Perhaps it's my biased hearing, but Jake Sullivan, the president's National Security Advisor, seems positively ebullient that the U.S. will be sending cluster bombs to Ukraine. He's in his element, somehow.
Sullivan, notably, is one of the chief purveyors of the Russia collusion hoax. He smeared Trump, and he also lied to Congress about Michael Flynn, whose job he now holds after helping to push him out of it.
No one ever asks Sullivan about that -- or why anything he says about Russia should be considered credible, since he lied about Russia so egregiously, and simply for political gain, in the past.
He has, however, been asked about cluster bombs. The justification keeps changing: first we were told it would help the Ukrainian offensive; now it is a "bridge" because artillery shells are out.
The latter point is really significant: the Ukrainians no longer have ordinary shells, and nor do we. Sullivan says that far-more-deadly (to civilians) cluster munitions are a stopgap "bridge" in the meantime.
As to objections by the UK and others, Sullivan has tried, several times, to minimize these, describing them as a process of checking the legal boxes for signatories to the Oslo treaty banning the bombs.
What happened to the promises of diplomacy? What's the prospect of using these munitions -- a weapon of last resort -- to achieve any kind of battlefield success that translates into diplomatic gains?
I'm not opposed to cluster bombs in certain situations. I just think that there is no real prospect of getting past the stalemate in eastern Ukraine, and it's time to get the sides talking, not just shooting.
This week’s portion launches the great story of Abraham, who is told to leave everything of his life behind — except his immediate family — and to leave for “the Land that I shall show you.”
There’s something interesting in the fact that Abraham is told to leave his father’s house, as if breaking away from his father’s life — but his father, in fact, began the journey, moving from Ur to Haran (in last week’s portion). His father set a positive example — why should Abraham leave him?
Some obvious answers suggest themselves — adulthood, needing to make one’s own choices, his father not going far enough, etc.
But I think there is another answer. Abraham (known for the moment as Abram) needs to establish his own household. This is not just about making one’s own choice, but really about choosing one’s own starting point. It’s starting over.
Sometimes we start over in fundamental ways even if much that surrounds us remains the same. Sometimes the journey we have to ...
The story of Noah is familiar; the details, less so.
Noah is often seen as an ambivalent figure. He was righteous -- but only for his generation. What was his deficiency?
One answer suggests itself: knowing that the world was about to be flooded, he built an Ark for the animals and for his own family -- but did not try to save anyone else or to convince them to repent and change their ways (the prophet Jonah, later, would share that reluctance).
Abraham, later, would set himself apart by arguing with God -- with the Lord Himself! -- against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they should be saved if there were enough righteous people to be found (there were not).
Still, Noah was good enough -- and sometimes, that really is sufficient to save the world. We don't need heroes every time -- just ordinary decency.
Hi all -- as I noted last month, I'm going to be closing down my Locals page, at least for tips and subscriptions -- I may keep the page up and the posts as well, but I'm no longer going to be accepting any kind of payment.
Look for cancelation in the very near future. Thank you for your support!
