A second dialogue on Iraq

(Peg and Al are at the fancy-coffee shop on a Saturday evening.)

Al: So what brings you out for coffee?

Peg: C.J. and I were supposed to see a film, but there was something on C-SPAN he just couldn't miss. I thought I'd do some Christmas shopping and get a coffee.

Al: Did you find anything worth buying?

Peg: A couple of things for my folks, but there wasn't anything that really thrilled me. A lot of this year's gift-type things are recycled from last year, I think. How are you, Al?

Al: I'm irritated.

Peg: That's news? You're always cranky about something.

Al: Well, it's about---

Peg: Let me guess. I read the paper this morning. It's all the bickering back and forth in Congress about Iraq and how soon we should get out. The Senate scolded the President about not reporting to them regularly, and the House debated a bill to set a timetable for getting out.

Al: Yup, that's the newspaper version, for sure.

Peg: I shouldn't repeat what I read in the paper?

Al: No, of course not. You have to read between the lines. What they tell you is one-sided and incomplete. They have this compulsion to put everything in terms of a controversy.

Peg: The last time I looked at the Constitution, Al, the Congress did have the power to declare war and oversee spending on it.

Al: You're right. The part we overlook is that they do supervise the conduct of the war. The executive branch really can't hide anything, and reports continuously to a number of committees. Don Rumsfeld said last weekend that the Defense Department alone had filed 900 reports to Congress since the fighting began.

Peg: If that's true, then why does the Senate want more information?

Al: Rummy gave us a clue: "I hope someone's reading them," he said.

Peg: That would imply that he thinks their minds are made up, and that their vote wasn't about information and oversight.

Al: That's putting it nicely. It was about politics. The Senate wound up passing a bill that gave them information that they already had access to. They passed it for the sake of having regular opportunities to debate and second-guess. That way, the opponents can complain more often.

Peg: But the House debated a bill, too, didn't they?

Al: That's the problem--endless debate without any purpose. They debated a bill to set a quick timetable for removing the troops from Iraq. It never had any chance at passing and was defeated 403 to 3. The sponsors didn't even vote for it.

Peg: What you're saying is that it was not introduced for a sincere purpose--only to create a controversy.

Al: The majority figured out that the House's time was being wasted and called for a quick vote. They saw through it. Only three congresspersons thought it was prudent to vote for a quick, arbitrary end to the war.

Peg: But it sounded for a while, with the polls and all, like people are really turning against the war.

Al: Apparently not, according to those whose congressional careers depend on getting that sort of thing right. That's empirical.

Peg: So you don't really believe opinions about Iraq are changing?

Al: I really don't. That doesn't mean folks aren't having their doubts. War is ugly and uncertain, so doubts are natural. The anti-war senators and representatives are trying to turn those doubts into a movement. But, based on those two votes last week, it's pure politics.

Peg: So, even though the anti-war group knew their bills didn't change anything, they pursued them anyway--because they might get traction and cause more doubt with the voters?

Al: I think so. And the passage of that compromise bill in the Senate, for the sake of defeating a radical, end-the-war-now law, gave them a small victory and some credibility.

Peg: But I'm not sure how you can be so pro-war, Al. It just seems like the whole business isn't going well--assuming we should be in Iraq in the first place!

Al: Why do you think we shouldn't be there?

Peg: I knew you'd ask me that.

Al: But that's really the important part, isn't it?

Peg: It is. Anyone can quibble about tactics and such. I'm not clear about why we're there. I don't know that anyone else might be, either, considering all the stories that were put out at the time.

Al: "Stories" or "reasons"?

Peg: Doesn't that depend on your point of view?

Al: No I think it's important to know, and demonstrable, whether the nation went to war based on "reasons" or "stories".

Peg: What you're saying is that even you are open to the possibility that some false pretenses were put forward to make the case for war?

Al: Sure, but the less so, the more I read.

Peg: Huh?

Al: I think I gave the evidence a good going-over when the UN debates were going on. I still try to read what the anti-war folks are saying, too. The more I read, the less convinced I am, if I ever was, that they have a good argument on the facts. But, I'm always open to new information.

Peg: What about the WMDs? The government's own investigation said they didn't exist.

Al: Are you sure that's what it said?

Peg: Pretty sure. That's what the senators are saying, some of them.

Al: I didn't read the whole Kay report. I did read the fine print of the summaries that were published. That commission didn't say "didn't exist" and they didn't say "no evidence" in such absolute ways. Mr. Kay said that his investigators did not find caches of ready-to-use WMDs, and that, in spite of efforts by Saddam Hussein's government to lead its neighbors to think there were WMDs, Iraq had not successfully rebuilt their whole weapons program after the first Gulf War.

