Communism

I nearly chose not to post this as it is purely political in nature and rather uncharacteristically strident. It springs from an on again, off again correspondence with what I have concluded is a nineteen or twenty year old perpetually outraged college student. It took some time for him to pique my ire, but credit where credit is due, he finally succeeded. What follows is my final response to him- I place it in the extended entry for the benefit of those who wisely choose to ignore such things.

The most common complaint regarding my weblog (other than the erratic nature of my posting) revolves around my politics. One gentleman dismissed my immortality because my politics were too far to the right of his own- any creature ancient as I claimed would surely be a committed socialist. I have expressed more than once my feelings regarding socialism and communism- Dean Esmay once asked of me whence my disdain for communists sprang. I replied to him that I do not hold communists in disdain, I despise them.

No. Despise is too tame a word. I hate them.

I do not employ that word lightly, particularly in written form; for experience has taught me what today passes for hate is a pale reflection of true, all-encompassing hatred. For my part I reserve that word for those people and ideas against which I am driven to act by the depth of my revulsion towards them. Communists fall into that category along with the assorted milquetoast cousins of that ideology such as democratic socialism, the assorted varieties of special interest factionalism, and fascist-apologist faux peace movements that are all the rage amongst the young and outraged today.

Before any readers launch themselves into the comments to point out the differences between communism and fascism, let me put that foolishness to rest here and now. Both are warped ideologies which, at their core, seek to transform the individual into a mere tool of the state. Reducing human beings to property, whether one man as slave to another or populations enslaved to the state, is an act so fundamentally evil I cannot be bothered to decipher one flavor from the other. If it is your desire to play at semantics you may take your sophistries to some other place and indulge them to your heart?s content.

In the simplest terms my hatred is based upon the utter rejection of human nature such ideology embraces. A purely communist society is a fantasy as it requires all members to be altruistic at all times. This being an impossibility those who would impose a communist social order upon their fellows create mechanisms whereby the people can be properly controlled, their attitudes shaped in such a way as to minimize the disruptive influences of their basic human urges. This would be accomplished by education and the careful sanitation of history- the entire enterprise hinging on the ability to prevent dangerous ideas from taking root in the minds of citizens. The only difference between fascism and communism in this view is that fascism is more overtly nationalistic, its vision of the collective good historically being wrapped in a strident patriotism and the intermixing of government and industry.

The extremist ideologies all have one theme in common- they are threatened by ideas. This leads to systems, both legal and social, designed to curb the expression of ideas deemed dangerous by the state.

Social systems can be oppressive, but can often be ignored. In the United States there is deep social disapproval of the ideas harbored and expressed by such organizations as the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Nation; however, the structure of American political power is designed to be as tolerant as possible of even the most offensive ideas, hence the fact such organizations are permitted to gather and demonstrate in public without fear of arrest. The social disapproval of these groups does not possess force of law due to the constitutional protections of political speech enshrined in the founding document of the nation.

Legal systems designed to suppress ideas are by their very nature corrupt. Those tasked with policing the thoughts and words of citizens find themselves possessed of immense power. In any society reputations can be ruined by mere accusations of impropriety regardless of the truth of matters. In a society where government attempts to regulate the thoughts and words of the populace baseless accusations can and usually do have very dire consequences for the accused. This elevates the power of aforementioned social systems to a point where the populace lives in constant fear of denunciation. At that point the state obtains such overarching control of the individual the status of slave is achieved in all but name.

Enough of communism and its lackwit twin, fascism. They are ideologies rightfully tossed aside by any person capable of clear thinking? and therein lies the problem, for so many are incapable of clear thinking. Their thought processes are driven more by an emotional need to rebel against a world less forgiving and welcoming than they dream it should be- they find the easy lie of organized socialism irresistible and lend their allegiance to an ideal that has murdered 100,000,000 and truly is not yet finished. Hence thousands of intellectual lemmings march to the ministrations of communist front groups and call themselves enlightened protestors forwarding the cause of peace.

I do not suffer fools for I know the horrors of which they are capable. That those who follow the banners of murderous socialism would find themselves first before the firing squad should they realize the revolution of which they dream is of no comfort. Too many who deserve to suffer the results of their shortsighted passions find themselves given the mercy of the executioner?s handiwork, the result being they seldom come to understand their own blindness and recant their devotion to what is the most fundamentally evil force known to humanity.

