Communitarian Letter #19
In this issue:
1.Question about speaking of the dead
- Exit Iraq—A Half Thought
- Comments about Security First: For A Muscular, Moral Foreign Policy
- Fewer Enemies, more (potential) Allies
- Bin Laden: Out of the Closet
- We Read…
- Upcoming Meetings and Conferences
- Communitarian News
- We Recommend…
1. Question about speaking of the dead
Should obituaries and eulogies made at funerals and wakes focus on the good a person has does in his or her life, or provide a fairly balanced view? For example, a recent obituary of Ted Stepien, one-time owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers basketball team, stated that he was ‘loved’ but not prudent, did well in some areas but ‘dropped the ball” in others. This whole matter may seem like small potatoes, a matter of manners. However, we have shown in the book We Are What We Celebrate (2004) the importance of rituals. As Durkheim has long shown, rituals are the opportunities where we reinforce our values. What should be the proper way for a community to treat those who have passed, their grieving families, and the relevant values we seek to uphold?
What say you? Send responses to . We’ll email the responses—or excerpts from them—in the following days under the heading ‘Feedback.’2.Exit Iraq—A Half Thought
The debate about what to do next in Iraq is framed as if Iraq was an island. Should the US troops leave now or later? Only if the Iraqis meet certain conditions? Stay there until “we win”? Roundly ignored is that the effects of the way the US presence in Iraq is called down depend greatly on a closely related decision: what the US and its allies plan to do about Iran.
The best way to highlight my point is to outline three key alternative scenarios. In the first, the United States declares “victory” in Iraq (say, claiming that the Iraqis are ready to take care of their own security) and withdraws most of its troops. At the same time, it concludes that Iran’s nuclear armament program cannot be stopped, but that like the USSR, Iran can be deterred from using its nuclear bombs. In this scenario Iran becomes the superpower of the Middle East, supporting ever more actively and extensively rising Islamist groups from Turkey to Yemen, from Saudi Arabia to Egypt to Palestine. A Shia theocracy is likely to prevail in major parts of Iraq, and Sunnis may well be subject to an even graver bloodshed. In the following years, the United States will be viewed in the region and elsewhere as a paper tiger and as an unreliable ally. Indeed, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are already expressing their concerns that the United States will abandon them and are increasing their anti-American rhetoric. This scenario is close to what the conventional wisdom foresees these days among those who study the Middle East.
According to a second scenario, which might be named after Vice President Cheney, the United States declares victory and withdraws most of its troops from Iraq just as in the first scenario but, at the same time, its military strikes the nuclear facilities in Iran. Such an attack would cause many civilian casualties because some of the nuclear sites are located in highly populated areas. It would further inflame the already widespread anti-American sentiments in region and in the world. It would weaken the governments in the region that are viewed as closest to the United States, especially Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. Such a strike may well further promote the notion that United States’ days as a superpower are over. Iraq and the region are even more likely to become part of Iran’s sphere of influence than under the first scenario.
In contrast, according to a third scenario, the United States declares victory in Iraq and gradually leaves but responds to earlier Iranian overtures and works out a nonaggression treaty with Iran. Iran agrees to cease the enrichment of uranium, and demonstrate to IAEA inspectors that it has no (or has disbanded) its nuclear armament program. Iran also agrees not to provide arms to various allied groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Shia militia in Iraq. The United States commits itself not to use its military forces or CIA to overthrow Iran’s Mullah government; that is, to forego forced regime change. In this scenario, a negotiated settlement between the Sunnis and Shia in Iraq becomes much more likely. The same holds for keeping at bay various Islamist groups in other Middle Eastern countries as well as, arguably, a gradual development of political reforms and one day, democratization, in these nations. This scenario, my favorite, is spelled out in a new book Security First, just published by Yale University Press.
One can of course spin other scenarios. The main point though stands: debates as to what is going to happen in Iraq if the United States leaves, escalates, or merely holds on are all woefully incomplete half-thoughts if they do not encompass the ways one deals with Iran. The two decisions simply refuse to be decoupled. Those who are searching for the road to the future of the region should realize that it runs through Tehran.
3.Comments aboutSecurity First: For A Muscular, Moral Foreign Policy. Amitai Etzioni, YaleUniversity Press.
“As soon as I received Security First I put it on the top of my list of things to read. Now that I have had a chance to delve into it, I can tell you it is an interesting book with a lot to say about current events, what we see going on in the world around us, and more importantly, what we should do about it. I am greatly enjoying it.”
