Can the Pakistan-Taliban Link Be Severed?

According to the military strategist Sun Tzu, attacking alliances, while inferior as a strategy of warfare to attacking the enemy’s plans, is superior to attacking the enemy’s army, and much superior to attacking cities. [1]  In this regard, it appears that an opportunity has opened up for us in Pakistan’s proxy war against the United States and NATO.

Information received from Taliban prisoners of war has revealed that severing the alliance between the Taliban and al-Qaeda has largely been successful, since it serves no purpose other than to “invite targeting.” [2]  The significance of that development should not be underestimated, since it was that alliance that necessitated the U.S. and NATO invasion of Afghanistan in the first place.

The alliance of interest that remains is that between Pakistan and the Taliban, an alliance in which the Taliban is decidedly the junior partner.  But it seems that the Taliban leaders and fighters are not particularly enthusiastic about their Pakistani patrons.  That only makes sense, of course, since it is the goal of Pakistan to control events in Afghanistan, while it is the Taliban’s aim to control the country itself.

If the line between the Taliban and al-Qaeda is completely severed, then a settlement between the U.S. and the Taliban is within reach.  Both parties have an interest in an Afghanistan that is ruled by Afghans.  It is in the interest of the United States that the connection between Pakistan and the Taliban be severed, and the Taliban, it appears, would gladly cut those ties if given the opportunity.

The United States is in a position to offer protection against Pakistani encroachments in exchange for an agreement on the part of the Taliban to submit to internationally monitored elections.  A refusal on the Taliban’s part to agree to that arrangement would be inconsistent with its claim of commanding significant popular support in Afghanistan.  An effort would have to be made, however, to convince the Taliban that it wasn’t jumping out of the frying pan into the fryer by cooperating with the United States.

Occupy Oakland and the Original Tea Party

Pelting police officers with bottles, metal piping, rocks, spray cans, improvised explosive devices, and burning flares, along with setting fire to American flags and committing vandalism, are not recommended ways of staying out of jail, nor are they actions well tailored to gain general public sympathy.  But such were the actions of the Occupy protestors in Oakland, California this past weekend [1], leaving city workers to clean up the mess this morning. [2]

No matter how much one may find common ground with the aims of the Occupy Movement, surely no rational person expects the police to passively endure a rain of rocks and explosives.  Moreover, it would be unrealistic to hope that the mayor of Oakland would applaud the destruction of property in city hall.

Yet the Boston Tea Party could not have been welcomed by the East India Company, and the colonists who participated had no reasonable expectation of anything other than the retaliation by Parliament that followed.  And when the Massachusetts militiamen resisted with deadly force the march of the British regulars on Concord, they certainly understood that they had engaged in the ultimate manifestation of disrespect for the existing order.  Neither of these actions, it can be said with confidence, were lawful.

The ambiguity that may be felt by many Americans toward an Occupy Movement turned violent is born of the recognition that the United States itself came into existence through violent revolt.  There is little likelihood that the American Revolution was the only such revolt that had been, or ever will be, justified in its aims.

Will the Occupy Movement be viewed by future generations as a noble cause, worthy of breaching the legal edifice of the system it protests?  The answer depends in large part on the outcome.  To the victors go not only the spoils, but the writing of history.

The revolt of that first generation came about because the British Parliament imposed taxes on the colonists who had no representation in that body.  The revolt emerging in our time is the result of a Congress that all the world knows to be purchased by moneyed interests. 

The British Parliament acquired too much of a taste for passing legislation unimpeded by democratic restraints to forestall the revolution that gave birth to our Republic.  To date, our Congress has shown little inclination to abolish the influence of money in politics, hoping, perhaps, that most of us will remain law-abiding and put up with it.

The HHS Contraception Mandate and the First Amendment

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has issued a rule requiring most health insurance plans to cover contraceptives for women free of charge.  Even though the use of artificial birth control violates one of the tenets of the Catholic religion, there is no exemption for insurance provided to employees of Catholic hospitals, colleges, and charities. [1]  Is this constitutional?  The First Amendment of the Constitution says this:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” [2]

That should be clear enough.  The plain language of the Amendment tells us that Congress can’t prohibit the free exercise of religion.  HHS gets its rule-making power from Congress, and can’t have more authority than Congress has.  To fully practice the Catholic religion one must abstain from participating in artificial birth control.  But the HHS rule requires Catholic hospitals, colleges, and charities to participate in artificial birth control by funding it through their employee insurance plans.  So the HHS rule must violate the First Amendment.  Right?

Unfortunately, it’s not that simple.  The U.S. Supreme Court is hard to follow on this issue because it can’t make up its mind.  For awhile it was applying what is called the Sherbert test, not for any dessert-like qualities, but after a Supreme Court case captioned Sherbert v. Verner. [3]  Under the Sherbert test, a government could substantially infringe on a person’s free exercise of his religion if it had a really, really good reason, in legal parlance referred to as a “compelling state interest,” and it couldn’t do what it wanted to do any other way.  Of course, the First Amendment doesn’t say that the free exercise of religion can be prohibited if the government has a real good reason for it, but we can’t let all these rights inconvenience the government too much.

That was the test for awhile.  Then, in 1990, came Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith. [4]  This was a case where two adherents of the Native American Church were fired by a private drug rehabilitation organization because they took peyote as part of their religious practice.  When they tried to collect unemployment benefits they were turned down because they had been terminated for work-related misconduct.