Communism is as anti-human and inhumane an ideology as any spawned by Man. Communists are either fools or scheming tyrants in the making. The watered-down versions of communism are merely attempts to inure the populace to evil by delivering it in minute doses such that none recognize the cancer as it proceeds to consume them body and soul.

One Hundred Million slaughtered on the altar of Marxism/Leninism. One Billion plus still enslaved. Defend it if you wish, but I for one recognize the stench of naked evil. I refuse to call it sweet.

Posted by

Filed in Politics | Comments (6)

More Ruminations On America And Politics

My latest ramblings can be found at Dean's World.

Posted by

Filed in Politics | Comments (0)

On War

Dean Esmay posted an article titled Why Iraq? where he pointed to an article by one John Weidner that he felt presented a fair summary of why those who favored invading Iraq felt that it was the correct thing to do. I posted the following comment in Mr. Esmay's article:

I was and do remain a supporter of the war to liberate Iraq. My reasons are various and not all in accord with Mr. Weidner?s list, though I have no substantive quibbles with any of his points. My own belief is somewhat more stark, and not to the liking of most peoples.

I believe the free world has a moral obligation as well as a political imperative to rid the world of these pestilent little death camps. Should you Americans elect to raise an army ten million strong and carry freedom to the world on the point of a bayonet it would stir me to such emotion that I would seek to join you on that crusade. I do not say such things lightly.

The moral obligation is that of a people who enjoy the fruits of freedom and prosperity. The political imperative is simply this: you are running out of time.

A day later, the following arrived in my e-mail from Mr. John Van Laer:

Zsallia Marieko:

Remarkable! When I got to the end: "you are running out of time," I got goose pimples. But bringing freedom to the world on the point of a bayonet is what Napoleon claimed to be doing. His chief historic accomplishment was to incite Bismarck to unite Germany under the Prussian heel. You probably know the consequences better than I do.

As an old crock of an American, I have to believe that we are far superior to France's First Empire, in every important respect. Is that a guarantee that our benign intentions won't have unforeseen dreadful consequences?

I hope you are right. Certainly, shrinking from what you call a political and moral imperative would be the worst possible choice.

Thank you for posting that comment.

John Van Laer

I enjoy a compliment much as anyone does, but I did feel it would be polite to expand upon my comment, just for the sake of clarity. My response was this:

Mr. Van Laer

As to your concerns regarding the feasibility of engaging in a military mission to liberate the world, I share them. I am not a terribly creative thinker, this is a limitation I have come to regret, but must accept. There are those who might be capable of imagining some grand diplomatic gesture that would set in motion the requisite policies to lead towards a freer, more peaceful, less strife-ridden world; however, it has been my experience that such plans often have at their heart the notion that at some point human beings will somehow shed those terribly untidy bits of their nature that drive them to compete, covet, and dominate. It is a lovely ideal, but those who have attempted to coerce such change via ideology have mostly left us with mountains of corpses.

Being singularly unimaginative I see the issue in rather stark terms: Should the West wait until the options are simple, but ghastly? Or should the West act now, while the preponderance of military might is overwhelmingly on their side? I once opined that the situation in Iraq would resolve itself quickly once the Hussein regime was ousted. On witnessing the outcome of that endeavour I realize that my view was little better than those of the social utopianists I dismissed in the previous paragraph. Yet I still see no appealing choices as to how to proceed. What the world faces is rather grim; times such as these require grim men to face them.

Napoleon espoused notions of liberty, but was at heart no more than a slightly above-average narcissist and megalomaniac. If the United States were to set forth upon a military campaign to cauterize the festering wounds left behind by close to fifty years of the Cold War I would expect large portions of the world?s governments to take up a plaintive howl such as would render the run up to the invasion of Iraq as little more than a ladies tea social. Yet if one is convinced that survival is at stake, what price appeasing fair weather ?allies?? The danger of creating a unified and inimical Arab world as a result of a program to liberate those now languishing in poverty, fear and ignorance beneath the heels of mullahs and strongmen is real; however, I submit to you that any comparison between the current situation and the first unification of Germany is rather thin intellectual gruel. It seems apt upon its surface, but the reality of the Arab and Islamic worlds is one of fractiousness, fratricide and personality cults. What unity they muster seems to germinate around notions of wrongs done to them and the assorted and innumerable heresies of the non-Islamic world, and even in such cases that unity is fragile and ephemeral. The ideal of Pan-Arabism died with Nasser- the closest claimant to his place was Hussein, and he languishes in a prison cell waiting on the day his own people march him to the gallows.

