Last week’s NATO summit was disappointing on many levels. The member states refused to endorse a membership action plan for Ukraine or Georgia, thus seeming to give in to hysterical Russian objections—something that will only encourage more Russian truculence in the future. They did admit Croatia and Albania to the alliance, but they did not let Macedonia through the door because of overwrought Greek objections to that state using the same name as a province of Greece.
The members did not agree to a major increase in troop strength in Afghanistan, which is badly needed. The French did come through with another battalion (1,000 troops) for eastern Afghanistan, but that was about it. That means, as usual, the U.S. will have to send the bulk of the needed troops, even though we are already far more committed in Iraq than any other NATO member. The NATO members did agree to set up a trust fund to help Afghanistan, thereby giving states unwilling to send troops a way to contribute to the success of a key NATO mission. But it remains to be seen how much will be pledged and (more importantly) how many of those pledges will actually be delivered.
On another issue relating to Afghanistan, and one that did not get nearly as much attention as it deserved, the NATO members agreed in principle to increase the size of the Afghan National Army from an authorized level of 86,000 to 120,000. But as pointed out in this Guardian article, the actual increase was put off until 2010 at the earliest. That is worrisome because the Afghan army, while growing in competence, is far too small for the task of pacifying a country with a larger land area and population than Iraq.
While Iraq has around 200,000 soldiers, Afghanistan has only 55,000. As noted in this Christian Science Monitor article, Afghan and American experts think that Afghanistan needs at least 200,000 soldiers, but asked for NATO’s help to equip and train only 120,000 because that is the most they thought they could get. Even that lesser level has produced more rhetorical than actual support from NATO. Unless NATO members step up, there is a real danger that the alliance’s most critical “out of area” mission will fail and drag down the alliance with it.
Should’ve said it in the original Hebrew. Farrakhan would’ve plotzed.
Warren was definitely trying to demonstrate his Abrahamic inclusiveness here. Not only did he utter the Sh’ma (which, btw, one of the Christian Gospels– see Mark 12:29– records Jesus as uttering), but he made reference to “the compassionate and merciful one,” which how Muslims customary address G-d as they open in prayer. Similarly, his closing reference to Jesus as Y’shua (Hebrew) and Isa (Arabic).
Jennifer…Agreed. An excellent choice.
Steven from Indiana
Contrast Pastor Warren’s uplifting invocation with Rev. Lowery’s cheesy racialist benediction.
I loved that moment.
This is not the Shma, and only an ignoramus am haaretz would think it is. The Shma can only be recited in lashon kodesh, besides which nothing that comes out that cracker’s mouth qualifies as a prayer halakhically (especially after he invoked the talui by Hebrew name, Jews4Jesus style). I always knew neocons were basically assimilating am haaretz, thanks for confirming it.
#6: Somebody always gotta be holier than the pharisees.
#6 – ksilim – In defense of the Halacha, where is it stated that a non-Jew must recite the Sh’ma in Hebrew? Why would a non-Jew be under the rubric of Halacha, esp the obligation to say Sh’ma? Does that really make sense to you, or were you just typing too fast? Have you read the responsa of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein on saying blessings in English?
Please quote the source. I have never seen that written anywhere.
#6 certainly proves the maxim that when it comes to religion, it’s not possible to please everyone at any time.
A humble prayer, perhaps, but he does not appear as a humble man.
2 Jews, 7 opinions.
Curious to know if anyone prayed aloud the “Our Father” as Warren was reciting it? It did not seem that anyone “onstage” was praying aloud. The President clenched his jaw during the Invocation and then again at the Benediction. Any thoughts on that?
#11 MM: spot on, pal, spot on! Perfect.
#6
Could you be a bigger putz? I don’t think so. Thankfully, you can’t always judge a religion by its practitioners.
Maine’s Michael #11 — LOL! — I thought that was a BAPTIST joke.
…
A very classy response by Penn Jillette to someone trying to preach some religion to him.
There is an important lesson in all of this. When someone reaches out to you, do not slap their hand away when it is done in friendship. This is true when dealing with other faiths and those who are not believers. We need to show each other mutual respect and give thanks when someone is trying.
I am no big fan of Rick Warren. I really know very little about the guy (I have not read any of his books), other than what I picked up in that early campaign debate he hosted at Saddleback. But I can give him the benefit of doubt.
Maine’s Michael Says:
January 20th, 2009 at 7:33 PM
2 Jews, 7 opinions.
Funny. As Medved says, the only thing you can get Jews to agree on is Jesus is NOT the messiah!
“He’s not the messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”
J.
“And after all who could quibble with the beginning?”
Atheists, Buddhists, Shintoists, Taoists, Hindus, Zoroastrians and many others. The prayer wasn’t for everyone.
I was stunned when I heard the Sh’ma. For a moment I thought I was in Shul!
“but he made reference to “the compassionate and merciful one,” which how Muslims customary address G-d as they open in prayer. Similarly, his closing reference to Jesus as Y’shua (Hebrew) and Isa (Arabic).” Jewws also refer to G-d as “the compassionate and merciful one.” See for instance the tachanun for Monday and Thursday morning. But using Y’shua to refer to the man that Christianity calls savior is not going to win any points except with missionary Christians who try to convert Jews by misrepresenting both Judaism and l’havdil Christianity. Any Jew with self-respect immediately goes on the alert when he hears it.
“always knew neocons were basically assimilating am haaretz,”
#6, before you use lashon ha’Kodesh to call people ignorant, learn how to create the plural. Am Haaretz is singular. You mean amei haaretz (Hebrew), or more commonly, amoratsim (spelled am haaretzim but pronounced amoratsim) in Yiddish. Even an am haaretz like me knows that.
And while I would have to go back and check (I seem to recall it’s somewhere in Talmud Bavli, Masceches Megillah), I seem to recall that one who does not know Hebrew is yotzei (fulfills the obligation) krias shema if he recites it in any language he knows. My memory may be off 180 degrees on that one, so if this is relevant, CALOR.
#7, almasov, Pharisees were Jews who followed the Jewish religion and did not adopt Christianity. (Yes, there were the Sadduccees, but they were a heretical sect and they died out after the Romans destroyed the Second Temple.) I realize what the term has come to mean in English, but do yourself a favor and please find a different insult.