The long awaited Senate Intelligence Committee report on the Benghazi September 2012 attack was finally released. While important details were learned and much confirmed, no shocking revelations were revealed. Unfortunately, this may not quiet conspiracy theories that are seeking to implicate the Obama Administration, because the report did not address their claims with “smoking gun” evidence that proves the Obama Administration was not trying to suppress information. That said, the report does designate the incident as preventable and places blame on victim Ambassador Libya Christopher Stevens for failing to increase security in the shadow of intelligence reports warning of a heightened threat. With the State Department taking the bulk of the blame, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is ultimately responsible. Although she did take responsibility for the failure soon after the incident, it is important to understand what that responsibility is. Because Ambassador Stevens was more than competent and capable of taking responsibility for his action, Secretary Clinton is not to be blamed for his decisions. Her responsibility resides in whatever systematic faults were uncovered while she is, of course, responsible for any and all decisions she made that helped contribute to this tragedy. Finally, what ultimately matters is whether the investigation of this incident will help save lives in the future.
Comments
Today, Egyptians voted in favor of a new constitution put forward by their military backed interim government. Initial statements by officials claim over 55 percent of eligible voters turned out with 95 percent of those individuals voting in favor of the new constitution. Although 55 percent would be a powerful turnout for most elections, it is not so great considering they were voting for their country’s basic structure of governance. Unfortunately, these numbers and massive boycotts by Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers, among others, demonstrate a huge segment is not being adequately represented by this initial step toward a new government. It is also important to recognize the military sponsored constitution is largely seen as inadequate when it comes to respecting civil liberties while it is rather self-serving. In comparison to the Islamist constitution of the Morsi government, which was far more oppressive and exclusive, it looks better, even if it will ultimately fail the People of Egypt. Consequently, Egypt’s future and it’s Peoples’ freedom is in doubt. Until these events play out, the International Community will have to watch as the key Middle Eastern nation struggles to reestablish its governance.
On elitist discrimination and the rejection of established business leaders by the Ivy League1/13/2014 I happened to come across an interesting article examining the rejection of three established business leaders to Harvard Business School and Stanford Business School. I think it is important to first recognize that education exists to give students the tools they need to be successful in all their live endeavors, i.e. train them to acquire, comprehend, and apply information to whatever novel or everyday situation they might encounter. Recounting the sentiments of a psychology professor, who offered it as the most honest advice he could give our class, a degree does not guarantee you a job or make you right; it means someone, but not everyone, recognizes that you have completed a degree of professional training and met a given standard. The full value of an education is measures in how it helps you problem solve.
That said, the perception is that Ivy League schools like Harvard and Standard have a social component to them, i.e. it’s not what you learn from these school so much as who you get to know. In fact, it’s often more about who you already know. Admittedly, these schools do have a large number of applicants, thus the rules of market competition dictate tightening the standards of admissions. Henceforth, only the most academically qualified are even considered, whether or not others can understand the lessons to be learned. As physicist Richard Feynman once noted, an inability to reduce a concept down to its most elementary level means we do not understand that concept, quantum theory in his case, which might be interpreted to mean you don’t truly understand something until you can teach it to others. Meanwhile, one might also argue that these candidates could have legitimately been rejected, because the MBA program would have been of little value to them given their past successes, i.e. these schools want to be virtuous. Of course, the facts suggest these schools are more interested in what their students will do for their prestige than what they can do for their students, so this is likely far from the truth. Unfortunately, this type of self-serving snobbery creates a major social problem, specifically given the limited measures these schools use to judge the worth of their applicants. Let’s remember that there is a difference between being a elite, who wants to be the best at what he does while encouraging and helping others (find a path forward) to be the best they can be, and being an elitist snob who mocks other for not being in the same position. As before mentioned, schools give students tools for success, thus a failure to include otherwise gifted students, who looked insufficient on paper, denies innovative and thoughtful individuals access to the tools they need to overcome their weaknesses to achieve even greater success. It is important to realize that there are a great deal of well-educated, thoughtless fools. That is, people learn technical skills, which are useful, and massive amounts of knowledge that they like to regurgitate to make themselves look smart, but they do not necessarily think. Babies “outsmart” their parents and deer “outsmart” hunters, because the more knowledgeable and intellectually skilled fail to adequately analyze what is obvious from the perspective of a baby or animal. Consequently, the best academically successful students may not be the ones who make the most of an Ivy League MBA program. More importantly, businesses are far more inclined to hire people who are associated with these schools. This means they may not necessary be getting the type of innovative and creative talent they need to succeed in the future. Keep in mind, past experiences only say someone was successful, thus future success is only more possible. For individuals, this means they may find themselves locked out of given career paths, which limits their opportunities to succeed. In turn, this system of discrimination based on social inheritance creates an environment where success is less likely for everyone. Recalling a rather upsetting ABC True Confessions piece on discriminatory hiring practices, which included the targeting of women with children, there is a subtle bit of wisdom for school admissions staff, hiring managers, politicians and every other decision maker out there to learn: instead of trying to disqualify someone based on faulted preconceived metrics, you should be focusing on what people might bring to the table then go with the person who has the most to offer. Islamist premier Ali Larayedh of Tunisia was replaced by non-partisan transitional leader Mehdi Jomaa on Friday, January 10, 2014. For those who feared the Arab Spring revolutions and an end to authoritarianism in the Middle East would mean Western interests would be imperiled, because stable democratic regimes were seen as unachievable, this latest development demonstrates moderation and progress are possible over time.