Peg: That's convincing to me.

Al: Convincing of what?--I just have to ask.

Peg: I'd say convincing that this is a "story" and not a "reason".

Al: Let's follow a line of reasoning here. Bear with me.

Peg: O.K.--

Al: Did Iraq ever have WMDs?

Peg: Sure--they used nerve gas against Iran's armies in the early 80's. They used them later against Kurdish and, I think, Shi'ite villages. They wanted to teach a lesson about dissent.

Al: That's why the UN sent in investigators and monitors after the Gulf War--to seal and destroy whatever chemical stocks they could find.

Peg: Right.

Al: And basically they tried to do the same thing to Iraq's nuclear program--right?

Peg: They wanted to, but didn't the Israelis help them out with that?

Al: Yeah, they blew up a big reactor that everyone thought was a weapons factory. That was actually earlier, in 1981, at a place called Osirak. But its existence would certainly testify to Iraq's intentions, even over a long period of time. After the Gulf War the UN did find an active nuclear weapons program, with hundreds of scientists working on it and a whole security corps dedicated to keeping it hidden. The UN kept inspection teams in Iraq until they were expelled in 1998. Until that time they documented a whole series of evasions and violations. The UN had already begun issuing its famous series of 17 resolutions demanding that Iraq comply with its international agreements on WMDs. That's all on the UN record.

Peg: Isn't that ancient history? The Iraq war was started in 2003.

Al: No; the UN inspectors were ordered back in 2000, then again in 2002.

Peg: And--?

Al: It was a cat-and-mouse game. The last inspectors said basically what the United States group reaffirmed in 2004: that Iraq had not manufactured a workable nuclear weapon, but that it had held on to the capability of producing one from existing materials and equipment, and an active interest in continuing such a program. The government of Saddam Hussein also had worked very hard to keep the UN inspectors away from their scientists.

Peg: So it wasn't exactly "no WMDs".

Al: Correct. The fact is that Iraq's "trajectory" or behavior pattern on this never changed--even going back twenty years. The UN said this, and so did the world's other security and intelligence services. This was what was reported to the UN during the Security Council debates and to Americans on the nightly news reports.

Peg: Let's see what might be plausible here. Saddam Hussein didn't have and didn't need and actual nuclear bomb, but he kept the equipment, parts and technology around in some way, complete or otherwise. Where is all this stuff now?

Al: Some items, we think, disappeared in the chaos of the war. A great deal is in Iraq under American military seizure. The forces have shipped the most dangerous materials to secure military weapons bases in the US for safekeeping. We know that technology, equipment and scientists disappeared in 2002 while the UN was still debating what to do and playing word games with Iraqi diplomats over inspections.

Peg: Are you saying that the Security Council debates served as a "cover" to delay actions by the community of nations that would confront Iraq with the real evidence? Deliberately?

Al: I don't think we know how deliberate, but everyone now knows that there was a level of real corruption and collaboration between Saddam Hussein and people in authority at the UN.

Peg: That's been all over the news. So, O.K., maybe I'll grant you the WMD argument by a nose, but I'll still go read some more. But look, isn't all this just about oil, money and power in that part of the world?

Al: I'd have to challenge that, because it's become one of those "blanket" statements that people fall back on when other things fail. As objective factors, oil, money and power are very important, but I don't think the facts would support any sort of conspiracy theory about this--it's also a distraction from the realities we should be considering.

Peg: I think a lot of people today do say that. They think more along the lines of a few shadowy individuals acting to enhance their own positions. That wouldn't be good for anyone.

Al: We probably do have a way to get to the bigger picture here, though, without that unprovable and improbable speculation. Let's assume for a minute that the situation in Iraq might be better after this current hostility subsides, at least to a degree, and that American military forces are able to withdraw to basic protection and peace-keeping duties in the Middle East. Do you think this scenario is plausible?

Peg: Iraq won't ever be utopia. I do think a relatively stable situation can be created there, even with what has gone on. Even if some nasty people from Al Qaeda are still there, if you could get some agreement with Iran and Syria to keep out, and encourage the factions in Iraq to restrain themselves, then it has to be better than under Saddam Hussein.

Al: Better for whom?

Peg: It would be safer for all the other countries in the region, if those conditions could be put in place.

Al: I think that's the American intention--to create that sort of a situation. I'd say it's probably safer already, in most areas of Iraq. There are big elections coming up under their new constitution. The news says people are looking forward to voting, and even the Sunnis have proposed candidates in their areas. They've given up the idea of boycotting elections. There are little noises in the Muslim world that are questioning whether this use of violent anarchy to accomplish social goals is a good thing.

