They Did What !

It seems obvious that a solution is only a solution if it actually resolves the problem. If it doesn’t solve the problem it is simply a pacifier masquerading as a solution to placate those who are demanding action.

That appears to be the case with the issue of Blackwater in Iraq. There was a big uproar over the September 2007 killing of 17 Iraqi citizens in what was apparently an unprovoked attack by Blackwater contractors. The American public was outraged, Congress was outraged, and the Iraqi government was calling for the removal of Blackwater personnel from their country. It was all over the news, talk shows, editorials and articles. There were congressional hearings at which Erik Prince, Blackwater founder and president was grilled by Democrats and praised and defended by Republicans. Then as often happens, the issue faded from sight and hearing.

Now, after a period of silence, the U.S. and Iraqi governments announced new rules for Iraq contractors. These new rules require private security contractors to coordinate their operations with military authorities. The rules lay down specifics about when and under what conditions security personnel can shoot people. But there is one important ingredient missing in these new rules. They do not clarify whether contractors can be prosecuted under U.S. or Iraqi law. Considering the fact that this question of prosecution was a major issue in the September killings, it seems pretty clear that these new rules are a pacifier and not a solution.

It has always seemed strange when a moralistic denouncer of others turned out to be engaged in the very behavior he was condemning. Now, finally, there is an explanation. A study done by Scott Reynolds of the University of Washington surveying 290 workplace managers and 230 college students, found that those who considered themselves morally superior also thought their virtue set them above the rules. Some of the subjects admitted openly that their good intentions justified their major and frequent breaches of ethics. They “tell themselves they’re entitled to special rewards for their piety and their virtue.”

When you add to that the feelings of control and supremacy that positions of power give, it explains how so many politicians and evangelists have been involved in financial and sexual scandals. When a sense of entitlement combines with feelings of power, barriers disappear and normal inhibitions evaporate.

You do have to wonder, however, how someone can conclude that behavior they condemn as sinful in others can be considered a "special reward" for them. Such is the nature of run-away rationalization.

It is hard to get my mind around the latest Bush “clarification” of things, in this case, Iran.

For over a year President Bush has repeatedly said that Iran was trying to build a nuclear weapon and that they must not be allowed to succeed in this goal. That nuclear effort was given as the reason for urging stronger and stronger U.N. sanctions against Iran, for threatening military action against them, and for refusing to meet and talk with them.

On December 4 we found out the new National Intelligence Estimate says that Iran's nuclear weapons development program has been halted since the fall of 2003. That means the reason for threatening Iran and refusing to meet with them no longer exists and hasn’t for four years. And what does President Bush say about this? Mr. Bush says the new assessment underscores the need to intensify international efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

As with the war in Iraq, the reasons may change, but the goal stays the same. So now Mr. Bush says, “Look, Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous, and Iran will be dangerous, if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. What’s to say they couldn’t start another covert nuclear weapons program?”

Mr. Bush, doesn’t that sound more like a reason to sit down and talk with Iran than to continue threatening and saber rattling?