Published in Delco Daily Times, on Monday, April 21, 2008 under the title shown above.
By Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.
U.S. Sen. Hilary Clinton, D-N.Y., believes she has the experience to make the tough decision if the telephone rings, after midnight, in the White House.
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., believes he has the judgment superiority to make the right decision, if the telephone rings.
Ordinary citizens know 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 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. I acknowledge 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. 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.
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.
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 U.S., 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. 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 she 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.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Saturday, April 12, 2008
In search of a homeland--A conference
By Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.
It is the main title of a two-day conference that will take place at Villanova University on April 25 and 26, 2008. I have just sent my registration card and the fee to the organizers. There will be one keynote speaker, and six other speakers, in addition to seven workshops, and a panel discussion. The topics will cover various aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian problems, including historical perspectives and current affairs. The main organisers are the "Friends of Sabeel--North America." Sabeel is an international peace movement started by Palestinian Christians in the Holy Land. At the end of the conference, I will write impressions, and personal thoughts about the issue, and how I relate to them.
It is the main title of a two-day conference that will take place at Villanova University on April 25 and 26, 2008. I have just sent my registration card and the fee to the organizers. There will be one keynote speaker, and six other speakers, in addition to seven workshops, and a panel discussion. The topics will cover various aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian problems, including historical perspectives and current affairs. The main organisers are the "Friends of Sabeel--North America." Sabeel is an international peace movement started by Palestinian Christians in the Holy Land. At the end of the conference, I will write impressions, and personal thoughts about the issue, and how I relate to them.
Friday, April 4, 2008
The sooner we 'cut and run' in Iraq, the better
This article was published in the Delaware County Daily Times, Monday, July 17, 2006.
By Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.
We say, we had free elections in Iraq. All ethnic and religious groups participated. The Iraqis formed a unity government.
We say, we will step down when the Iraqis step up. The Iraqis are building security forces. The militias will disarm. We say sectarian clashes will subside. We say, soon we will hand them the matters of their country and its security and say goodbye to them.
We say count on us, we are forever your friends. Call us if you get in trouble. We are forever allies. We say the Iraqis will live in freedom in a democratic system of government.
We wish what we say is real. But, it is not. It is a dream. Our democratically elected government is dreaming. When you are dreaming you can hardly hear the words of wisdom, and you can hardly see the truth.
When you are dreaming, and the dream brings you happiness, you want to dream more. The government is in a bind. We want to stay the course. Telling the truth about the quagmire we are in, and our need to bring the troops safely home, calls for statesmanship, and honest leadership, not impotent politicians. The sad matter, which scholars and novices acknowledge, is that in the final analysis we will “cut and run.”
We wish the dream comes true, but reality prevails. I haven’t seen in person or talked to any Iraqi in more than 14 years. But, I met a number of Iraqi professors from most universities of Iraq at the “1992 International Renewable Energy Conference.” They were from the north, the center, and the south of Iraq.
We talked about the first American invasion of Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Many of them said they disliked Saddam, they wanted more freedom and more democracy, but they hated the British and the Americans. Saddam is an Iraqi dictator, the product of the Iraqi situation. Eventually, the Iraqis would remove him. But the British and the Americans are colonial foreign invaders. These professors spoke for the Iraqis.
Iraqis like most Arabs believe that the West has never given them a chance to grow as independent strong nations. They got educated in London, Paris, Rome, and Berlin. They learned about nationalism of the late 19th century from Europe. They learned fragmented Germans united into one nation, one country. The independent city-states of Italy united into one nation.
The Arab scholars returned to their home countries and started nationalistic movements as contrasted with the religious status quo. They allied themselves with Britain and France and fought with them during WWI. The West deceived them. Instead of independence their lands were colonized. The mouths of the Arabs are still bitter from the suppressive actions of the West against their aspirations.
The Arabs were awakened again in the 20th century. The Muslim Brotherhood movement was getting stronger in Egypt on a daily basis, during the ‘30s and ‘40s.
Western educated Arabs started political parties modeled after West European political parties. The Ba’ath party was one. It started in Damascus by a Christian Arab educated at the Sorbonne, France. Their goal was to unite all the Arabs under the banner of Arab nationalism, not Islam. Their efforts culminated in the rise of Naser in Egypt. He persecuted the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, and adopted the Arab nationalism movement as the means of uniting the Arabs. The West fought Naser until his demise. The irony is he used the American Constitution to model a constitution for the United Arab States. With the disappearance of Naser, the Islamic movement started rising again.
Saddam was one of the inheritors of Naser on the Arab seen. He wanted to carry the banner for Arab nationalism. He opened the borders to all Arabs who wished to work in the oil-rich Iraq.
When the Islamic revolution came to power in Iran, many national and Islamic Arabs hailed the rise of Islam in Iran and became strong supporters. It seemed with the religious euphoria at its peak they would overrun the lands to the west until they reached the Mediterranean. The West did not like it, and Saddam, whose country would be the first to be overrun, did not like it either.
With One million Iraqi soldiers, western intelligence and weaponry of all kinds including WMDs, and money from the Arab Gulf states, and about ten years of war, Saddam was able to stop the Iranian Islamic revolution inside its borders. Saddam became a hero to the West, and a villain to the Islamic movements all over the world. But the United States and Great Britain soon forgot. The Iraqis are mainly Arab nationals, Kurdish national, minority Iranian Shiites, and other minorities. The Arab Iraqi nationals are the majority. They include the Shiite Arabs, the Sunni Arabs, and the Christian Arabs.
