We're Governed by Callous Children

Americans feel increasingly disheartened, and our leaders don't even notice.

By Peggy Noonan

Afghanistan: No Easy Solution

By Jeanette Windle

The following post is from my friend Jeanette Windle, author of the book Veiled Freedom. It is also available at her website.

How to change a nation, bring about peace instead of war, transform hatred and greed to compassion and unselfishness? Whether Afghanistan or Iraq, Somalia or the collapsed Soviet Union, on-lookers shake their heads in baffled frustration. Despite trillions of dollars in aid and military expenditure, too much shed blood, and the best of intentions, how is it that introducing principles of democracy and freedom around the globe has produced so little lasting peace or prosperity?

A better question: can outsiders ever truly purchase freedom for another culture or people?

I wrote a blog column leading up to Afghanistan's August elections, questioning 'Do They Matter?' After all, regardless of who squeezed out the most votes, Afghanistan would remain a fundamentalist sharia regime with minimal freedom of worship, speech, or media, under the thumb of a warlord-infested government ranked among the planet's most corrupt. And with incumbent candidate Hamid Karzai dominating media access, writing his own election code, and personally appointing each member of the so-called 'Independent Election Commission', not even Karzai's increasingly reluctant Western allies had delusions any of 40+ opposition candidates had a chance. Spending over 200 million dollars of American taxpayer money to mount this election seemed more an exercise in futility than any faith in democracy.

Still, even my pessimism was taken aback at the blatant dishonesty and violence that ended up marking the elections. As much as one-third of all votes cast turned out to be ballot-stuffing by Karzai underlings, including election officials. Less than 10% of voters turned out in some regions, while in others ballots added up to ten times all registered voters. Meanwhile Karzai screamed Western plot at any suggestion of irregularities in the voting process. More than one American diplomat has resigned in protest. Violence has surged against a government increasingly seen as illegitimate, both by the Afghanis and foreign nations currently paying the bills.

All of which has been rather awkward for Karzai's chief ally, the United States government, which was counting on a reasonably clean stab at democracy to justify a continued outpouring of funds and troops into Afghanistan. Under extreme pressure Karzai has now agreed to a November 7 run-off, less than three weeks after the final vote tally. The short time frame hardly permits any serious campaign to be mounted or issues of fraud and security to be addressed. Nor does even run-off opponent Abdullah Abdullah expects any other outcome than a handy Karzai win. Which makes this second round little more than a face-saver for Karzai and his Western allies--along with another sizeable expenditure of funds by American taxpayers.

So where does that leave the future? An election run-off may rehabilitate Karzai's public image enough to justify continued Western support of his regime. But it doesn't address the issue of rank corruption, the wealthy growing wealthier off foreign aid contracts while widows and children continue to starve in Kabul streets, a growing insurgency fueled by the frustration of ordinary Afghanis, who have given up hope of promised freedoms and a better life and who see NATO and American forces as complicit with an illegitimate and dishonest regime.

A top-ranking American general in the zone has suggested a simple solution. Forget nation building. Forget any serious attempts at democracy or rule of law. The West needs to recognize Afghanistan is at least twenty years behind Pakistan. If the American people and military will just commit to the long-run, another twenty years or so involvement should bring Afghanistan up to where Pakistan is today.

And exactly where is that? Currently Pakistan is a fundamentalist Islamic dictatorship that routinely uses sharia-based blasphemy and apostasy laws to imprison and execute Christians for their faith. It is also a terror-sponsoring state, whose ISI (military intelligence) worked with the U.S. to develop and arm the Taliban against the Soviets back in the 80s, while siphoning off billions in American military aid to finance their own operations, including Muslim extremist terror networks working to overthrow neighboring 'infidel' India. Worse, they are a nuclear power, their weapons developed in defiance of the same international proliferation laws being raised against Iran; in fact, Pakistani nuclear scientists have been heavily involved in Iran's developing nuclear industry. Beyond all this, like Afghanistan, Pakistan is ranked as one of the planet's most corrupt governments.

So let's see if we have it straight. If we commit ourselves to the long run in Afghanistan, continue to pour out American taxpayer dollars and the blood of our sons and daughters, in twenty years or so we just might get--another Pakistan? Not even considered is where any accountability for human rights or religious and personal freedoms fit into this equation.