In order to serve the broad interests of a People, such as the Tunisians, and participate in the International Community, national leader must be willing and able to go beyond their own interests and views to serve the needs and will of all citizens. Sometimes, this means finding solutions that take into account minority views; sometimes, it means stepping aside. In a region where government will likely need to favor cultural identify over individual identity, i.e. illiberal versus liberal rule, what democracy will look like in the Middle East is still questionable. The true measure of an emerging government’s potential for success rests in its ability to provide a strong, all-inclusive constitution and its ability to be responsive to the needs of its People. While a constitutional government where evenly applied, responsive laws and guaranteed rights form the basis of governance is required for a nation to be successful, democracies do not necessary have to be built around a “pluralist cultural identity,” e.g. religious, amoral, etc. For any government to garner the support of its People and achieve legitimacy, it must adequately address the interests of its People, which is why participation in elections and political matters is so important. In accordance, the strength of democracy, whether liberal or illiberal, hinges on how responsive it is to its People. An ill-democratic government, i.e. one that is democratic in appearance only, fails when it is no longer responsive to the needs of its People. This is what happened in Egypt when Islamists tried to impose their hardliner Islamist stances onto their entire culture; whereas, the Islamist premier of Tunisia put the interests of his country above his ambitions to build an Islamist leaning state. Because the removal of Ali Larayedh occurred without uncontrolled, mass violence or a military coup, unlike in Egypt, it demonstrates outcome is decided by those who are in power and those who choose to act. It is important to remember in the face of growing instability and uncertainty, the democratization of a People, a Country, and a culture is a long messy process. The Middle East is filled with nations undergoing this process while what democracies emerge will depend upon what the unique cultures demand. Tunisia may eventually serve as an example of a successful democratic transition. At the moment, it serves as a small sign of hope that the process is still progressing and can progress without embracing a massive breakout violence that culminates into a civil war. Above all, this example shows the Middle East is not simply headed for disaster. Russia has often had antagonistic relationships with its neighbors while it has always remained somewhat of an outsider in the International Community. In many respects, Israel has struggled with the same kind of dynamics thanks to its longstanding security threats and its non-Islamic identity. Recently, Russian President Vladimir Putin has been experimenting with soft power options, including efforts to engineer diplomatic solutions to the Syrian Civil War, the safeguarding of Edward Snowden, and the release of political prisons. Thanks to ongoing regional instability and the weakening, as well as the delegitimization, of Middle Eastern governing institutions, Israel too has an opportunity to use soft power to become a regional power/leader in order to lessen threats to its own security, if it is willing to lean away from military power and its increasing costs.
It is often far easier to help others find solutions to their problems than it is to struggle to find solutions to your own problems. Once again, the US and other global actors are trying to broker a lasting peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians in order to demonstrate progress and inspire stability through conflict resolution, i.e. “bring peace to the Middle East.” In reality, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is no longer a major driving force behind instability in the Middle East. It is now an unresolved tertiary issue that needs addressed among many other grievances and conflicts to be found throughout the region. When threatened, it is the tendency of actors to turn inward, but doing so also forces others to focus on the insecure actor’s internal issues and faults. For Israel, its inability to resolve its conflict with the Palestinians means the Jewish State is drawing the world’s attention onto it and inviting outsiders to harshly criticize it as an egocentric antagonist. Clearly, Israel has security interests when it comes to finding a path to peace, but Israel as a stable, democratic nation fairly responsive to the need of its People can reach out to others nations and Peoples to offer guidance on how the largely authoritarian regimes of the region can become more responsive and/or allow for a transition of power. Such gestures are certain to garner criticism of Israel given its dealings with the Palestinians; however, voicing solutions to citizens and offering to help other governments is something Israel can do to promote regional stability. Given Turkey’s massive political corruption scandal, Saudi Arabia’s status as a monarchy as well as its mounting commitments to states like Egypt, and Iran’s obvious faults, which are being addressed, the region has no fully legitimate regional power free of critical flaws to help lead the region through this era of change. Unfortunately, the United States too has lost a great of its legitimacy in the Middle East due to Iraq and Afghanistan, among other issues As such, there is an opening for Israel to expand its soft power and become part of a leadership coalition of flawed regional powers. Considering Israel has been able to serve its People and build a strong economy even under constant security threats, with the help of the United States, it is an expert in solving many of the problems Middle Eastern countries are facing. At the very least, Israel can offer guidance where it can provide viable options and analysis, whether or not others are up to what Israel has to say. Leadership is not about portraying yourself as a perfect role model, but rather, stepping up with insights, options, and help when they are needed. If Israel can legitimize itself as a leader in a region facing chaos, it will legitimize itself as a regional power and partner to its neighbors, thus improving its own security interests. In short, Israel needs to be more vocal and active when it comes to improving the lives of citizens in neighboring countries. |
Read old posts
April 2020
|