At this point those Arab or Islamic nations that would be candidates for liberation by force are engaged in the ages old game of appeasement. They refused to come to Hussein?s aid hoping that once the United States consumed that prey her appetite would be sated and she would return to that uneasy slumber from which she was so rudely awakened on the eleventh day of September in the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and One. They have good reason to believe this might be an effective strategy as large portions of the American political spectrum are hoping for the very same thing. I am hesitant to claim such a course would be an undeniable disaster, but I must confess that in my heart I believe it falls far short of being the best solution. The only thing a pause accomplishes is to give the enemies of freedom and tolerance an opportunity to rethink, rearm and advance their capabilities. Iran in particular is breathtakingly close to acquiring the weapons that would clearly redraw the strategic realities of any campaign in the Middle East. Should you doubt that atomic weapons in the hands of the Iranian theocrats would be such a world-changing factor I ask that you merely turn your eyes to North Korea where a decade of negligence by the west has led to just such a scenario.

I am no lover of war. I have stood on charnel fields littered with the bloodied and broken remnants of men, searching with the brokenhearted for fathers and husbands, brothers and sons. War is a woeful and horrific enterprise even when waged in the brutally efficient manner of the modern American military, but that does not lend any credence to the notion that ?war is never the answer?. Unfortunately for all concerned, war is often the only true answer, and postponing it in a vain hope that the dangers will somehow magically evaporate only raises the butcher?s bill when the inevitable comes to pass. The West has lost touch with the spiritual nature of religion, but the Islamic world has not. As a result the West fails to seriously comprehend the fundamental motivations of peoples whose lives are defined by their religion. The secularism and tolerance you take for granted are terrible handicaps when facing such peoples. The West hears the shouts and the threats and the references to Allah and the tendency is to be slightly amused at such primitive behavior. That tendency, coupled with a lack of will to carry forward in this war, may be the keys to the undoing of the West.

Best Regards,
ZM

Mr. Van Laer followed up to this note; however, that response was personal rather than topical. Mr. Van Laer, you are far too kind :).

Posted by

Filed in Politics | Comments (7)

John Kerry

This post began as a comment. Then as such things often do it grew into something a tad too wordy for the comments section. The posts the prompted this may be found at Dean?s World and The Moderate Voice. Note that this deals with politics (sigh); so do move on if this is not your cup of tea.

It is my conjecture that the failure of the Kerry campaign to adequately deal with the Swift Vets group has a deeper cause than merely the assumption that some nefarious coalition of left-leaning media commentators would see to it the story died a quiet death. Senator Kerry, his campaign aides and the larger media outlets have ignored this story because they assumed that most people would look at any allegations of impropriety and shrug it off as a product of the Vietnam War. In this analysis, the major actors on the campaign and media sides were unprepared for the notion that any of this would have traction with American voters.

In the circles of left-leaning politically aware persons Vietnam is regarded as a sort of Baptism by Fire. It is an event that justified all manner of activities in opposing it, as well as avoiding it. To Senator Kerry?s credit, he chose to wade in to the charnel house when he could have easily avoided it. I am unimpressed with claims that citations he was awarded might have been fraudulent. Instead I know that at a time in his life when he was certainly able to evade such duty he voluntarily placed himself in harm?s way. I am not impressed by implications that the combat duty was viewed as a stepping-stone to a political career. Did a young John Kerry stand to in the face of an enemy determined to kill him and his crew? The answer is an unambiguous ?Yes?. This ends that debate for me.

Where Senator Kerry is far more vulnerable is on questions regarding his activities after returning home from Vietnam, and all this talk of medals and heroism and fraud have merely set the stage for the second act of this political drama. I find it amusing that no one seems to have noticed (or at least felt it necessary to comment upon) the fact that merely a day after the Senator lashed out at his critics, the focus shifted to events that are not a matter of opinion. The young Mr. Kerry?s testimony before congress is extraordinarily damning and is rendered even more so by his failure to adequately address his actions and the clear falsehoods he uttered to further a cause that some believe was in direct opposition to his nation?s vital interests.

