The experience of Hilary Clinton versus the judgment of Barack Obama

By
Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.

Hilary Clinton believes she has the experience to make the tough decision, if the telephone rings, after midnight, in the White House. Barack Obama believes he has the judgment superiority to make the right decision, if the telephone rings. Ordinary citizens intuitively know that presidents do not make decisions in this manner. Instead, they consider and discuss problems with advisors, and others, before a decision is made.
Nevertheless, it is instructive to examine the relationship between experience and judgment, and to shed some light on the merit of the claims of the candidates.
Dictionaries state that experience is the accumulation of knowledge, or the learning of skills, from participation in events and activities. Judgment is the formation of an opinion, after consideration and deliberation. Beyond these definitions, the quality of the output, the judgment, of the deliberation depends on the experiences of the participants. This truism underscores the relationship between experience and judgment. At the same time, I acknowledge that the relationship is not simple. To help you understand what I am trying to say, simply note that experience and judgment are like trees and their fruits. To choose a frequently used fruits, experience and judgment are neither apples, nor oranges; they are apples on apple trees, and oranges on orange trees.
To wit, judgment depends on experience, figuratively, as fruits depend on the plants, and the trees that carry them.
Clinton claims she has the experience to perform the duties of president starting on her first day in office. Her years of experience in public service, including eight years as the first lady, qualify her for the job. On the other hand, Obama claims that he, as a community organizer, and a civil rights attorney, has learned to differentiate between right and wrong. That kind of learning helped him conclude, before the war on Iraq started, that invasion was wrong. The majority of Americans, after five years of carnage, denials, and false claims, still believe that the war on Iraq has been wrong from the beginning.
On the other hand, Obama’s experienced opponent, Hilary Clinton, failed to produce, with her experience, a similarly acceptable result about the unpopular war. This is not to belittle her experience. On the contrary, experience is valuable in every field of human endeavor. With experience farmers cultivate their lands more efficiently, engineers build better machines, mothers provide better care to their offspring, employees improve their productivity, and politicians learn what roads to follow, and which to abandon.
The problem is not what is experience and what are its benefits, it is the politicians, who are notorious for making irrational decisions. When a president stands in congress and uses patriotism and its language, in presenting a case, he assures himself of enthusiastic applause, energetic standing ovation, and exciting march of the flock behind him. For fear of stigma, rarely does a member of congress stand against a call to show patriotism, even when the member is not adequately convinced of the virtue of the case, and when his hunch tells him that the justification for war, for example, on Iraq was based on falsehood.
Further, experience is an indicator of the extent of learning, and the capacity to produce a well reasoned judgment, or a plan of action. Theories inform us that learning is a process that goes through observations (collecting data), analyses, and generalizations. Internalization, and building new mental structures, or expanding existing ones follow, to complete the learning process.
Learning is not always easy; the ease and the speed of learning depend on the experience of the learner. An experienced person finds it easier to acquire new knowledge, and to absorb it faster, than a less experienced individual.
How experienced a president or those who aspire to become president should be? The constitution ignores this matter. At the time of the founding, only the elite held high positions in government, although the constitution does not spell that out. Today an idiot could become president of the United States as long as he or she is born in the US, thirty-five years of age or older, and wins the election.
For that reason, it is imperative that in addition to their own learning and their own experiences, presidents and leaders of all walks of life, should seek the services of advisors, consultants, and subordinates whose experiences, put together, widen and deepen the experience of the leader.
The impression that the experience of a person depends on his or her age, may not be true. An active younger person could become more experienced than an older less active one. Also, the younger person would be more likely to use the Internet, to enhance and accelerate her or his learning, than the older person.
To emphasize, experience and judgment are not to be compared to each other; they depend on each other. In a free situation, where politicians speak their minds without fear, better experience produces better judgments, but freedom may be claimed even when it does not exist, or when it is disabled. When experience and freedom to use it coexist, one can still produce bad judgments. In this situation the mistakes must be taken as learning opportunities.
Finally, neither the experience nor the judgment of the candidates should be our influencing criteria for electing a nominee, or a president. Similarly, age, gender, race, and detailed plans of promises should not be significant factors in the process. Instead, we should pause virtual questions, to each candidate, and try to answer them ourselves. Some of the questions are like these. Do we trust the candidate to work for us fulltime once we put her or him in the Oval Office? Would she or he focus on finding solutions to the problems that beset us, the people? Would he or she learn from his or her mistakes and the mistakes of others, in the world? Would she or he be more inclined to solve problems peacefully, or she or he would tend to seek personal glory through wars? Would he or she seek to lead the world through love, instead of fear? Would he or she protect us from the greedy and powerful among us?
I am still thinking about questions and answers. I haven’t finished yet, but when the time comes, I will vote.

Stability in Iraq: How far is the U.S. willing to go?

This article was published in the Delaware County Daily Times, Monday, September 17, 2007.

By Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.

