Tuesday, February 20, 2024

On Gaza

I am the child of Iranian refugees who lost everything, even their children, to Islamists like Hamas. My ability to write these words is a defiance of the horrors of Hamas and Islamism, which I consider one and the same. The victims of Hamas’s terror, the victims of all Islamist violence including my family, deserve my voice and I’ll always speak up for them.

My grandparents converted to a religion even more marginalized in Iran, Baha’i, for whom it is illegal to practice, inherit property, or attend university. Whether courageous and savvy, or bold and lucky, my grandma sent my dad to school in England, paving a path out of soon-to-be Islamist Iran. They left behind all property and savings, including my optometrist grandpa’s glasses factories, to pursue a life better than pariahs born on the wrong side of the fence. I still remember getting glasses every birthday despite being the only Adell with 20/20 vision.

My mom relinquished custody of my half-brother and half-sister to escape an abusive child marriage and moved to the US while my siblings endured the Iran-Iraq War. During the Iran Hostage Crisis, the US revoked my mom’s visa and deported her to the UK, where she was visiting her Baha’i boyfriend. The UK granted her asylum and she married that boyfriend, eventually reuniting the family in the US many years later. She documented her story in “Leaving Darkness”, her indictment of Sharia law.

I was born of conflict, and everything I know about conflict, I’ve seen reflected in the Middle East. I’ve long understood that the Middle East is the ultimate test of whether we can transcend conflict, or whether conflict can unwittingly subsume even the most inoculated of us and fragment our humanity into something smaller, weaker, and inhumane.

“Before one studies Zen, mountains are mountains and waters are waters; after a first glimpse into the truth of Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and waters are no longer waters; after enlightenment, mountains are once again mountains and waters once again waters.” So it goes with my Middle East major at UVA, my trips to Israel and Palestine, my work in refugee camps and now as Chair at Children in Conflict.

While the history is complex, the answer to this test is not. It’s as obvious as a mountain, unseen through narrow geology or selective focus, but by beholding each story in this mountain of suffering equally. How we answer this test depends on whether we can unlearn our subhuman categories and see cruelty of any color as simplistically as it should be seen – whether we can reimagine this conflict through the eyes of a child – and recognize that neither Hamas’s horrific attacks nor Israel’s brutal response can ever be justified.

Now on the outside looking in, I’m reminded why my family can count itself far more fortunate than the countless families reeling from loss today. So what was it that allowed my family to defy what Islamism would have me be?

What saved my family and truly defied the Islamist worldview was a framework that recognized our humanity, categorically and without category, as more than an expendable means to a messianic end. Without the humanists who fought for secular, multiethnic liberal democracies, and the humanitarians who painstakingly built universal international institutions like asylum under the Refugee Convention, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I’d be as trapped as Gaza’s children are today.

It’s those who help the victims, not those who hunt the victimizers, that truly undermine brutality. We should be helping families like mine and children like me defy what Hamas would have them be. Instead, we are unwittingly endorsing Hamas’s sectarian worldview and reenacting their script with a mirrored brutality that can be just as ugly. With each kidnapped, strip-searched, orphaned, dead or dismembered child – with every rebuttal to aid and protection for each and every child – we are failing, and Hamas’s brutality is winning.

Still, I maintain my hope that our community can stand apart and transcend this conflict rather than be subsumed by it. I hope we can reimagine this conflict through the eyes of a child, through which none of these horrors can be justified. Only adults impose subhuman categories that rationalize murdering, kidnapping, burning, bombing, and burying children alive, which is why through the eyes of a child, there are two sides far more consequential than our conventional “two sides”: those who agree that no child should be a part of war, and those who rationalize otherwise.

I know where Hamas stands, and sadly, I know where some purportedly anti-Hamas stand – curiously compatible in disparately weighing dead children as a means to an end. Make no mistake, protecting future generations from the horrors of Hamas is a righteous end. But if you wouldn’t supply these means by sacrificing children you know, then it’s time to confront whether Hamas has successfully shut your eyes to the equal value of human lives.

Still, I hope that even the most vindictive perspective, when confronted by the suffering of a child, can be persuaded to recall the lessons humanists and humanitarians have painstakingly enshrined in international law: collective punishment, starvation as a weapon of war, and indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure are crimes no preceding brutality or lofty goal can justify. Regardless of history or adversary, we must not compromise on a redline that protects each and every child: No whataboutism, no excuses, no recriminations – no child should be a part of war.