Left unaddressed is the underlying assumption that it is up to America or NATO to win in Afghanistan. That if the right decisions are made, enough troops and money poured in, a strong enough commitment is made, then peace and stability must inevitably follow like a correct answer popping up on a calculator screen.

Unfortunately, winning this war isn't up to America or NATO, but the Afghan people. Unless the Afghanis themselves are willing to make a stand, not just against the Taliban, but against the corruption, unjust law, Islamic extremist thinking, oppression and violence that permeates every level of Afghan society, no amount of good will, aid, or military intervention can produce a long-term peace and stability.

Afghanistan's current leadership has proved more than happy to leave security issues to foreign troops while they count looted aid dollars behind well-guarded walls of their ornate Kabuli mansions. The Afghan National Police, many of them rehabilitated warlord militias and currently rated the most corrupt institution in Afghanistan, are too busy squeezing largesse out of their countrymen to secure their streets. The new Afghan army is rated slightly less corrupt than the police, mainly because they have less day-to-day contact with the locals, but shows little willingness to risk their own necks and a tendency to go AWOL any time the fighting gets serious.

Meanwhile, redefined American military strategy in Afghanistan includes falling back to concentrate on providing security for 'major population centers'. Sounds good. Except America doesn't have enough manpower to patrol our own inner-city streets against gangs and criminal activity. Nor was our military ever designed to provide ground security for an unwilling foreign population. The very fact that eight years down the road from liberation it is somehow now assumed to be American responsibility to secure Afghan population centers shows how far askew the U.S. mission in Afghanistan has drifted.

And if by some miracle and enough military presence, it proves possible to reduce somewhat the daily murder and mayhem currently reigning in Afghanistan, what global difference will it make? Islamic extremist groups shift easily across the entire Muslim world. Al Qaida is only one of countless factions with similar ideology and goals. Do we invade Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, even Mindanao in the Philippines?

Because in the long run, the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan is not just about extremists opposing the West. It is part of a much larger and long-term civil war within the Muslim world itself between fundamentalist Islam and the corrupt, extravagant aristocracies who have funneled oil revenue and other resources into their own pockets. Surely Cold War history should have taught us the futility of stepping in to prop up one corrupt regime out of fear the alternative might be worse (Iran, Iraq, Chile, Paraguay, Panama, Guatemala, El Salvador, are a few places we've done so and are still paying the price). America has neither enough money, troops nor will to step in and compel the entire planet or even entire Islamic world 'be good' and 'play nice' with the other.

So what is the answer?

Nothing simple. Certainly nothing that can be accomplished by a few thousand more troops and trillions more dollars in aid, much though I wish it were otherwise. I wish that following the latest strategy suggestions, propping up Pakistan one more time, sticking it out with corrupt local allies offered a long-term hope of success. Above all, because a lot of genuinely good intentions have been invested in Afghanistan. American and NATO troops have fought courageously and well. Plenty of individual Afghanis have worked hard to make a difference in their country. I have not met a single long-term humanitarian worker nor many Afghanis who want American and NATO forces to abandon Afghanistan. But nor have I met any who believes that the current course--especially in collaboration with present Afghan leadership--will bring about long-term success.

There is an answer. It is not easy nor quick, but it is simple. It is, in fact, the theme I address in my most recent Tyndale House Publishers release Veiled Freedom, set in Afghanistan. With the best of intentions, one cannot impose freedom from without. It must be the choice of a people.

You see, change that truly transforms society comes through changed hearts, not circumstances. And hearts change only when they are restored to personal relationship with their Creator and heavenly Father through the love of Jesus Christ and transforming power of the Holy Spirit. When God promised restoration to an idolatrous, wicked Israel, He described it this way: "I will give you a new heart . . . I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh" (Ezekiel 36:26).

And therein lies hope for Afghanistan. Because despite all the dismal headlines, hearts are being changed across Afghanistan, quietly, daily, under the radar and despite lack of freedom and oppression, through individuals coming face to face with the love of Isa Masih, Jesus Christ as lived out by Isa-followers willing to risk their own lives to share that love. And when enough individual hearts change from hate to love, cruelty to kindness, greed to selflessness, their society will never be the same.