Why has this gone unaddressed? As I noted above- it was assumed that most Americans would look at the facts and decide that they were irrelevant, or at least unimportant. A major strategic error on the part of the Kerry campaign was to attempt to ?prepare the ground? by emphasizing his heroism and service in Vietnam, thereby hoping to inoculate themselves against any untidiness that might spring up. The reply would be along the lines of ?How dare you impugn my service to my country??

Only it does not seem to have eventuated in that fashion, has it? When the attacks came, as the Democratic campaign managers must have known they would, the careful indignation was insufficient to quiet the detractors. The media ignored the story to a degree, not out of some urge to protect Senator Kerry, but rather from a sense that the American people would not care. Nobody wanted to relive Vietnam, went the reasoning, so it was unlikely to make any great impression; however, the candidate himself made it an issue by placing Vietnam so prominently at the center of his campaign. By the time the inevitable decision was taken to attack the attackers the story had grown too large to contain, and this was complicated by the assorted veterans making these claims failing to collapse under the onslaught of criticism and investigative zeal unleashed against them.

Does this mean the Kerry candidacy is doomed? Hardly. They have a task set before them and they must demonstrate themselves equal to it. Should they prove successful these moments could easily cement victory for the Democrats in November; however, attempting to characterize the attacks against the Senator as part of an illicit Republican plot are doomed to failure. Those centrist voters paying attention to politics are aware of the astoundingly well-funded ?independent? organizations lined up behind the Democratic candidate, and protesting against what amounts to a very lightly funded organization simply because it seems to be making headway will properly be viewed as at least slightly disingenuous, particularly in light of the candidate?s willing embrace of certain wealthy demagogues.

It seems likely that the winning strategy would be to confront and explain, and thereby defuse. Ignore the criticisms of the Senator?s war decorations, confront the fallout of Winter Soldier exclusively, and thereby de-link the two in the minds of the voters. In particular it would seem necessary to put this entire episode to rest at least a few days before the opening of the Republican convention. Failure on this point could be irrecoverably disastrous. The Senator?s words from 1971 are difficult to rationalize, particularly in the context of his later actions as a US Senator, but it is not an impossible task. It will require a depth of humanity and an ability to build empathy that few possess. Should Senator Kerry prove he is amongst those rare individuals he shall emerge as a most formidable candidate, and a superb President.

Posted by

Filed in Politics | Comments (16)

November, 2004

What follows is purely political in nature, so if that is not your cup of tea please do pass it by.

?Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.?

-George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Volume 1.

The coming election could be shaping up as a watershed event for both the United States of America, and Western Civilization as a whole. Whether by deliberate design of Providence or simple happenstance the American people have been placed in the position of determining what lessons the past has taught, and by extension, how those lessons ought to be applied to the present day.

To those committed to one view or another the lessons to be learned are of crystalline clarity and irrefutable. Unfortunately such fervently held positions are, in the perverse calculus of human affairs, quite in opposition. Even more distressing from the viewpoint of those caught in the grip of ideologically derived certitude, the decision as to what shall be the operating assumptions governing the policies of the world?s sole super power rests clearly in the hands of the American voter.

It is my belief that never before in the history of great decisions has such power been placed in hands more capable of wielding it. Extremists in the political realm have made a virtual blood sport of deriding the intelligence, temperament and judgment of the American voter and in perusing the assorted and mostly hyperbolic opinions abounding the web I note that such disdain has not abated, rather is has grown more intense as each end of the political spectrum begins to build a comfortable redoubt into which it can retreat in the face of defeat.

All in all, this is rather predictable behaviour. While the coming choice is certainly important, and while the assorted polities involved appear desperate, it still fails to approach the apocalyptic levels indicated by the rhetoric lavished upon it. As of yet, there are no riots, no blood in the streets, and no calls for the militia to restore order. Given these facts I find myself hard-pressed to see some desperate struggle at play.

That the polarized ideologues are in high dudgeon is a good thing. That the rhetoric is approaching the ludicrous is a positive aspect. That the outlandish pronouncements of press and pundits seem to be eschewing reality in favour of some murky and nefarious conspiracy-laden fantasy world is, in the end, something that gives me some hope for the sanity of the political process. I view such things as necessary growing pains in a process of moving American representative democracy out of the 19th century and in to the twenty-first.