Gaza is home to over 2 million people – more than Manhattan – almost half of whom are children. Over 1% or 28,000 have been killed and 3% or 67,500 injured, 70% of whom are women and children. 85% are displaced and all are under “complete siege” with an unreliable safe zone of 8 barren square miles – roughly the section of Manhattan containing Central Park.

Most have no home to return to, with 70% of homes and 20% of agricultural land damaged or destroyed. The World Food Programme (WFP) reports over 50% have severe levels of hunger and over 90% have inadequate nutrition. The World Health Organization (WHO) reports virtually all Gazans skip meals daily, and in half of households, family members go full days without food. Adults are starving so children can eat.

The senseless deaths become truly staggering when we consider the deaths we can’t count, as public health scholars estimate indirect deaths can outnumber direct deaths by more than 15:1. With some simple math, if 40% of the 24,620 deaths are children, then at 100 days into the conflict, even a 2:1 ratio would make the WHO’s warning of a child killed every 10 minutes a grim underestimate.

I’m a pedantic economist who loves nothing more than quibbling over statistics, but in this case, that would be a distraction designed to obscure the obvious: Children are dying in numbers that defy comprehension, and we are failing to protect them. And if none of this crosses your redline, then it’s time to ask yourself if you have one.

Through the eyes of a child trying to make sense of this suffering, history may be a sensible explanation but it’s a nonsense excuse, because there is no excuse. Through my family, education, and work, I’ve learned something about those who “rationalize otherwise”, and about the cycles of violence that unify the innocent victims of Hamas, Lehava, and all stripes of supremacists, white, Islamist, and Jewish alike.

Three successive dispossessed generations of my family – Jews, bourgeois, and Baha’is – weren’t victimized by warring tribes. They fell prey to victimizers that were blinded by the lie of warring tribes, and were subsumed by the primacy of some subhuman category below our shared humanity. My family and countless others fell victim to the lie that human rights – peace, freedom, and security – can be sustained exclusively rather than universally, and by one category’s supremacy rather than transcendence above categories.

And therein lies the ultimate compatibility of Hamas with every stripe of supremacist, from Gaza to Lydda to my alma mater in Charlottesville, Virginia. Supremacists prioritize their category instead of humanity, contrive opposing categories, and counterbalance disparately weighted dead children, all in the name of messianic delusions that are somehow never satisfied. Supremacists’ opposing categories – their primacy, oppositionality, and even ontology – are a lie. The wisdom of a child – a wisdom within ourselves – can see through that lie, but with each dead child, we are killing that wisdom.

Sadly, we are all victims of that lie, a lie we’ve all heard and may have even felt compelled to tell precisely when its adherents have harmed us most. As Yuval Noah Harari explains:

Homo sapiens is a storytelling animal that thinks in stories rather than in numbers or graphs, and believes that the universe itself works like a story, replete with heroes and villains, conflicts and resolutions, climaxes and happy endings. When we look for the meaning of life, we want a story that will explain what reality is all about and what my particular role is in the cosmic drama. This role makes me a part of something bigger than myself, and gives meaning to all my experiences and choices.

The supremacist story fits the bill but blinds us to the truth. And the truth is that there are no conflicting categories, no “two sides” more salient and enduring, more predictive and explanatory, than the two sides of any and all conflict the world over: universalists and supremacists, humanitarians and sectarians, humanists and dehumanizers.

Confronted by this collective realization, conflict as we know it cannot survive. This radical reframing puts too many of us on the same side and leaves too few to perpetuate the lie. This is why opposing sides will rally like allies against the threat of a new narrative, and why the most shocking attacks come not at the height of war, but at the precipice of peace.

This is why an Islamist killed Anwar Sadat, a Zionist killed Yitzhak Rabin, a Hindu nationalist killed Mahatma Gandhi, and the Nation of Islam killed Malcolm X. This is why Baruch Goldstein attacked to undermine the Oslo Accords, why Hamas attacked to thwart Saudi-Israel normalization, and how supremacists depend on each other to defend their lie.

If not for this well-versed final act, starved of mutually reinforcing human sacrifices, conflict would simply wither and die. Yet somehow, despite this recurring glimpse into supremacists’ compatibility, interdependence, and reveal by fratricide of their true two sides, this final act so often scores an encore. And amid a resurgence of suffering that only supremacists wanted, amid collective disillusionment with another failed attempt for peace, supremacists notch another excuse for their ready rebuttal: “It’s complicated.”

