The problem with Washington and wars

[Glenn]

Mayhap it is, mayhap it isn't, but I'm still catching up on my Western Philosophy. You know that one, don't you? the one that defined the modern world?

Defined a modern world that largely excluded other philosophies, and other cultures in general. That does not make western philosophy the only modern one. The west has been successful due to strong globalizing economic, political, and particularly military processes, not because of any inherent superiority of philosophy. And even with our ethnocentrism we still borrow from other philosophical sources, such as Sun Tzu for military and economic strategy, and use it to help spread our version of a modern world.

The imprint of colonization is still very strong today. The country boundaries that exist in much of south and west Asia, Africa, and eastern Europe were established by the colonial powers without any regard for the peoples living there. And most of the governments that have been in power in these countries were able to be in power because of the support of western powers who could not look ahead enough to see the potential outcomes of their self-serving actions. These are not Islamic, or even religious, issues, they are colonial (post-colonial) ones. It's certainly not Islamic-made weapons our soldiers are facing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Bill Glasheen]

It's certainly not Islamic-made weapons our soldiers are facing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I followed you right up until this line.

Homicide bomber activity is strictly the purview of radical Muslim sects. And atrocities committed on innocent civilians - while a constant in history - seems to be driven there by a perverse interpretation of Muslim dogma w.r.t. "infidels." It's their special brand of dehumanization, and it's an ugly cancer that needs to be eradicated.

Let's not get politically correct to the point of misrepresenting the facts. The unforgivable should not be dressed up or excused. And those who can most influence such actions should not be let off the hook when they turn a blind eye.

- Bill

[Glenn]

True Bill, but I was referring to the physical weapons, not the human ones or the way in which the physical ones are used. There was not a single Iraqi-made tank, plane, or missile that the coalition forces faced in the Gulf Wars, they were all manufactured outside the region. Likewise, in the current insurgency conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan our forces are facing a variety of Russian and western weapons. Consider the weapons we happily sold Bin Laden when he was fighting the Soviets in the 1980s. There is nothing politically correct about that coming back to bite us in a big way.

[cxt]

Glenn

"certainly not Islamic made weapons our soldiers are facing"

Not sure that I follow......almost all weapons of war---save for some very (relativily speaking) components for IED's etc are made all over the "Islamic" world.

The ubiqutious AK-47 was sold in vast amounts at fire sale prices during the Cold War to anyone willing to point them at the West.......many nations were sold licenses to manufacture as well.

Iran....if a different sect of Islam......but Islamic......is supplying all sorts of people with all sorts of weapons......including some high end sniper rifles that "somehow" ended up in Iraq.....those were "western made" but were supposed to used only by the what are essentially the SWAT teams of police.

Besides......I'm not sure that where one got said weapons is nearly as important as what they doing with them.
Its like when people say "nobody manufactures guns and drugs in the inner city---they come form outside".......true statment but what exactly that has to do with the problem both pose escapes me.

Also not sure that "post colonial" is a major factor........sure its everyones "whipping boy" of choice....esp in the these post modern days.....but I'm not sure that the kingdoms, nations, nation-states, rulers, warlords, kings etc that preceeded the colonial "boundries" were historically any better or more "fair" to the people that lived there.

As an example, sure the West carved up the Ottman Empire.....but the Ottoman Empire itself was de-facto and de-jure "colonial power." One which forced its control over a riot of cultures, ethic groups, etc with extreme violence.

I'm quite sure that being carved up by western powers most certainly caused serious problems.......I just think that blaming the west for the problems is an all to easy scapegoat for situations and problems that exsisted long before we showed up.

Like I said I agree with you that the post-colonial patchwork is a serious problem........I just think there is plenty of blame to go around....tragically enough.

[Glenn]

Besides......I'm not sure that where one got said weapons is nearly as important as what they doing with them.
Its like when people say "nobody manufactures guns and drugs in the inner city---they come form outside".......true statment but what exactly that has to do with the problem both pose escapes me.

The weapons are not the whole problem, but they are a part of the problem...and the fact that the U.S. (and other western countries) sold them many of the weapons makes us part of the problem too. We have this annoying habit of selling weapons to groups when it suits our needs and assume that they will not use them against us later. Then our soldiers have to pay the consequences for that short-sightedness.

Like I said I agree with you that the post-colonial patchwork is a serious problem........I just think there is plenty of blame to go around....tragically enough.

Definitely, and I hope I did not give the impression that I thought colonialism/post-colonialism is the only factor. My context was more in response to the idea that colonialism is no longer a factor. The colonial imprint is recent and relevant so it has been getting a lot of attention, but hardly deserves all the blame. Personally, I blame Sir Mackinder!