For the past century the politics of democracy have been subjected to the ever-increasingly mutative effects of the burgeoning information age. American Democracy was born in the age of the pamphleteer and the private publisher, a revolution driven as much by the printing press as by the ideology of the men who would stand in defiance of a King. It seems to me that it has always been assumed that better information distribution must always yield a more informed and involved electorate and to a large degree that has been true; however, even in its nascent stages such political information, be it facts or opinions, were limited in their national exposure by the very men who sought to inform the people: it was not conspiracy, nor was it elitism, it was simple human nature. The printing press could produce only so much, and the man who decided what did and did not make its way in to print held vast sway over the ideas and ideals of his fellows. The nature of the free market served to counter this to some degree, but imperfectly. In terms engineers are fond of, the system worked ?well enough?.

As the dissemination of information grew easier, the system adjusted, but again, imperfectly. The past one hundred years has been witness to what can only be described as an explosion of available information and throughout it all the political, structural and cultural mechanisms that both deal with and depend upon this information availability have adjusted in haphazard fits and starts. The result has been a political culture that can only respond easily to crisis and to extremism. Everything else fails to make itself seen amongst the sea of issues, worries and day-to-day events. Everyday people, their lives, hopes, concerns and fears, are drowned in a sea of cultural and political noise.

If the above is at all relevant, then the result is a populace that theoretically has the power to effect sweeping change in the political landscape, but which feels disenfranchised by a system unsuited to hearing and responding to individual voices and concerns. The very same information infrastructure that in theory should ameliorate this problem instead acts to reinforce the perception of helplessness and futility. In the entity of the World Wide Web we have a pamphleteer?s dream universe, where every man with an opinion can make his voice heard; however, instead it is the province of extremists of all manner and stripe with nary a reasonable voice to be heard. In short, it drives the reasonable away.

Despite this, America?s citizens are caught up in the primary events of this election season. There has been an attack upon America, and two large battles have been fought as a result, with the prospect of more to come in the future, regardless of who should win the pending contest. In the upcoming event there are very concrete decisions to be made, choices that shall impact nearly every citizen directly, whether it be in terms of their security, or the courses of their lives or their children?s lives. The war is a concrete reality. It is not some abstract entity about which people can complain, but the President can do little (such as the economy).

Most heartening of all regarding this is the fact that if victory is had with a real majority (I would hazard 55% as a tipping point, but I am hardly scientific in that choice) then it can be assumed that there has been a sea change in the electorate regardless of who is the victor. Elections won by razor thin margins are reflective of the vast middle, the disconnected and self-disenfranchised, sitting out the election. A solid majority can only be won if more of those occupying that ill-defined center find themselves moved to vote. If they do it is likely going to be the War that moves them, and if that is true, then perhaps it can finally be discerned which lessons from the past have been learned, and which have been rejected.

November 2, 2004 should tell the tale.

Posted by

Filed in Politics | Comments (0)

I Am Not Above Preening

Well, this has certainly been an invigorating twenty-four hours or so. I must express my thanks to Dean Esmay for his kind words regarding my thoughts offered here- praise is always that much sweeter when it comes from one you respect. As for the readers he has sent to this humble site, I believe their comments speak for themselves. Quality shows, people. Of all the accusations hurled at me over the years ?I would suppose that you have a doctorate in either philosophy or history? certainly takes the prize for most unexpected and delightful.

I am not usually a political writer, but I find the subject immensely seductive due both to the immediacy of the topics and the fervor of those who willingly delve in to the debate. Somehow I doubt I shall be able to remain silent on these topics as the season progresses.

Posted by

Filed in Politics | Comments (1)

Breaking Promises

I am so terribly sorry. I did promise no more politics until the new year, but that persnickety Dean Esmay has been posting things that make me go "hmmm." So, with that said:

These assorted assertions regarding lying to the public and the reflexive disdain for the current President are unusual only if one fails to take in to account the unique nature of the approaching election season. Consider: this is the first election in three decades or so where you have both a state of war and an incumbent seeking reelection without even token opposition within his own party. Throw in the spectre of the Florida fiasco and we have set the stage for an interesting (i.e. contentious and divisive) election. Add to that the unprecedented access to broad audiences that until recently were essentially denied to the extremist fringes and it becomes certain that a circus is in the offing.