Change a heart, change a nation.

Even Afghanistan.

It's His Rubble Now

President Obama, in office a month longer than Bush was when 9/11 hit, now owns his presidency. Does he know it?

By Peggy Noonan

My comment: Noonan says the Obama administration's repeated protestations that "It was like this when I got here" sound like a dodge. Yes, of course they do. But she overlooks the fact that on a host of issues, Obama and the Democrats are responsible every bit as much as Bush and the Republicans for the mess(es) we're in. Obama, after all, was a U.S. senator, and Democrats have wielded tons of power on Capitol Hill for years.

The Clothed Public Square

Hunter Baker argues that Christians should not abandon God talk.

Interview by Sarah Pulliam

Podcast: Solzhenitsyn's Greatest Novel, Restored

Stan Guthrie and John Wilson talk about In the First Circle.

On the Radio: Immigration Reform

Scroll down to hear me discuss the NAE's new statement on immigration reform with John Blok of New Day Florida.

Evangelicals Endorse Immigration Reform

The National Association of Evangelicals' board overwhelmingly approves a resolution to seek 'faith and equal treatment' of immigrants.

By Adelle M. Banks, Religion News Service

Football's Follies

Some in the NFL universe are voicing opposition to Rush Limbaugh as a possible team owner, suggesting the conservative talk-show host is too controversial, or perhaps even racist. Give me a break. This is the politics of personal destruction on the gridiron. Is Limbaugh bombastic? Assuredly. Racist? No.

Limbaugh, who consistently promotes the NFL on his show, doesn't care what color anyone is. The key thing for him is what a person believes. Limbaugh has had an African American fill-in host for years, Walter E. Williams, and he regularly quotes from intellectuals such as Thomas Sowell, another African American.

What Limbaugh said years ago about the media desiring that a "black quarterback" do well was a critique of the media, not Donovan McNabb's race. You can disagree with him on this point if you want, but it was not racist. I remember when legendary broadcaster Howard Cosell was railroaded off the air for an unfortunate comment on Monday Night Football; I'd like to think we have learned a thing or two about tolerance in the Age of Obama.

And who is the NFL to throw stones? The league has more criminals per capita than any business this side of San Quentin. It has players (and coaches) in good standing who have taken steroids, organized dog-fighting, shot themselves in nightclubs, beaten their girlfriends, and killed people with their vehicles.

And if the NFL, in its ever-expanding money-grab, thinks Limbaugh is too controversial, why is the vicious and unfunny liberal Keith Olbermann accorded a seat of honor every Sunday for "Football Night in America"? Limbaugh has twice the wit of Olbermann (and 10 times the audience), and just as much knowledge of the game. Plus, I think it's safe to assume that far more fans identify with Limbaugh than with Olbermann.

Lately I've grown a bit tired of the NFL. The game isn't what it used to be. If the politically correct character assassination of one of the league's greatest fans continues, I may find something else to do with my Sundays (and Mondays, and Thursdays, and Saturdays).

Limbaugh represents millions of decent people in this country. What distinguishes his beliefs (anti-big government, pro-free enterprise and personal responsibility, a distrust of the oldline media) is not their strangeness, but their ordinariness. If he gets ripped apart for these beliefs, millions of fans might feel they have been rejected, too.

Podcast: Falling for Books

Stan Guthrie and John Wilson talk about some of the fall books that are coming with high expectations.

Obama's Nobel Lottery

While the Nobel Committee's inexplicable decision to award its peace prize to someone who manifestly does not deserve it might be initially maddening to conservatives, over the longer term it might actually be good news. Here's why.

First, it is a great illustration that Obama hero worship might have finally jumped the shark. Even liberals have got to be chagrined. Perhaps now that the tide of sycophancy has reached this point, it will finally begin to recede.

Second, the politically compromised Nobel Prize has been shrunken to Moveon.org-like irrelevancy. Two recent winners were Jimmy Carter and Al Gore, and Obama makes for a perfect hat trick.