I majored in Foreign Affairs of the Middle East. My advisor was an architect of the Camp David Accords and literally wrote the book on the Peace Process. Sure, it’s complicated in that there are a lot of names, dates, and events. You can study a lifetime and still only learn a fraction of them. But despite what ethnic cleansers tell you about how little you understand, there’s no threshold of names and dates where you realize thousands of dead children makes sense.

It’s not complicated. That’s an obfuscation meant to keep you silent and complicit. It’s not complicated, especially not for children. “It’s complicated” is the chosen narrative of supremacists to indoctrinate children into roles as jailers and prisoners in a real-life Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes meets Stanford Prison Experiment, and to answer the obvious childish question: “Why?”

It’s not complicated when you see the narrative for what it is: a sham. The two sides aren’t Israel vs. Gaza, Israeli vs. Palestinian, or Arab vs. Jew, and by design, you’ll never gain moral clarity with that narrative because it’s a false narrative. No particular two sides will ever provide the moral clarity and simplicity of conflict’s true and enduring two sides: those who defend human rights for all, and those who rationalize otherwise. If you hate Hamas for being the latter, be wary you don’t mirror their supremacist lie.

Universal human rights, the equal value of human lives, and aid and protection for each and every child – these reflect a morality compatible with the innocence of a child, through whose eyes all rationalizations for inflicting pain essentially look the same. We all recognize there’s something special about a child. Children are born with an innate sense of morality, but a child is not born thinking in tribes. A child precedes the notion of a tribe.

For a child, difference is more likely to prompt curiosity than revulsion. Children haven’t yet accumulated the baggage of national myths. They’re not just more innocent than us; they’re smarter than us. That’s why, when eight-year-old Abdullah Jabr says “War is stupid, and I want it to end”, we should listen to him. And I think we’re all in this community because we agree.

No one, not even an eight-year-old, is so naïve to think pacifism will work in a world with ISIS, Hamas, Lehava, or Kahanism – a world with Islamist, Jewish, or any other brand of supremacist. But we need to stand with Abullah Jabr, defend his childhood, and agree with his anti-supremacist premise as our shared goal: “War is stupid, and we want it to end.”

So how do we help Abdullah Jabr? And just as important, how do we help the Israeli children trapped in Gaza like four-year-old Ariel Bibas and the youngest Hamas hostage, 10-month-old Kfir Bibas? You can donate so Children in Conflict and War Child can provide psychosocial support and child-friendly programs. But more importantly, you can do your part to make the whole world a child-friendly space: Say loudly and proudly why you donate.

While our partners are calling for a ceasefire, I personally think “ceasefire” is just another word without nuance that a condemned child will never know. Just say what you believe: Call for a hostage release, call for an end to Hamas, but please, call to protect the children. If I’ve convinced you of anything, I hope it’s that there is no conflict in speaking for Gaza’s children too. Call for something, anything, compatible with what you’d wish for your own children, because we know it’s not this. Prioritize your shared humanity, demand human rights for all, and call for an end to collective punishment, starvation as a weapon of war, and indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure – crimes no preceding brutality or lofty goal can justify.

Reframe the “two sides” to what gravely matters for all children: those who agree that no child should be a part of war, and those who rationalize otherwise; and thus recognize that neither Hamas’s horrific attacks nor Israel’s brutal response can ever be justified. Reject disparately weighted dead children as an acceptable means to an end, refuse to let conflict subsume your humanity and shut your eyes to the equal value of human lives, and never compromise on a redline that protects each and every child: No child should be a part of war. Ever.

Saturday, January 28, 2017

on refuge.

I flew today, hyperaware that as I walked, I breezed passed possible death sentences and machinery that would preclude my existence.

If you don’t think you know the victims, you do: a family torn apart down the block, a mother weeping on a call with exiled children, another fate sealed for a water-logged baby ready to wash ashore for your comfort.