None of these issues are single-faceted, that would be too simple. There are layers upon layers of cultural-historical complexity underlying the current surface that we see. In some cases, with colonialism and then the post-colonial Cold War competition for these former colonies, the west stirred up hornets nests that were largely only local issues, and not only got them looking in our direction but gave them the means to sting us. And in that sense, a lot of what we are dealing with is a direct result of colonialism.

[Jason Rees]

Glenn, I'm still trying to figure out what your beef with what I said is. I don't disagree with anything you've said. Yeah, we sold them. Yeah, the U.S.S.R. sold them. And now Russia's selling them. Weapons are everywhere. It's a dangerous world out there, and there isn't a single country on earth that hasn't made mistakes that made it worse.

But we're still the good guys. We're not the ones laying booby traps that kill soldier and civilian alike. We're not the ones strapping bombs to our bodies and to our cars. We're not the ones telling women they can't go to school, that they have to answer to their father until they're sold to their husband (which is basically what an arranged marriage is in that part of the world). That they're property. That they have to suffer in silence.

I don't know if you noticed, but the Western world isn't using religion as a weapon. There is a very backward element out there that is. Making excuses for them isn't going to make things better anytime soon. Some places have been occupied by foreign powers and recovered afterwards. Some places haven't. There are causal factors, mitigating factors, and aggravating factors.

Islam is an aggravating factor. Until it can be questioned, until it can be criticized, until it can grow up, it will be used by people who do not have good intentions, and by some who have great intentions and ruthless capabilities.

Christianity and Judaism have grown up. They're capable of self-examination and dealing with criticism, making compromises with reality.

Islam hasn't, isn't, and without help, it won't.

[Glenn]

It's not so much a beef with what you said specifically Jason as it is in general with considerations of these issues being one-dimensional in nature. People focusing on the cultural/religious/diversity causes tend to discount or ignore how the colonial/post-colonial/globalization factors have influenced the issues; the post-colonial critiques all to frequently ignore the pre-colonial historical milieu that inherently underlies, and interacts with, the colonial imprint as if no issues would have occured without colonialism. For issues this complex, a wide variety of factors are relevant and all need to be considered together. This is not experimental science where we can consider one factor in isolation while holding all others constant, and yet too often the latter tends to be the nature of the debates. Post-colonialism certainly could gain a lot from expanding its boundaries to include other relevancies. Sure the colonial imprint is relevant, but there is no way to change the colonial past and simply focusing on critiquing colonialism is becoming the proverbial beating a dead horse without offering any tangible solutions.

On a tangent: Frankly I find the tendency to define our current time as "post-" this-and-that to be tedious. Post-modern, post-industrial, post-colonial, post-Cold War, post-Fordist...is that all we are about now, defined only by what has happened in the recent past and nothing before or since those events?

[Jason Rees]

Post-colonialism certainly could gain a lot from expanding its boundaries to include other relevancies. Sure the colonial imprint is relevant, but there is no way to change the colonial past and simply focusing on critiquing colonialism is becoming the proverbial beating a dead horse without offering any tangible solutions.

Solutions? You want solutions? First, someone has to admit that it's their problem, and not something the big bad Western boogy-man's going to have to fix.

On a tangent: Frankly I find the tendency to define our current time as "post-" this-and-that to be tedious. Post-modern, post-industrial, post-colonial, post-Cold War, post-Fordist...is that all we are about now, defined only by what has happened in the recent past and nothing before or since those events?

I suppose, if they knew what was coming we'd be pre-this and pre-that. There's no convenient label for 'now.' In the meantime, we have enough labels, don't we? Conservative, Liberal, Neoconservative, Radical, Palin-lover, Tree-hugger, ad nauseum.

[Glenn]

I suppose, if they knew what was coming we'd be pre-this and pre-that

In that case, I predict that we are in the pre-post-globalization era. Since I've already seen some (dubious) claims that the hay-day of the free market has passed with the current global recession (post-free market?), claims of post-globalization cannot be far away.

[cxt]

Glenn

Why we have not learned that todays friend can easily be an foe later......as if we needed any more history on that--ask Russia if it was a good idea to help the Germans rearm prior to WW2?

I blame it on being waaaaayyyy to short sighted......we always seem to think in terms of "now" instead of "what happens in 10 years?"

[Jason Rees]

Personally, I think it's more a case of hindsight being 20/20, and foresight usually amounting to 20/500. It's easy to armchair general and say 'they shouldn't have done that,' but back during the cold war, we were screwing over the russians every chance we got in every way we could... and they were doing exactly the same thing to us.

Can't make an omellette without breaking some eggs.

[AAAhmed46]

It's certainly not Islamic-made weapons our soldiers are facing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I followed you right up until this line.

Homicide bomber activity is strictly the purview of radical Muslim sects. And atrocities committed on innocent civilians - while a constant in history - seems to be driven there by a perverse interpretation of Muslim dogma w.r.t. "infidels." It's their special brand of dehumanization, and it's an ugly cancer that needs to be eradicated.