Peg: There is also one less influential tyrant to start mischief.

Al: I don't think we can underestimate that, either. I also don't think we can underestimate the seizing of whatever volume of WMD materials we've managed to get hold of, but history will have to bear that out.

Peg: So, what's the progress, then, really?

Al: More stability. The greater isolation of Iran and Syria as long as they support terrorism. The general security of the flow of Mid-East oil, which helps the world's economy whatever you may think about the longer-term environmental issues. The Palestinians are having to settle their own leadership issues. This allows Israel to pull back from Gaza and work out a deal on the West Bank.

Peg: So you're an optimist.

Al: I think the risks of the forced regime change in Iraq were enormous. They may still be. It's more of a political situation now. I think security issues might begin to take a back seat.

Peg: But the troops aren't out.

Al: You're right. We know they'll be coming home in some numbers in the coming year. But some will remain in or near Iraq in secure, permanent installations to keep an eye on things.

Peg: They might never be out.

Al: I won't say "never". We're just now thinking about closing bases in Germany--something the Germans have mixed feelings about. But that situation has changed since the early 90's and the days of the Soviet Union. Geopolitically, did that presence make a difference?

Peg: Of course it did.

Al: I rest my case. I think the bigger picture is what we need to look at.

Peg: So we live in a world where the use of military force is still a reality. That's pretty cynical.

Al: I don't think so. That's a whole other level of thinking. But I think I need to get home and start getting ready for the end of the semester.

Peg: Sounds good--I'm tired from shopping, and thinking. See you later.

First dialogue on education

(Peg and Al again. Recall that they are teachers at a private high school. Al teaches Math and Peg, Government. It's Monday afternoon, classes over for the day. Peg enters the lounge to find Al glaring at the coffee maker.)


Peg: Hello, Al. How was your day? --Uh, no coffee?

Al: No coffee in the pot; no coffee in the cabinet; no coffee in the storage closet. How can I work if there's no coffee? There's not even a decent coffee shop in the neighborhood--not even a bad coffee place around. Inhuman conditions; good grief!

Peg: Whoa, partner, don't lose your grip. I just saw Juliet and Roxie rolling the coffee supplies down to the cafeteria. I guess they’re setting up for that reception tonight. Let me just step over there and borrow some coffee back. I’d like a fresh cup, too.

Al: You don’t have to do that.

Peg: I’ll be right back, Al.

(A few minutes pass. Peg returns, makes fresh coffee.)

Al: That’s good coffee--thanks!

Peg: No problem.

Al: I’m just going to sit for a few minutes to let today’s case of nerves calm down.

Peg: I know. Monday’s a bear. The weekend resets your tempo to baseline, and Monday brings back the thrills, chills and frustration. That’s teaching.

Al: Between the students, the administration, the grading and our ever-cheery compatriots, we’re outnumbered.

Peg: But would you do anything different?

Al: I wouldn’t

Peg: I get a yen to try something else every so often. I took the law school exam about ten years ago, but didn’t follow through with any applications. I really didn’t want to make a career change, just a money change, and for me it would have taken too much time and energy to be worth it.

Al: I know you like issues and controversies. You would probably make an excellent plaintiff’s attorney or public interest advocate. But, you’re a great teacher, too.

Peg: Thanks! There are some good days. Every time I start thinking I haven’t found my vocation yet, something comes along to remind me that I should do what I’m doing now. Guess you’re it, this time.

Al: Well, I have my days, too. Not that I’d want to do something other than teach, but I do wonder what good I’m doing after thirty years.

Peg: We’re not setting the world on fire, that’s for sure. The students aren’t motivated.

Al: There are two questions I keep asking my students: Why do you get up in the morning? and Why do you--or your parents--think you should be showing up at our doors and in our classrooms every day?

Peg: How do they answer?

Al: Mainly they give me a confused look. I don’t think they have an answer.

Peg: Ouch.

Al: Once in a while a brave soul will look at me and say “It’s because I want something better than a boring, routine job.” Or, “I don’t want to spend my life on a hot roof like my cousins have to do.”

Peg: Sounds like as good a reason to go to school as any other.

Al: Well, it’s a start. And at least it proves there are some moral absolutes, even if they’re negatives. Most people do share those same sentiments. My question, though, is why it’s so hard to discover and then to commit yourself to some sort of a positive reason why you should be getting an education.

Peg: Maybe when you’re young you don’t have the readiness to find something to really pursue. Did you have some really definite ambitions when you were in high school?

Al: No, but I was sort of a contrarian. Whatever I thought most of my peers wanted to do, I would choose something radically opposite. But as to whether I really ever set my sights on a definite career and began to take real steps, no such thing. I was busy reading. What about you?