The picture of what is going on in Iraq is getting bleaker every day. The plethora of reports is making it murkier and the average citizen is confused. Most of the contents of the reports is true, but incomplete. The opposing parties underscore what supports their claims, and the public does not have the time or the background to sieve through mounds of reports and newspaper articles.
It is true some provinces of Iraq and some neighborhoods of Baghdad are enjoying an improved level of security. It is also true that the killing did not stop, and the loss of lives continues. It is true more insurgents are killed or captured, but it is also true more of them are still conducting deadly attacks. The information from the field is limited and it is manipulated to produce the most desirable outcome: sound bites and slick television commercials.
I am a bicultural, bilingual American. I understand the social paradigm, the politics, and the culture of my country of choice. I equally understand the social paradigm, the politics, and the cultures of the Arabs and the Muslims. So, when I hear politicians (and self anointed intellectuals), and when I read newspapers articles, I understand where the speaker or the writer is coming from. I understand the sounds of demagoguery, the mistakes of the ignorant, and the malice of those who have axes to grind.
I am driven by a desire to promote understanding and to bridge the gap, or narrow it, between the two worlds, so my children and my grandchildren live in peace and harmony with their neighbors in this great country.
The President could announce an end of our military mission in Iraq and inform Iraqis of our plans to withdraw the troops from their country. But neither the current President nor the next (even if he or she were a Democrat) would make the announcement, and inform the Iraqis of his decision.
A different approach would be for Congress to stop financing the war. But this wouldn’t happen regardless of which party controls Congress. A Democratic Congress would fear being labeled as weak on defense. A Republican Congress would not do it because it is the party (dominated by the Religious Right) that took us to this pre-emptive war. The extremists do not want to end the war, they want to expand it to include Iran and Syria.
The third possible way to end the war depends on action by Congress. It is true that Congress may not have the volition to do anything on its own about the war, but if there is a national cry, similar to that which helped end the Vietnam War, Congress may respond. Members of Congress would scurry to align themselves with the public and, perhaps, use the power of the purse to end the war.
A fourth eventuality is for our troops to withdraw in defeat. Our valiant soldiers do not deserve a shameful end to their sacrifice. But if the current situation (lack of security, electricity, water, jobs, and abundance of self centered politicians) does not improve, the insurgency would become stronger. Iraqis would join the freedom fighters for a patriotic goal: To liberate their country from the foreign occupiers.
The fifth possible action is for the President to attack Iran and nuke its nuclear and other military facilities. This action would not end the war; it would intensify and prolong it. At the same time he or his proxy would attack or perhaps occupy another part of Syria. Thus creating a dream security belt from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean. The expansion would not end the war, but it sure would extend it for decades to come.
A last possible option to end the war is to nuke Iraq from north to south and from east to west, as a former Marine told me, on the morning of September 11, 2001. This would not happen. The President may lack wisdom, as his political adversaries claim, but he is not a Nero, either.
The only option that makes sense (saves lives and capital) is to plan and execute the withdrawal of our troops, orderly and safely. But, the government, its loyal political pundits, and the allied spin junkies warn us of impending disasters.
They say the Iraqis would fight each other in a full scale and bloody civil war. The whole Middle East would be destabilized. The anti-American forces would rejoice in victory and put up their sails and follow us, to harm us, in our own homeland.
It’s scary. But remember that the Vietnam War took so long because of the scare of the domino theory and its effect on the citizenry.
Here is the more likely scenario. When the military forces begin to withdraw, the violence would increase, but soon (in about six months) it would subside because the majority of the current violence is directed against the coalition forces, the mercenaries, the collaborators, and the beneficiaries of the war.
Once the foreign forces leave Iraq, that violence would dwindle. But the fighting among the militias would rage in the streets and in the neighborhoods of most Iraqi cities. It would mainly be on land grapping and sectarian cleansing.
However, the end of the mayhem would come at the hands of a military unifier—a dictator, who could have been one of those trained by the Americans, not to become a dictator, but to create and preserve peace and tranquility. The new ruler would be supported and aided by Iran, but he would not establish an Iranian type theocracy. Instead the military would rule for a while. Then a limited democracy might be initiated, and in a decade or two, democracy might take hold.
On the other hand, if the United States intervenes to stop the new dictator, a situation like the one in Lebanon might arise and Iraq would become another State in the Middle East perpetually divided and dangerously unstable.

Democracy follows if you give them love

This article was published in the Delaware County Daily Times, Saturday, May 6, 2006.


By Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.