It seems to me that in the long run this process of extreme rhetoric could conceivably transform itself in to a positive outcome. Let us be honest and admit that the fanatics on both sides of the spectrum have become essentially interchangeable. This was not always so easy to discern as the fringes were so effectively marginalized in the past- they made their voices heard at the political rallies and in the caucuses, but otherwise held no firm political power. The information age has made the sound-byting of the outrageous profitable for the media companies and the political entities seemed to be content to allow the hot-heads to take to the airwaves in excoriating their opponents, assuming that the old dynamic was still in play and that their words would not have any method of sticking to the eventual nominee or his party. In doing this the parties both exposed their ugly underbellies to the light of day and could now be forced to deal with their Anti-American, Anti-Constitutional and Anti-democratic elements by either openly embracing them and admitting that their causes were concomitant with their own, or by openly marginalizing them.

It seems to me that the conservatives got a head start on this process and have been slowly isolating the worst actors on the religious right from the centres of power. They still have their problems, and by no means have overcome them; however, with the advent of the war those close to the President have had the opportunity to make an even bolder move to increase this separation, the current anti-abortion legislation notwithstanding. There are those who see the upcoming procedural ban as the ?nose of the camel? and fail to understand that while a majority of their countrymen support the ideal of a woman?s right to choose, they also see the need for some sort of line to be drawn and they look to the government and the courts to draw it. Taken in that light this current affront to leftist sensibilities becomes nothing more than another small step in the completely American process of defining a consensus that both sides will eventually be forced to live with and within.

The liberals in this nation are facing a far more acute problem; however, the benefit of the acute is that it can often be dealt with swiftly. Whereas the conservatives are incrementally marginalizing their fanatics, the left may yet be able to excise theirs in a single political season. Unfortunately, the cost of taking advantage of this opportunity is likely a humiliating defeat in 2004. The danger is that the more rational elements of the left might fail to see that opportunity and act upon it in which case they are doomed to the political outlands until either the economy once again succumbs to the business cycle or the conservatives egregiously overstep themselves. One of the necessary elements of a recovery is to stop fearing the defection of the Greens and their ilk. Those fanatics have already left the party and will continue to field candidates who theoretically sap strength from the Democratic candidates. The Democrats are not capable of placating that faction without thoroughly alienating the centrist voters they need to win the Presidency. By attempting to straddle the fence they achieve the worst of all possible outcomes, hence their current sorry state. The same logic applies to the other fringe groups that have been categorized by commentators on the right as the ?victim movements?, or some such. The left in the presumptive form of the Democratic Party must find a way to separate themselves from these factions and return rhetorical control of the political argument to more reality-based hands, or else must face the unpleasant prospect of a long stretch in the wilderness likely ending in the dissolution of the extant party structure in favor of something more workable.

I understand that the above seems particularly harsh in regards to the left whilst affording the conservatives somewhat of a pass; however, both analyses have bearing upon their opposite numbers. The fanatics still exist within the power structure of the Republican Party and there is no guarantee that this gradual marginalization will continue. One of the requisite factors for success in this endeavor is a resurgent and credible force on the left, shorn of its fanatic fringe elements and capable of bringing a coherent and believable message to the voters. The same is true of the Democratic Party: one of the reasons it faces such dire straights is that for some time the Republicans were essentially no threat. The lack of a credible political opponent let the poison of factionalism and fanaticism scar the soul of a great and majestic institution. Had the right been unable to articulate a message that resonated with the bulk of the voting population the left would still be ensconced in the throne room, and the rot would have continued to spread.

The thrust of all this is nothing new: in America the left and the right need each other to survive. The American people need both to be viable, honest and trustworthy. Both parties must abandon the deplorable practice of assuming that their own failures are the result of trickery on their opponents? part. And finally, both parties must learn to trust the people.

That final requirement is likely to be the most difficult. Throughout the extraordinarily brief history of this nation the various iterations of the political opposites have harbored a foundational distrust of the voters. This was not always so blatant, particularly when the vote was restricted to male property owners, but it has always been thus. This distrust of the voters has been the driving force behind the various manifestations of the parties that sought to shape the course of the American Experiment. This is the paradigm which must come to an end, for failing that this interesting experiment in self-rule could very well collapse, and what replaces it is doubtful to be to anyone?s liking.