Obama, who must have felt like he hit the lottery today, now has two awards out of all proportion to his qualifications. He should have declined the Nobel (which he admits he doesn't deserve) and allowed someone who really has accomplished something for peace to receive it. He would have been seen as a real statesman; instead, he is becoming the butt of even more jokes.

It may turn out that winning the Nobel Prize is worse politically for our president than last's week's loss of the Olympics.

(For more on this topic, see my Thought of the Day.)

On the Radio: A Godless Eden

Scroll down to hear me talk with John Blok of New Day Florida about my latest column for BreakPoint.org: "A Godless Eden: Environmentalism as Secular Religion."

Billions and Billions

We receive word that an already terrible federal budget deficit has tripled over the last year, to $1.4 trllion annually. That's $1,400,000,000,000, or about $4,000 for every man, woman, child and transgendered person in the United States. (Forgive me if my math is a bit off; my calculator can't handle numbers this high.)

If you're getting a government check this year, enjoy it; you're going to be paying it back, with interest, for the rest of your life. And remember, that $1.4 trillion is just to pay for this year's obligations. The spiraling national debt is far worse.

Meanwhile, the CBO says the latest health plan from the Democrats, available for "only" $829 billion, will actually lower the deficit. Sure it will, if you accept the following premises:

1. That this government program, unlike most others, will not cost wildly more than anticipated;

2. That current insurance holders and Medicare recipients will not mind paying a lot more for a lot less.

Yes, this health plan may balance, but on whose backs? And what about the millions it still leaves uninsured? That's a pretty expensive cure. I expect these questions will largely go unanswered in the rush to "do something" about health care. And this CBO estimate, however misleading, gives Team Obama just the cover it needs to ram "reform" down our throats.

Can everyone open up and say "Ahh"?

Afghanistan: Leading Questions

We've been in Afghanistan for eight years. We drove the Taliban from power and (temporarily) broke up its terror network. We installed a semi-democratic government and laid the groundwork for women there to be treated as human beings.

But we didn't (perhaps couldn't) commit enough lives and resources to make Afghanistan safe for democracy, and now there is a real risk the country (if that's what it is) could return to its pre-9/11 state of chaos, of providing a safe haven for terrorists who could wreak havoc once again on the U.S. Leaving, therefore, is not an option, particularly if we want to protect those who have risked all to help us.

With extremists seemingly gaining power by the day, the status quo is not only intolerable, it is impossible. So we are left with only one option: victory, which is supposed to have been the goal all along. So what does victory look like in Afghanistan, and how do we get there? Those are the questions President Obama faces, complicated by his rabid antiwar base and his apparently insincere posturing while a candidate.

If ever we needed a president who can lead, it is now. President Obama: You wanted to be president. Now is the time to start earning your pay. Any time you're ready. We're all waiting.

Podcast: A Philosophical Romance

Stan Guthrie and John Wilson talk about the new novel from Alexander McCall Smith.

A Godless Eden

My monthly "Priorities" column for BreakPoint.org:

For as long as I can remember, I have had a recurring vision. It comes in different guises during the night watches, but it is the same dream.

Safe Schools Indeed

There's a new problem with one of our president's dozens of extra-constitutional "czars." It appears that one Kevin Jennings, the "safe schools czar," encouraged a 15-year-old boy to continue in a situation of sexual abuse with a man. This "czar" also wrote a foreword to a book advocating that we "queer up" the schools, and he is a leader, apparently, in a group seeking to normalize homosexuality in the schools. Just what is Jennings making our schools "safe" for, anyway? And who said we need a "safe schools czar"?

Those few in the media who are actually bothering to cover this latest scandal are harrumphing again about Team Obama's failure to properly "vet" the "czar." Perhaps if Obama's appointees were subject to congressional oversight we would have fewer of these types walking the halls of power.

I, however, don't think it is primarily a problem of "vetting." The administration knows who it is getting. Arne Duncan, who appointed him, certainly knew who he was. This is the same Duncan, by the way, who left Chicago public schools in ruins before being named Secretary of Education. Nice work if you can get it!

These folks such as Jennings, whom Obama and Co. appoint without oversight, are simply displaying the administration's native radicalism, unmasked. The problem is not "vetting," except in the case of the American people, who put into the Oval Office an inexperienced radical leftist.