There’s a child under the rubble, that were it not for today, might’ve been your friend. My existence once safely slipped through holes punched by the sympathy of strangers. This is an excerpt from my mom's upcoming book, Leaving Darkness:
When we landed at JFK, it was around ten at night. Tired and hungry, I stayed in line for nearly an hour as the immigration officers separated those who had a US passport from those of us who just had visas, then separated those who had Iranian passports from the rest of the passengers. We all knew something wasn’t right. After another hour of waiting, an immigration officer appeared looking angry and very unhappy. In no time, I witnessed what it meant to be discriminated against and what it means to be a refugee. Almost all of us got yelled at and passports were stamped with refused entry, visas were cancelled, and people were escorted to unknown places. I saw with my own two eyes grown men crying and women begging for some explanation. The officer kept telling them they had no legal rights in this country and to go back to where they came from. All of them who went to her station were in less than five minutes escorted out, disappearing into thin air. Then it was my turn. I have never seen so much resentment in someone’s eyes as I saw in that lady’s that night. She looked at me, then looked at my passport and screamed, “What are you doing in this country? Why don’t you go back to your Mullah Khomeini?”

I just froze for a second. I couldn’t move any part of my body, yet alone answer her question. Then I got a hold of myself and told her I couldn’t go back. Everybody was looking to see my reaction; it was humiliating beyond words. She then asked why it was that I couldn’t go back, so I told her I had worked for the government of the Shah, and also the prime minister, who had been executed. She asked me if I could prove it and I told her I had pictures with the executed prime minister and other officials who were executed by the same people who took the hostages. She then ordered me to go and stand in the corner of that waiting room until the airport police brought my suitcase. For half an hour, I was on pins and needles until my suitcase arrived. That lady officer, right in the middle of the airport, in front of everybody, took my suitcase by its handle and shook it in the air. When it was opened, all my belongings were scattered on the floor. I just looked at her for any sign of humanity, but I didn’t find any. She then ordered me to go find the pictures in the middle of that mess and give them to her. For some reason, I could not cry or show any sign of objection, so I obeyed her orders and wondered what the difference was between her misusing her power and those thugs in my own country that the West considered barbaric and inhumane.

While she was doing all this, one of the airport staff felt so sorry for me that he came and whispered in my ear, “You should ask for political asylum.” I had never heard such a word and didn’t understand its meaning. When the immigration officer found out that man had told me to apply for asylum, she became angrier and ordered him to follow her to a higher authority. All of us could hear her screaming at him. She came back with an airport police officer and told me I was being deported and that the police had to accompany me until the next flight going to England. I asked her if it was possible that I could get ticket to go to France instead and she said yes. I gave her close to $200 to buy me a ticket to France. She took the money, but paid for my ticket to England instead without telling me.

The police officer held my ticket and said he was giving it to me when I entered the plane. He was put in charge of me until then, and he sat by me awaiting the flight at 6 a.m. the next morning. I asked him if I could use the ladies’ room. He told me since he couldn’t go to the ladies’ room, it was not possible. I simply couldn’t believe what I was hearing. In about an hour, he asked me to follow him to a designated area of the airport that had rooms with bars as doors. He put me in one of the rooms and locked the door and I suddenly realized what a dangerous situation I was in and it was a lot more serious than I could ever imagine. No one knew where I was or what had happened to me. I was someone without a country, without legal rights or legal representation. I had no one to turn to and was totally at the mercy of strangers who were disgusted with the savagery of the hostage crisis in Iran. To them I was part of that uncivil, chaotic, and lawless country. None of my family knew where I was, assuming I was in England; in England, they were assuming I was in the US. I burst into tears. I was hungry, tired, humiliated, and needed so badly to go to the ladies’ room. I had no idea what was going to happen to me. The airport staff felt badly for me but no one could do anything. Eventually one of the lady officers in that designated area of airport staff accompanied me to the ladies’ room and then put me back in the detention room again.

The next morning at 5 a.m., the airport police accompanied me to the security checkpoint. Everybody was looking at me and wondering why I was escorted by the police. I looked anything but a criminal, yet I was being treated worse than one. After the search, they handed me my purse and the officer walked me onto the plane and handed me over to the air hostess. Eventually I got to my seat and assumed I was going to Paris. The flight attendant came to ask me if I wanted anything and I asked her the time of our arrival time in Paris. She looked at me surprised and told me we were going to London and not Paris. I was about to scream, but there was no use so after she left, I opened my purse to get a tissue when I noticed that all my cash had been stolen and I was left with close to $5 dollars! There are no words to describe my miserable situation. I was going to my death sentence. I totally understood how those people felt going to the electric chair. I cried and cried almost all the way back to London.

When we landed, my heart was pounding as though it was escaping my chest. The immigration officer looked at my passport and asked me why I came back so soon. I told him what happened and then he did the same and said by international law he too was going to deport me back to Iran on the next flight at 6 p.m. It was close to noon; I had only six hours left to live. They put me with a lot of other deported people from Iran, Pakistan, and India into a very small room that smelled so bad and the air was so thick you could touch it. It was nearly two days that I had nothing to eat and no sleep. I asked the police guard if I could make a call. He felt so bad for me, he told me if I could make it quickly and not tell anyone, I could.