Looking at this case, the Supreme Court decided to apply a new standard.  Basically, the Court said that the law against taking peyote was a law that applied to everybody, and wasn’t enacted for the purpose of restricting the practices of the Native American Church, so someone can’t just take peyote as part of his religion and get away with it.  The new rule, then, was this: one may freely practice his religion unless it’s against the law.

Well, this just stunk to high hell, to the point that even the non-peyote-taking members of Congress decided to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). [5]  What the Act restored was not complete religious freedom, but the Sherbert test.  So, for purposes of federal law, the government may only restrict religious freedom if it has a good reason and can’t do what it wants to do any other way.  The RFRA doesn’t apply to state laws, however [6], and state laws only have to meet the standard of the Smith case.

So, where does that leave us?  The HHS contraception mandate is federal law, so a compelling governmental interest will have to be shown in order to uphold it.  To that end, the Obama Administration will argue from the hedonistic Malthusianism that has permeated the dominant paradigm of Western culture.  That the Court would rule, once and for all, that our governments don’t get to infringe on religious practices and beliefs just because they think they have a good idea is probably too much to hope for.

Should the Court uphold the mandate we might well receive the curse of living in interesting times.  Sometimes civilizations collide, and we might see the irresistible force of the American government encounter the immovable object of the Catholic Church.

Stay tuned.

Why I Won't Be Voting for Barack Obama in 2012

He has violated the War Powers Act. [1]  He has done nothing to reduce the influence of money on politics. [2]  He has authorized the indefinite detention, without trial, of American citizens [3], believing that he already had that authority before it was enacted into legislation. [4]  Now President Obama has demonstrated that he has no respect for religious freedom, thus living up to the caricature of him painted by his opponents.

In the case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, the Obama administration adopted the extraordinary position that churches do not have the unlimited and unfettered right to decide who their ministers will be under the First Amendment to the Constitution, and should, therefore, be subject to employment discrimination actions when ministers are dismissed. [5]  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the Obama Administration unanimously.

Now Mr. Obama has decided that Catholic and other religiously affiliated entities will have to cover their employees with health coverage that includes payment for artificial birth control, even if doing so is against the tenets of their respective religions. [6]  There is an exemption for religious employers, which appears to cover not much more than churches themselves.   A religious employer doesn’t qualify for the exemption if it employs or serves large numbers of people of a different religion, as do many Catholic hospitals, universities, and social service agencies.

In a palpable effort to get this issue past the 2012 election, the Administration has given church-affiliated organizations an additional year, to August 1, 2013, to comply with the new requirement.  Other employers will have to comply by August 1^st of this year.  The sardonic nature of this response has not gone unnoticed.  As Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York, the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has remarked, “In effect, the President is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences.”

Congress may overrule the new regulation, or the courts may strike it down.  If neither of those things happen, Catholic employers will have no alternative but to engage in civil disobedience.  With that spectacular prospect in view, it is easy to see why the Obama Administration is willing to delay the new rule’s implementation until after the election.

Mr. Obama received 54% of the Catholic vote in 2008. [7]  Your humble servant was of that number.  This President has rewarded us with unjust war, by threatening the citizenry with gross injustice, by letting it be known that he stands squarely on the side of political corruption, and now this shot across the bow of our deeply held religious beliefs.  This Catholic will not be voting for Barack Obama in 2012.

Afghan Soldiers Killing Allied Forces

The New York Times is reporting that American and other coalition forces in Afghanistan are being killed in increasing numbers by the very Afghan soldiers they fight alongside and train. [1]  It appears that the American and Afghan soldiers don’t like each other very much, and the mutual contempt has erupted in lethal attacks.

American soldiers complain that their Afghan counterparts are untrustworthy on patrol, are dishonest, abuse drugs, and are cowardly during combat.  The Afghan soldiers, for their part, find the Americans arrogant, and charge that they take out their frustrations at American casualties on Afghan civilians.

While the contempt is mutual, the killing has been one-sided.  There are no reported cases of Americans killing Afghan soldiers.  But between May 2007 and May 2011 at least 58 Western service members were killed in 26 separate attacks by Afghan soldiers and police nationwide.  That was 6 percent of all hostile coalition deaths during that time frame.

Prospects of getting a handle on this problem appear to be bleak.  One Afghan colonel says that the reciprocal hostility is growing, and promises to become a major problem among the lower ranks of the respective forces in the near future.

What to do?  The Taliban appears ready for peace talks, and the video of U.S. Marines urinating on dead Taliban fighters has not changed that posture. [2]  But it is apparently the position of the United States that any talks between the United States and the Taliban must receive the blessing of Afghan President Hamid Karzai before going forward. [3]  Interestingly, a tentative agreement between the U.S. and the Taliban, which included the transfer of five Afghan detainees from the Guantanamo Bay prison to Qatar and the Taliban’s renunciation of international terrorism, fell apart in December when Mr. Karzai refused to go along with it. [4]

Mr. Karzai, of course, has every right to decide what terms of settlement he will accept.  In fact, he has the right to order American and NATO troops out of his country.  But he does not have the right to order allied troops to remain in Afghanistan.  It’s time to let Mr. Karzai know just how anxious we are to leave.  He can let us begin talks with the Taliban, and he can agree to a reasonable settlement, or we can pack our bags.

Hopefully, this latest lesson that nation-building is a stupid idea will stay with us for a few generations.