-Senator Michael B. Enzi (R-Wyoming)
“Amitai Etzioni of GWU recently published what I think is an excellent book on foreign policy called "Security First". It argues that the U.S. should give first priority to exporting security, not democracy. A smart, ethical rejoinder to the neocons.”
-Jonathan Rauch, writer-in-residence at The Brookings Institution and correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly
- Fewer Enemies, More (Potential) Allies
I know these lines are going to cost me. Nevertheless, what is one to do? Truth be told, Karen Hughes, the Public Diplomacy Tsar of the Condi Rice State Department, aced it: In an op-ed in the Washington Post on September 17, she pointed out that Muslim majorities in numerous Muslim nations (including the larger ones) are rejecting terrorism, suicide bombers and bin Laden. Moreover, recent data show that these ranks are increasing by leaps and bounds (See at:
Here are some of the details, in her own words:“… polling in Turkey two years ago found that 90 percent of citizens believe the al-Qaeda bombings in London, Istanbul, Madrid and Egypt were unjust and unfair; 86 percent thought that there was no excuse for condoning the Sept. 11 attacks; and 75 percent said bin Laden does not represent Muslims.” Hughes correctly added that “Perhaps most significant, Muslim populations are increasingly rejecting bin Laden's attempts to pervert their faith.WorldPublicOpinion.org found in April that large majorities in Egypt (88 percent), Indonesia (65 percent) and Morocco (66 percent) agree: Groups that use violence against civilians, such as Al Qaeda, are violating the principles of Islam. “
Most importantly, there is not a word, not one, about democratization. As we previously argued (in Security First), if one makes support for democracy the litmus test for those Muslims we can work with, and defines all those who do not yet share this belief as the enemy, then we shall find most Muslims on the wrong side of the fence. In contrast, if we come to view all those who reject violence, terrorism and civil war as potential ‘Partners in Peace,’ we will find many Muslims on the right side of the fence, as the data both Hughes and we have assembled demonstrate.
There is nothing in the data to suggest that if we were to help form a new global architecture, in which people of different beliefs would work together to serve their interest in security, that we ought to stop promoting democracy through non-lethal means.
We may have been among the first to point to these data and the many conclusions that follow from them. However, this is not about the pride of authorship but about a major course correction in foreign policy. It is a terribly overdue change.
5.Bin Laden: Out of the Closet
Most commentators found little new or noteworthy in a recent rambling 26-minute long release from Al Qaeda's video production wing. Actually, the tape reveals, arguably more clearly than any of the previous ones, what bin Laden is truly after. He wants nothing less than for all of us to rush out and convert to Islam. In his inimical words, "I invite you to embrace Islam, for the greatest mistake one can make in this world and one which is uncorrectable is to die while not surrendering to Allah."
This call to join the faith is of great importance because bin Laden has been miscast by some on the left as a sort of a labor union leader, with three specific demands that could be negotiated leading to an end of terrorism. Indeed, in previous tapes, especially the Feb. 23, 1998 release, bin Laden did list three specific demands: he called for lifting the sanctions imposed on Iraq by the U.S. and its allies (in Saddam's days), the removal of U.S. troops from the land of holy Muslim sites (in Saudi Arabia), and the ending of U.S. support for Israel. Among those who called for dealing with Al Qaeda by meeting these demands were MIT world-renowned linguist and leftist super-hero Noam Chomsky; radical Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the prestigious University of California at Berkeley, Chalmers Johnson; and the anemic left-leaning weekly journal, The Nation.
Actually, for bin Laden, as the most recent tape makes clear, these three specific demands are only a kind of opening move. The fact is that bin Laden and his followers have a strong set of values. They do believe that, if left unchecked, the West will undermine many if not all the moral precepts that they hold dear. They believe that the West is materialistic and cares more about affluence than the after life; that the West is hedonistic and knows little about sacrifices for higher purposes; that the West is individualistic, and does not recognize the importance of family, community, and religious values. Islam (but only a "pure" version, as distinct from the corrupted version currently practiced by many millions of Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere) is held to be the best antidote to all these modernistic ailments.
In 2002, I was a guest of the reformers in Iran. I deliberately spent most of my time outside Tehran, in several towns and villages, including in the holy city of Qom. My conversations with the mullahs reinforced my observations as a sociologist that they firmly believe that the only way to preserve the traditional way of life is for Muslims to have political regimes of their own.
Moreover, the mullahs held, with the strong convictions of true believers, that they ought to bring the light -- that is, their beliefs and ways of life -- to all others whose souls have not yet been saved. This expansionist, messianic urge forms an important part of their religious conviction. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are often depicted as substantially different from the mullahs and the Taliban on this point. However, as the recent tape reminds us, the difference is smaller than it has often been depicted.