Pre-emptive wars against potential enemies, democratization of undemocratic and unfriendly governments, and the spread of freedom throughout the world, have been foreign policy goals of our government. One may argue whether this policy depicts our benevolence or our arrogance. Others may wish an aggressive policy to feed the poor, cure the sick and protect the week. The policy of invading a country to democratize its politics and to free its people must be challenged to preserve our own democracy and freedom.
Why would a superpower wage a preemptive war against a country with limited means of defending itself? The claim of stopping a war before it starts is unsubstantiated. In reality the war would be a war of aggression, occupation, domination and colonization.
For democratization of tyrant governments and for spreading freedom, we must have a more realistic approach. It does not take a rocket scientist to know wars do not democratize rotten systems, but antagonize the people living in that system. Freedom will not canvas the lands and hatred may spread, instead. Facing reality, one can see the current practice of our government needs modification.
But who am I to question the conduct of our government? I am just an immigrant who came to this country in search of peace, happiness and freedom. I must say that I am satisfied with what I have achieved, and I have enjoyed being an American. And as so, I feel empowered to voice my opinion.
Do we really need a preemptive wars policy? I say no. During the Cold War we did not have such a policy against the Soviet Union, which was the only union of countries that had the capacity to inflict horrendous destruction and pain on us. But, we were prepared and ready to strike back with immeasurable destruction and bane. The Soviet Union lost the Cold War, and the threat of what remained of it has been considerably diminished.
We are wooing China and India in becoming our trade partners. They will not be our enemies in the foreseeable future. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are our allies. The Europeans are our allies too. There is no fear of attacks against us from these countries.
We are left with many underdeveloped and poor countries that are ruled, in most cases, by undemocratic governments. Would these countries attack us for any reason? Do they have the capability to hurt us? The answer is no.
A more reasonable assumption to is that the self appointed rulers would seek to keep their people fed and quiet, to stay in power. They would not achieve that by attacking a superpower. Many believe attacking or invading any country in a so called pre-emptive war would hurt our pride and tarnish our image as a country of laws, not a country of rulers. Again, preemptive wars, if used by other countries, will spark chaos. The world will return to its pre United Nations era, during which the rule of the jungle prevailed.
We learned in school (Maslow’s Theory of needs and motivations) that people have needs to satisfy before they aspire to power that might be begotten from democracy. They want to stay alive. They need food, air, and water. They need to be safe from physical and psychological harm. They need affection and belonging. Then they may need democracy so they may feel important and strong.
It is hard to convince people that democracy is good for them if they were hungry, if they feel insecure, or if they feel unloved. Democracy will not have any chance to hold If people do not have a shelter to protect them from the elements of the weather, and if they do not have basic protection against predators.
They need jobs. They need to learn how to farm their land efficiently. They need factories to add value to their natural resources. They need health care to protect them against simple and pandemic diseases. They need love. If we give them love, they get their basic needs with it.
Democracies are fortresses that protect the dignity of man. Their foundations must go deep to the bedrock of the land. We must love them and make them grow to want democracy. Patience is required. Building democratic communities is not like building a car on an assembly line.
Also, which democracy do we wish to export to other countries? Is it the democracy that was the foundation of our country, or a democracy that might keep these democracies open to outside meddling? Is it the democracy that produces a government of the people, for the people, by the people, which sounds nice, or some other form of government that may be more efficient?
Alex de Tocqueville, a 19th century French historian, enlightened us about our own democracy and warned us against its vulnerability in the face of corruption. Democracy is not uniform but is a range with shades and colors. There is a French democracy, and English democracy. There are underdeveloped countries that seem to have different forms of democracy. Do we shun them because their democracies are different from ours, or do we try to understand their governments, and encourage them to keep developing their democracies until they mature?
What is wrong with tribal democracy? I wish scholars study tribal democracies and inform us of their strengths and weaknesses. A locally developed democracy based on local tradition and culture may be more effective than a totally imported democracy.
Democracy where individuals have a say in the making of their governments and in the functioning of its institutions is a blessing to the people who embrace it. But for our democracy to flourish in foreign soil it needs solid foundations. That foundation is love. The best way to democratize a country is to love its people, instead of dividing and colonizing them. It is better to love them and help them obtain their basic needs for survival. If we do that for them, some will love us, and they may trust us. Then, with time, democracy will follow.

Please take a minute and tell me what think.

About me

Mahmoud S. Audi

Education: Bachelor of Engineering, the American University of Beirut, Lebanon

Master of Science (Aerospace Engineering), Syracuse University, New York

Ph.D. (Mechanical Engineering), Syracuse University, New York

Experience: Professor of Engineering, 24 years;

Professional Engineer including design of HVAC systems, 10 years;

Science and Math teacher, 6 years.

Publications: About 40 professional articles

A book on Solar Energy (Arabic)

Organized a conference on renewable energy "Renewable Energy: Research and Applications" and Edited its 2-volume proceedings

What am I doing now: Consulting and writing. I have written opinion newspaper articles about culture, politics, and religion, and I will continue to do so, as a civic duty. My articles present points of view from a different angle.

I have finished writing the first draft of a memoir Teaching and beyond: My Diary about Teaching, Living, and Traveling in Saudi Arabia. I am looking for an agent or a publisher.

Email address: draudiphd@yahoo.com or audi.mahmoud@gmail.com

To Google (or yahoo) me, write one of the following in the search field (box)

["Mahmoud S. Audi"] without the brackets, but keep the quotation marks.
or, ["Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi"] without the brackets, but keep the quotation marks.
or, ["M. S. Audi"] without the brackets, but keep the quotation marks.
or, ["Dr. M. S. Audi"] without the brackets, but keep the quotation marks.