Follow-up: Dean Esmay replies

Posted by

Filed in Politics | Comments (1)

Power

I said no more politics until January; however, I did not write this, so I did not actually break my promise. Besides, he invokes Mark Twain, and I dearly love Twain's work.

Bill Whittle writes regarding Power.

Posted by

Filed in Politics | Comments (0)

Greetings

Greetings to those who found their way here from Dean's World. I am afraid that my political commentary has been sparse of late, but please do take a moment to browse.

Posted by

Filed in Politics | Comments (2)

No More

No more politics until January. I promise. The pain is too deep.

Posted by

Filed in Politics | Comments (2)

Politics

I have been a good girl. I have avoided politics and world events for some time now, concentrating on what I most desired to write when I started this site. Still, there have been some tentative questions sent my way from those who found this site when I was initially dealing with the upcoming war in Iraq, and it has been a while, so?

Handicapping an American Presidential election more than a year before it takes place is an exercise for fools and masochists. Rather than look at the relative merits (or lack thereof) of assorted candidates, I would like to look at two core issues that must be dealt with by American voters in the next election.

One oft-noted characteristic of American politics is how the economy reflects on the President, even though the President has relatively little to do with the strength or weakness of the economy. In 2000 the world was witness to an incumbent Vice President losing the Electoral College vote while coming off of what was arguably the greatest economic boom in the nation?s history. Much has been made of how Al Gore essentially squandered his powerful advantages, and of course there is the on-going and moot non-debate regarding the Florida ballot; however, it is my contention that in 2000 one thing caused the Democratic candidate more pain than any other and that was the American voter finally seeing past the idea of the economy reflecting upon the relative merits of a Presidency. Failure to recognize this created an ideological blind spot for Gore and his campaign. They assumed strength of support that was not actually there and hence were vulnerable.

The upcoming election will not turn on the economy. For one thing the economy does appear to be improving and any candidate seeking to make hay against the incumbent by arguing the economy could be stripped of the weapons in his arsenal. Conversely the incumbent President can count only on less animosity and not some great ground swell of support from a resurgent economy. The 1992 admonition of ?It?s the economy, stupid!? has lost its ability to motivate since the American voter finally seems to grasp just whom the word ?stupid? actually referred to. The politics of Economy may yet return to the forefront, but not in this election. Bear in mind, of course, that I have been wrong before.

The obvious fulcrum of this election is the War on Terror, but it does not break down neatly in to a ?for and against? dichotomy. For one thing all of the serious candidates opposing the incumbent President are essentially in favor of prosecuting such a war. Instead of promising to end the fighting and bring the troops home, they are arguing that they are better suited than the incumbent to handle the complexities and make the tough decisions. This is a shrewd move on the part of those seeking to unseat the current President. It is also an immense boon to the American voter.

These days I am a woman of leisure. I spend my time at the University, at the shopping malls, in the parks, at the movie theaters and the like. I spend my time listening. What I am hearing gives me hope. Americans, whether they are old or young, concerned of the world, or hedonistically aloof, seem to have a fairly firm grasp of what is at stake, a far better understanding than either the media or the politicians give them credit for. They fear the war, some even despise it, but consciously or subconsciously, they all understand what is at stake.

So the stage is set.

There is no certain method to determine if any given event is a cultural or historical turning point. One can see the signs, the hints of gravity surrounding events, but it is history and history alone that passes final judgment on such matters. Still, I can taste the suspense in the air surrounding this election, not only from the fanatical fringe elements of the political spectrum, but from all corners.

The question of this election is who can best prosecute this war to a successful conclusion. The best choice is by no means clearly defined. While I have been generally approving of the conduct of the current President I do hear the criticism of those who claim he has failed to make a strong case for sacrifice in the pursuit of the enemies facing the West, and I do not find their concerns to be unfounded - premature perhaps, but not unworthy of debate. For without the commitment of the American people this war can most assuredly be lost, and with that loss the best hope for the future of humanity could be lost as well.