Peg: I was pretty typical. Mom and dad had their business; I think they tried to steer me in that direction. I had in mind that other things might be cooler: my sports, and whatever clubs I was in at the moment. I thought about a business career and gave law or politics a glance now and then.

Al: These things don’t really take a final shape until we actually do them. Even in college I changed majors officially once, and thought about it a couple of other times.

Peg: Me, too. My pre-law studies eventually became a degree in government and history with a teaching certificate attached, just in case. Now I can talk about public and political things all day, and have job security.

Al: That’s something that people in the political world don’t have, that’s for sure.

Peg: How did you wind up teaching Math? Don’t you have degrees in philosophy?

Al: It was an accident. When I graduated, I got hired as an emergency Math fill-in because I had taken enough courses in math and logic to satisfy somebody’s requirements. You know how hard it is to find Math people. They’re all in engineering, business, economics. I liked teaching, so I went back and finished the certification. But as you know I’ve taught other things, too. This and my night classes keep me fed and supplied with reading.

Peg: I’d rather keep up my garden than be a bookworm.

Al: Now you’re not going to tell me you never read. We’ve had too many good conversations for you to convince me you’re one of those brain-dead adults.

Peg: You’re right. I read the paper, a couple of good, serious magazines, lots of novels and some of the books on politics and history that show up as best-sellers. I guess nowadays I should read more from the Internet, too, since that’s where all the action seems to be. But I certainly don’t read all that philosophy stuff and literature that you read.

Al: I don’t know that many people do any more. I’m still the odd one in the crowd. I am up to speed on the Internet, though. In fact, I’ll tell you a secret: I have a blog.

Peg: Really? What do you put there--joke of the day?

Al: Once in a while the world gets a taste of my wry, ironic humor. Mainly there are a couple of things I use it for, when I have time. I store there some of the better thoughts that I happen across in my reading. Then I try to work out verbally some of the ideas I have about a couple of the topics I like to read about. Maybe eventually I’ll try to collect some of that randomness into something worth publishing. One thing leads to another, I hope.

Peg: Well I wish more adults would entertain an occasional literate thought--especially in and around our community..

Al: I’m a basic fatalist about that. For many of us, a literate thought is foreign territory. I know university professors who are as narrow in their learning as garage mechanics--in fact, the mechanics are more interesting to have a conversation. With my old car, I’m an expert on that. But I guess that’s the thing about educating human beings in society and for society. It’s a slow process that we can’t do alone. The whole culture has to be supportive. The media have to help, but today they only seem to make things stupider. The government’s schools have to improve. And parents have to do their jobs responsibly.

Peg: How do they do that? There are plenty of theories out there.

Al: One thing is for certain: parents have to model one critical value--a reverence for learning.

Peg: Are you sure “reverence” is the right word?

Al: I’m absolutely sure of that. I mean reverence in the exact sense, even with a religious connotation, as if learning is a kind of sacred object. We have to have the attitude that good learning possesses intrinsic value not only for what it provides in the utilitarian sense, but for what it is. Here’s an example: I’m sure you’ve noticed that there are certain of our foreign-born students, who live in traditional-culture families, who seem to have this attitude of a very special respect for learning--and for their teachers, too.

Peg: I sure have. It’s refreshing--makes me really feel like a teacher and not a lion-tamer or baby-sitter.

Al: Have you also noticed how these same students achieve an amazing learning curve in language skills, then quickly begin to surpass the competition in the rest of their acadmics?

Peg: Who wouldn’t notice?

Al: That’s exactly the point. Real learning, not surface knowledge, is about attitude and discipline.

Peg: Isn’t there a quote about character and fate--let’s see...

Al: That would be “A man’s character is his destiny.” Heraclitus said it in the pre-socratic era.

Peg: Thank you, doctor polymath.

Al: Any time--but you do see my point, don’t you?

Peg: I think you’re absolutely right, and I agree. The only thing I’d add would be that it’s not only those foreign students. We’ve got a fair number of other students who really strive to inquire, to learn, to discover.

Al: You’re right. These are the ones we have to support and to continue to push along. We’ve also got to be sure to tell them that we appreciate how they’ve got their heads on straight. And we’ve got to find ways to entice others to join this little community.

Peg: You’re right about that, too. We’ll have to continue this train of thought another time, though. I’ve got to pack my things and get on my way. I’m meeting my lawyer neighbor, C.J., for dinner.

Al: Say hi for me. Tell him not to be a stranger. I want to ask him about Judge Alito’s confirmation and all that.

Peg: Well, do you feel like joining us?

Al: It would be a nice start to the week. I’ll get my things and follow you. See you in a sec.