I have no problem with a society seeking to preserve many of its traditional ways (excluding especially their appalling tendency to treat women as inferior beings). And I see nothing wrong in the mullahs and bin Laden calling on Americans to pick up their faith, just as we call on their people to embrace human rights and democracy.
What we must reject is the use of bombs, guns and other tools of terrorism and war to settle such dialogues. The fact that our government also resorted to these means of violence, and not only in response to being attacked, certainly does not make them right. If bin Laden and company were truly merely out to try to convert us, this is something we should be able to live with. Indeed, it is a challenge we should welcome. However, as long as they continue to lob bombs, whatever their motive, we will have to stop them dead in their tracks.
- We read:
A.)The New Social Contract—Health Insurance and Communities
David Brooks touts a new work by Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation, which calls for a new social contract between American citizens and their government regarding health insurance and coverage. Butler sees America as a “thick society” and argues that “unions, churches and community groups should be involved in health care and social support.” This is not a call for centralized, top-down health care, but for a contract that “envisions society as a dense but flexible web of social networks.”
Brook observes the same communitarian tendency in the new health care reform proposal of Hillary Clinton, who, as he writes,keeps coming back to the term ‘partnerships’ when she describes the central idea of her ‘evolutionary’ approach to reform.“Clinton, at her most hopeful moments, is a communitarian”, he states. “When she’s asked to describe a system that works, she describes diverse people coming together around a big table to reach a consensus. The envisaged partnerships would thus include “an array of different social entities — individuals, the federal government, insurance companies, doctors and hospitals — coming together and exercising shared responsibility for creating a better system.”
Although Brooks remarks that Clinton’s plan has the general weakness of the communitarian approach in that it might not be able to include all relevant societal forces into its ‘magical circle’ – notably state governments and insurance companies – he concludes that the plan is a huge step forward towards a responsible and inclusive system.
To read more, go to
The New Contract By DAVID BROOKS, at
Published: September 7, 2007, in The New York Times, and
B.)“Loving Your Neighbor”—Can Allophilia Conquer All?
Does social science spend too much time studying why people dislike one another? Todd L. Pittinsky thinks so, and led an investigation into why people like one another. He and his team argue that “allophilia”—the liking for other groups beyond our own—is a measurable state of mind, one that can influence how people interact with others and make personal decisions.
To read more, go to
Positive prejudice – Really loving your neighbourBy TODD L. PITTINSKY, at
Published: March 15, 2007, in The Economist
7.Up-coming Meetings and Conferences
* Security First: For A Muscular, Moral Foreign Policy,keynote address. Tuesday,October 9 @ 7pm,Institute of Contemporary Arts, 12 Carlton House Terrace, London, UK.
* Security First. Wednesday, October 10 @ 11am,Centre for the Study of Social Justice, OrielCollege, Oxford University, UK.
* Communitarian Philosophy. Thursday, October 11 @ 7pm,St. Andrews University, Scotland.
* Security First. Friday, October 12 @ 1pm,EdinburghUniversity,Teviot Building,Scotland.UK.
* Security First. Saturday, October 13 @ 2pm,Colonials Weekend, The MarvinCenter. GWU,Washington, DC.
If you are interested in attending or learning more about these events, please contact Sebastian Mehling at or 202-994-8194.
8.Communitarian News
New DWU FacebookGroup
Our new Diversity within Unitygroupon Facebook wants to connect people who seek to change the public debate about immigration, minority rights, individual freedom, and intercultural dialogue. We hope that those interested in a more inclusive, transnational and more authentic dialogue will use the Facebook page to connect with other people with similar (or also oppositional) ideas. Join the DWU group, posts news, join the discussions and help to create a better, more inclusive and more robust community.
Take a look at:
(Facebook account required)
Polish Communitarians
Mr. Zbiginiev Grzyp, president of the Free Democrats in Poland cordially invites you to take a look at the latest newsletter of the Polish communitarians,Polscy Wolni Demokraci - Biuletyn Informacyjny. It includes English language articles, as forexample in this issue the article ‘Our Village, Our School—Our Community,’which deals with about educational reform in Poskwitów, Poland
To read more, go to:
We recommend:
A.)Who is a citizen? Who is not?
How do states decide who becomes a citizen? Are there different types of citizenship? These questions are explored in Amitai Etzioni’s “Citizenship Tests: A Comparative, Communitarian Perspective,” published in the July-September 2007 edition of The Political Quarterly.