A minority of the Kurds and a minority of the Iranian Iraqis will align themselves with the majority Iraqis. The other Kurds will never stop dreaming of an independent Kurdish state. The other Iranian Iraqis have their loyalties in Iran, not necessarily because it is Iran, but because it is a Muslim state, and they are devout Muslims.
If we can understand the bitterness of the Arabs and Muslims against the West, in particular against Britain and the United States, then we can conclude that sooner or later all of them will turn against us. Our current Iraqi allies will become our latest Iraqi enemies. To be a national is to refuse any kind of occupation, under any name.
Yes, sooner or later we will “cut and run.” The sooner we recognize this situation the better we will be. But this administration will never do it. If we cut and run we will become stronger, because after that we will not go to war unless it is constitutional. Our great constitution contains all the safeguards if we follow it.
By Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.
We say, we had free elections in Iraq. All ethnic and religious groups participated. The Iraqis formed a unity government.
We say, we will step down when the Iraqis step up. The Iraqis are building security forces. The militias will disarm. We say sectarian clashes will subside. We say, soon we will hand them the matters of their country and its security and say goodbye to them.
We say count on us, we are forever your friends. Call us if you get in trouble. We are forever allies. We say the Iraqis will live in freedom in a democratic system of government.
We wish what we say is real. But, it is not. It is a dream. Our democratically elected government is dreaming. When you are dreaming you can hardly hear the words of wisdom, and you can hardly see the truth.
When you are dreaming, and the dream brings you happiness, you want to dream more. The government is in a bind. We want to stay the course. Telling the truth about the quagmire we are in, and our need to bring the troops safely home, calls for statesmanship, and honest leadership, not impotent politicians. The sad matter, which scholars and novices acknowledge, is that in the final analysis we will “cut and run.”
We wish the dream comes true, but reality prevails. I haven’t seen in person or talked to any Iraqi in more than 14 years. But, I met a number of Iraqi professors from most universities of Iraq at the “1992 International Renewable Energy Conference.” They were from the north, the center, and the south of Iraq.
We talked about the first American invasion of Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Many of them said they disliked Saddam, they wanted more freedom and more democracy, but they hated the British and the Americans. Saddam is an Iraqi dictator, the product of the Iraqi situation. Eventually, the Iraqis would remove him. But the British and the Americans are colonial foreign invaders. These professors spoke for the Iraqis.
Iraqis like most Arabs believe that the West has never given them a chance to grow as independent strong nations. They got educated in London, Paris, Rome, and Berlin. They learned about nationalism of the late 19th century from Europe. They learned fragmented Germans united into one nation, one country. The independent city-states of Italy united into one nation.
The Arab scholars returned to their home countries and started nationalistic movements as contrasted with the religious status quo. They allied themselves with Britain and France and fought with them during WWI. The West deceived them. Instead of independence their lands were colonized. The mouths of the Arabs are still bitter from the suppressive actions of the West against their aspirations.
The Arabs were awakened again in the 20th century. The Muslim Brotherhood movement was getting stronger in Egypt on a daily basis, during the ‘30s and ‘40s.
Western educated Arabs started political parties modeled after West European political parties. The Ba’ath party was one. It started in Damascus by a Christian Arab educated at the Sorbonne, France. Their goal was to unite all the Arabs under the banner of Arab nationalism, not Islam. Their efforts culminated in the rise of Naser in Egypt. He persecuted the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, and adopted the Arab nationalism movement as the means of uniting the Arabs. The West fought Naser until his demise. The irony is he used the American Constitution to model a constitution for the United Arab States. With the disappearance of Naser, the Islamic movement started rising again.
Saddam was one of the inheritors of Naser on the Arab seen. He wanted to carry the banner for Arab nationalism. He opened the borders to all Arabs who wished to work in the oil-rich Iraq.
When the Islamic revolution came to power in Iran, many national and Islamic Arabs hailed the rise of Islam in Iran and became strong supporters. It seemed with the religious euphoria at its peak they would overrun the lands to the west until they reached the Mediterranean. The West did not like it, and Saddam, whose country would be the first to be overrun, did not like it either.
With One million Iraqi soldiers, western intelligence and weaponry of all kinds including WMDs, and money from the Arab Gulf states, and about ten years of war, Saddam was able to stop the Iranian Islamic revolution inside its borders. Saddam became a hero to the West, and a villain to the Islamic movements all over the world. But the United States and Great Britain soon forgot. The Iraqis are mainly Arab nationals, Kurdish national, minority Iranian Shiites, and other minorities. The Arab Iraqi nationals are the majority. They include the Shiite Arabs, the Sunni Arabs, and the Christian Arabs.
A minority of the Kurds and a minority of the Iranian Iraqis will align themselves with the majority Iraqis. The other Kurds will never stop dreaming of an independent Kurdish state. The other Iranian Iraqis have their loyalties in Iran, not necessarily because it is Iran, but because it is a Muslim state, and they are devout Muslims.
If we can understand the bitterness of the Arabs and Muslims against the West, in particular against Britain and the United States, then we can conclude that sooner or later all of them will turn against us. Our current Iraqi allies will become our latest Iraqi enemies. To be a national is to refuse any kind of occupation, under any name.
Yes, sooner or later we will “cut and run.” The sooner we recognize this situation the better we will be. But this administration will never do it. If we cut and run we will become stronger, because after that we will not go to war unless it is constitutional. Our great constitution contains all the safeguards if we follow it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