I got some change from him and called that wealthy English girlfriend of mine. When she picked up the phone, as quickly as I could I explained my situation and begged her to do something or to find that young architect to tell him what was about to happen to me. Later, they told me what they really did for me. She immediately called her husband, explaining to him that I was going to be deported to Iran. He, knowing the situation in Iran, immediately called his lawyer in London and told him to represent me and to tell the British authorities that money was no object and he was ready to support me financially and they should not send me back to Iran, for if they did I would be killed or sent to prison. His lawyer called immigration explaining my situation and telling them that if I was sent back to Iran, there was a great chance that I would be executed and that they had to wait until the next day and he would come personally to London to get me. I don’t know if anybody can in any way explain why that man did such a charitable act of love for an unknown woman from another culture, but without a blink of his eye, he so generously offered all he could to save my life.

The immigration officer came to tell me personally that they would not send me back to Iran until the next day and that my fiancé was on his way to see me. I was so relieved I was not going back to Iran. By late in the afternoon, they put all the thirty of us in a bus and drove us to a building like a detention center. I couldn’t sleep in the room they gave me, which had two bunkbeds with four other women sleeping on them. I sat on a chair waiting for the morning to come. One of the guards felt sorry for me and gave me a glass of milk; he then took me to a private room to sleep in. In the morning, they put us all on the bus again to go back to the airport. In that bus, I was thinking of all the people who had no one to help them and who were going to get deported to the very country they were escaping. In the airport, they put us back into that small room again. I waited for three hours until my name was called. This time, they were more attentive and took me to a private room where I saw that young architect waiting for me. When I saw him, I just lost it and cried my heart out; he comforted me and then said that everything was set for me to apply for political asylum, explaining what that word really meant. In a very short time, three officials came to take me with them. That young architect asked if he could come with me to help me with my English, but they refused. It took nearly fourteen hours to be interviewed by those people from Scotland Yard. They eventually released me and told me I would hear from them sometime soon.

That young architect took me to a hotel and fed me after nearly three days of hunger. I collapsed on the hotel bed and passed out. I was not supposed to do anything or go anywhere and I had to stay under that young architect’s direct supervision until the authorities notified me as to whether I was granted political asylum. They even held my suitcase with all the documents that I’d ever possessed. That young architect took me under his care when I had no country, no identity, no money, no clothes, no means of support, no legal status anywhere in the whole world, and no other place to go but to his house. After we arrived in Newcastle, the next day that young architect’s brother gave me couple pairs of jeans and shirts to wear. His family were nice to me but in that town almost everyone knew about my situation, especially about that rich gentleman who got me the lawyer and told them that money was no object. They were all waiting anxiously to hear about my destiny. It took nearly four months until I got the call. I was granted political asylum and could stay in England as long as I lived! God had given me another country and I could feel safe and protected at last.

Friday, July 17, 2015

a caption for a captive (or "merkel streikt").

"There is nothing uniquely evil in these destroyers or even in this moment. The destroyers are merely men enforcing the whims of our country, correctly interpreting its heritage and legacy. This legacy aspires to the shackling of [other] bodies. It is hard to face this. But all our phrasing—race relations, racial chasm, racial justice, racial profiling, white privilege, even white supremacy—serves to obscure that racism is a visceral experience, that it dislodges brains, blocks airways, rips muscle, extracts organs, cracks bones, breaks teeth. You must never look away from this. You must always remember that the sociology, the history, the economics, the graphs, the charts, the regressions all land, with great violence, upon the body.

And should one live in such a body? What should be our aim beyond meager survival of constant, generational, ongoing battery and assault? I have asked this question all my life.

I have sought the answer through my reading and writings, through the music of my youth, through arguments with your grandfather, with your mother. I have searched for answers in nationalist myth, in classrooms, out on the streets, and on other continents. The question is unanswerable, which is not to say futile. The greatest reward of this constant interrogation, of confrontation with the brutality of my country, is that it has freed me from ghosts and myths."

-Ta-Nehisi Coates

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

here on a hill slope facing the sunset and the wide-gaping
gun barrel of time
near orchards of severed shadows
we do as prisoners and unemployed do:
we nurse hope.

