Shelach Lecha
Some thoughts about the weekly Torah portion and contemporary
events... There is currently a heated
debate about the limits of secrecy and the public disclosures about the Obama
administration’s clandestine efforts against Iran and Al Qaeda. In particular the current administration is
accused of using its covert successes for political gain. Let me offer a few contributions to this
discussion.
I am left as well to rely on the courage of Joshua. “Be strong and resolute…” (Deuteronomy 31:23)
It should first be noted that all presidents use the spy
agencies for their own political advantage.
President Bush certainly used them to bolster his desire to invade Iraq . In fact it now appears that the claims of WMD
were based on faulty intelligence at best or completely fabricated reports at
worst. When making such judgments about
our leaders we tend to be more forgiving of those politicians we support and
more critical of those we don’t like.
Such is human nature. We must
therefore cast these feelings aside and debate these matters in an open and
honest way.
Secrecy always advantages the person in power. The powerful shape the discussions by
controlling the dissemination of information.
That is why a democracy must debate even its most secretive
efforts. In a democracy the application
of military power, whether clandestine or not, must be debated openly. The specifics of how that power is wielded
should be kept from public view, however.
Troop placements, weapons’ capabilities, covert methods and the like
should not be disclosed. Otherwise
security is potentially compromised.
Still, the questions about the use of computer viruses, for example,
have never been forthrightly discussed.
There seems little doubt in my mind that these weapons might
one day be turned against us. Yet I
still believe it is worth these risks in order to stop Iran from
building nuclear weapons. Whether to use
such weapons is however a legitimate point of debate. I believe as well that we should assassinate
Al Qaeda leaders using any means necessary.
Yet again this is a legitimate point of public debate. It does not compromise American security to
debate these questions. It instead
strengthens American democracy. While I
might be fascinated about the specific methods I don’t need to know them.
And so we must argue about what we believe are the goals of
such methods. When states use violence
to protect its citizens or project good other values are inevitably
compromised. Do we agree that drone
attacks and cyber warfare are legitimate?
Steven Aftergood said, “Secrecy cloaks not only the operations,
but their justification and rationale, which are legitimate subjects of public
interest.” (The New York Times)
“The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Send men to spy the land of Canaan
God becomes enraged with the ten spies and the people’s
subsequent lack of faith. God says in
effect, “How can they doubt that they will be successful? It does not matter how mighty their
adversaries might be.” God withdraws
support. The Israelites still attack. They are defeated. “And the Amalekites and Caananites who dwelt
in that hill country came down and dealt them a shattering blow at Hormah.”
(14:45).
Throughout the centuries commentators have argued that the
Israelites were defeated because they lacked faith. They marched forward without their leader
Moses and without the symbol of their faith, the Ark of the Covenant. Is it possible, however, that the spies
report was accurate and that the Israelites were not ready to defeat a more
powerful enemy? Do we see instead see a
glimmer of democracy when the spies bring their report to the entire people? Perhaps it is not as the Torah and our
subsequent tradition would suggest all about having the correct attitude and
faith. Perhaps it is instead about the
accuracy of the report and reaching a consensus among the people.
Forty years later Joshua finally leads the people against
the same giants of the land, although now the Israelites are only those who
were born in the wilderness and not those born into slavery. The Haftarah reports the details of how the
Israelites now scout the land. Joshua,
like Moses, first sends spies to the region of Jericho .
They find their way to the house of a harlot named Rahab and stay there
for the night. (Such operational details
we might not wish to know!)
She hides them from the town’s soldiers and confides in them
an assessment of her people’s mood. “I know
that the Lord has given the country to you, because dread has fallen upon us,
and all the inhabitants of the land are quaking before you…” (Joshua 2:9)
The spies then make their way back to Joshua and offer a brief, but
positive report, although only to Joshua.
Is Joshua less democratic than his predecessor? Is waging a successful war and the secrecy
it too often entails contrary to the democratic spirit? Joshua then
successfully leads the people in battle against the inhabitants of the land,
conquering the land
of Canaan
We appear to find ourselves in similarly turbulent
times. And I get nervous when leaders
speak too readily about making war. I
also get nervous when leaders speak too easily about making peace with our
sworn enemies. I am left to rely on my
confidence in democracy and the legitimacy of the debate it must foster. Secrecy offers me little comfort.