Let's not get politically correct to the point of misrepresenting the facts. The unforgivable should not be dressed up or excused. And those who can most influence such actions should not be let off the hook when they turn a blind eye.

- Bill

Though today suicide bombers are mostly muslims....


Your forgetting the buddhist/hindu suicide bombers of the tamil tigers, hell the palistinians picked it up from them before it spread all over.

Or the first lebanese suicide bomber was a coptic christian.

I wouldn't say constant history: Muslim history toward people of different faiths was not less different from christian history-which varied from different times.

Infact, most atrocities commited against non-muslims where done by secualr authorities, kings and the like.

Thats not to say it wasn't always religiously motivated, when muslims went to india, they left hindus alone but totally wrecked a bunch of buddhist temples fearing competition spirtually from buddhists.

[AAAhmed46]

Aaahmed, I can see you're going to take AHA's family's word over hers no matter what. That's fine. Just admit your bias and get it over with. They were the ones forcing her into the marraige, and would have been perfectly happy if she'd shut her mouth and did what she was told. Of course they have a vested interest in sounding civilized.

I'm still waiting for proof she made up 'half of it.'

Ive never denied my bias. I do have a bias, but i think you have yours too, to totally summurize all the problems in the middle east to something simplistic like 'hell their religion did it'.

I do admit, colonialism is often too easily blamed, but it's also easily dismissed by the other side.

I think Bernard Lewis was right when he talked about many progressive ideas spreading due to colonialsim, but dismisses it's evils too.

I question her because of her style, and just how broadly she places her experiences with other somolians, by making it lookl ike her supposed experiences are the norm, or how she simplifies it all once again.

Yes, we can't blindly judge her a total liar, but neither can we take her word as totally honest, just as we can say the same about her family. Because other then her claims, how do we know they are dishonest?

I also suspect her because she was in kenya for so long, without guards or protection, yet her family didn't kill her. So was it really refugee status? I doubt it. I thinks he is taking an oppurtunity to capitalize on the times.

[Bill Glasheen]

Adam

You misinterpreted what I meant by "while a constant in history." I am implying that atrocities have been a constant in history, and without any source claiming the lion's share. Man's inhumanity to man does not have a single source; it only needs an excuse.

- Bill

[AAAhmed46]

Ahmed, you may have been talking about remote history in Canada, you may have been illustrating a flaw in the Taliban in your mind, but out here, your reply sounded like rationalization and everything softening the errors and flaws. Why even bring up remote Canada, for instance? What possible relevance other than to suggest that it's the same in largely white and Christian settings?

I see a lot more authority from people who condemn the condemnable and point out just as passionately where they think characterizations are unfair. Of course there are biased media accounts and anti-arab and islam perceptions out there.

Let me give you an analogy. I was talking about hospital medicine while driving the purchaser of my used car, as she had asked what we do, and what I thought of the healthcare law proposals and cost, and I explained a major project is getting people to receive the right clot prevention meds while hospitalized. I said we do a terrible job at this. The "pre" groups in trials of improvements have been 20-40% accuracy; at UCSD about 50% of eligible patients were getting the meds.* I said this was horrendous. I said it was inexcusable. I said each doctor and the system too were all accountable. I said no one would tolerate it for a second if the cars were made this way. I said insurance and medicare ought to refuse to pay for sloppy care so we get our act together. I said costs will never be controlled if we pay for garbage. I said I don't think suing is effective for righting wrongs or improving the hospital, BUT I can't blame a patient for doing so when they got the wrong care and had a bad outcome. I said we have an ethical obligation to do it better and that national focus should be on learning from high quality low cost areas and denying payment for bad care as an incentive.

It wasn't like, oh, we define ourselves as scholars and academicians and in Canada they have these problems, too. See what I mean? Reasonable people can differ on this stuff. Stories vary with the refugee lady, for example, but what you can do and ANY muslim can do is condemn, without qualification, all the Islamic associated mess that is plain to see and offer a corrective plan and THEN worry about some details where they're treated unfairly. I believe those people... I get along great with people who say they think the universe is 10,000 years old if they're at least honest that they know that's contrary to evidence and based on their personal faith. There's a refreshing honesty and introspection.

*we got that # to >95%--epub ahead of print!

I don't deny religious roles in these conflict, but i don't think it's the root of the problem by it self.

There are LOTS of muslims who condemn all the crap thats going on, i could copy and past it into thist thread huge lists, but that would make the thread a bit too long and it looks like crap.(ill PM it if you want)

I bring upt he voting as an issue because even a few years ago,countries, both muslim, non-muslim, christian, hindu, whatever, elections were not as safe and casual as they are here in canada(or the states im assuming)

we should seriously be happy how smoothly our electoral process is...and thus why we should vote, because it's so easy where other places it isn't.