Thursday, September 11, 2014

something syria this way comes (finally).

Better 200,000 lives late than never…

Last night, Obama announced the US will intervene in Iraq and Syria under the authority granted by the AUMF:
(a) In General. -- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.
(1) Specific statutory authorization. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
Two years late at the most forgiving, and with the FSA on its last legs in Aleppo, maybe too late…

For over four years now, I’ve watched, hoped, and teared up as Syria bled, disintegrated, and hemorrhaged 10 million refugees. We should’ve been the FSA’s air force long ago, but instead I found myself envying my peers’ ability to otherize away others’ suffering: “You can’t help people by bombing them;” “We should lead by example here before we go there;” and “Iraq”. Always over and over again, “Iraq,” as though no humanitarian intervention could ever work again because “Iraq”.

America has spent the last few years paralyzed. In the pendulum swings of a fickle American worldview, hopelessly informed by its own narrow foreign policy experience, the lessons of 13 years ago seem lost. Emboldened by a war weary America wishfully pretending faraway suffering can remain forever far away, as it was pretending on the eve of the 11th, the scourge of Islamism has run rampant with impunity, more ascendant today than ever.

Advocating intervention in September 2012, I wrote:
Isolationism is never a good idea, unless you want a world that suffers recurring existential wars. Ignoring tyranny until it directly threatens America or Americans is a guaranteed way to allow expansionist ideologies to reach their apex before being confronted, not to mention espouses something of a nationalist moral double standard.
Now that the US has allowed ISIS’s brutal and expansionist ideology to grow substantially before being confronted, America is halfheartedly muddling to confront it.

Last night, Obama made a barely convincing case (for the second time). As Obama cited an ambiguous case for American exceptionalism – that America must intervene qua America, and Americans should support intervention qua Americans – I found myself so immured in sympathy to the Syrians qua humanity that an argument qua Americans seemed like some sort of strange aside.

As Obama launched into a tirade about America, he lost me, so let me make my own case for intervention. To quote my latest intellectual hero:
I am responsible even for those who are not in any form of contractual relationship with me, or who do not form part of my community, or my nation, or who are not covered by the same legal framework as me. This helps to understand, for example, how I can be responsible for those who live at a distance from me, who are under a different form of political organisation, or those who are stateless. In Levinas’ framework, even those we never meet, those whose names and faces we do not know, present us with a demand. It is, then, a question of accepting our global interdependence and even our obligation to protect the lives of those we do not know. For Levinas, this primary obligation is expressed through what we commonly call commandments, “Thou shall not kill”: a requirement to preserve life. This does not mean that I can or should preserve the life of every individual (of course I cannot do so, and to imagine I could would be unhealthy, it would imply some sort of narcissism, a certain messianism), but rather that I should think about what kind of political structures we need to sustain life and minimise those forms of violence that extinguish it. This does not mean I am capable of making these structures come into existence - responsibility is not the same as efficacy - but rather that I can fight for a world that maximises the possibility of preserving and sustaining life and minimises the possibility of those forms of violence that, illegitimately, take life, or at least reduce the conditions that make it possible for this to happen. –Judith Butler
To make a case around seperable American interests is nonsensical; there can be no difference between my interests and another’s in the realm of universals, because universality entails inseparability. While politically unpalatable, America is not the indispensible nation to the extent the world submits, America is indispensible to the extent it submits to the world, in service of universal human rights and liberal internationalism.

Narrowing what constitutes America’s interests away from universality and into a shortsighted opposition is a recurring habit of political convenience. America as opposition once led the US to declare victory in Afghanistan when communism was defeated, and abandon an illiberal Afghanistan to a breeding ground for Al Qaeda. That same narrowing has more recently caused us to abandon Libya, Iraq, and Syria, and move the goal posts away from universal liberalism and towards wherever history happens to stand when people become impatient.

Haughty words can evoke the right emotions, but they can’t write the right history, a history in which Syria and Iraq are secular, liberal, and free from both ISIS and Assad. Last night’s speech is a start, but a speech can’t force America to fight for its ideals, rightly defined as unambiguously liberal and inherently universal. The dialectic is still obsessed with difference: who America fights against, but not who or what America fights for.

While many spent today thinking of 2,000 Americans that died 13 years ago, I thought of the 200,000 Syrians that didn’t have to. Still, a liberal Syria remains unspoken, and while we refuse to speak of what we fight for, we are universally and chronically haunted by what we must fight against.