rabbi Michael Lerner, the bill was introduced in April 2008 by our first Muslim member of Congress, Keith Ellison and co-sponsored with Jim Moran (Catholic), and Emanuel Cleaver (Protestant) in a campaign to change the direction of American foreign policy. The cornerstone of the Plan invites safety and security wielding the genius of our best and out brightest.

Legislating compassion ministers to the arrested part of our souls–it encourages individuals to express their innate tendencies of generosity and caring, rather than those of domination and control, strengthening human relationships, creating stronger bonds between communities and nations.  

Our call to action is well-defined by Rabbi Tarfon of the Pirkei Avot-Ethics of the Fathers:

‘The time to repair the world is short, the task is great, those engaged in the work are weary-and the Holy One, Blessed be He is impatient’…and so are we.