At the peak of the power of the Roman Empire you would have been hard pressed to find any who would openly entertain the idea that Rome could fall, that her power could evaporate, that she could cease to be the center of the world. Oh, certainly there were some for the Romans had been taught the classical meaning of Tragedy by the Greeks, but by and large the response to such a notion would be to cast about and point to the magnificence, the wealth and the power on display as if that were all the response required.

You Americans are subject to the same sort of blindness. If the troops come home and Iraq is left a chaotic mess in the hands of some feeble United Nations protectorate, so what? What impact would that have on the average American? Would there be no television? No Super Bowl? No tacos at midnight? No Senior Prom? What would be the evidence that some classic Tragic Flaw had been allowed to go unchecked and uncorrected?

Again, history would have to be the judge.

Yet as I listen I discern the evidence of understanding: the realization that for good or ill the die is cast and to withdraw now would be folly of the most egregious sort. It is an uneasy sort of acceptance for this generation of Americans is not so accustomed to the concept of non-retractable acts. You are used to the concept of Warranty, and Insurance, and the protection afforded by the skilled attorney-at-law. Nonetheless, you are aware that a line has been crossed and most of you seem to understand that it was not your political leaders who crossed it.

The political process in America is chaotic by design and this causes some discomfort for those who feel they know with absolute certainty what should be done regarding the War. That the conduct of the War should be at the mercy of the political process at such a critical juncture makes many people uneasy regardless of their political orientation; however, this is the proper place for this debate. It belongs squarely in the political arena of a Presidential election for this is the only way for the clear consensus of the American people to be heard. The notion to fear is that no such consensus will emerge, but I suspect that will not be the case.

Americans need to become deadly serious regarding this struggle. You need to understand what is at stake, and what may be required of you as a people and a nation. At this moment in history America stands at the apex of world power. You are the wealthiest nation on Earth. You are the most productive people on Earth. All who hunger for education and desire to be at the cutting edge of research and discovery in the hard sciences seek after your universities. Your military power is unmatched. Your culture is unique in the world in its regard for the rights of the individual and its glorification of individual initiative and effort.

You Americans consume so much. You Americans produce so much. But that is not enough. You Americans are being called to step in to the cross hairs of History, to Stand To and march deliberately in to the crucible. The mission of forging a hopeful future for all of humanity is yours because there is no one else who can shoulder that task. Only you have the power to act. Only you have the treasure to spend. Only you have the cultural and political philosophy that can lead and prevail in this fight.

So, if the war is the central point, what is the question? Simply this:

Will you be warriors? Or will you be slaves?

Americans need to choose a President who can stand before them and tell them that there are real sacrifices to be made. Not higher fuel prices, not extra hassles at the airport, but Sacrifices with a capital ?S?. Loved ones overseas. Loved ones lost. Lives on hold and dreams deferred or lost forever. Americans need to choose a President who can tell them these things and explicitly trust them to understand. You need to choose a President who will trust you to step up to the challenge.

You Americans need to understand that such leaders do exist, that there are some small number amongst those who will stand for election in November of 2004 who can do this. There are also several who cannot.

Choose wisely.

Posted by

Filed in Politics | Comments (6)

Iraq

Having studiously avoided commentary on world affairs for some time I feel it is proper to weigh in briefly on the situation in the Middle East in general, and Iraq in particular.

The current situation in Iraq comes as no surprise to anyone who takes a realistic view of the challenges ahead. While the military victory was a foregone conclusion there is no one of any note who believed that once the major battle was won the aftermath would be any less difficult or bloody than it now is. Every death in Iraq, be it of a Coalition soldier or an Iraqi civilian trying to make life a bit better today than it was yesterday constitutes a tragedy: Families are devastated, loved ones are bereft and it can become difficult to understand what the ultimate point is to all the struggle and suffering.

What we see now in Iraq is the predictable aftermath of the overthrow of tyrants and their power base: those who once walked as princes in Baghdad are not inclined to go meekly in to irrelevance. This is exacerbated by the commitment of the Jihadis who now flock to Iraq determined to undermine any peace and stability that might set in, regardless of whether it is driven by the occupying forces or ordinary Iraqis simply attempting to get back to the business of living.

The war itself was a simple matter that could be won by tactics, strategy and application of hard resources. The aftermath, the winning of the peace as it were, carries a steep price, and the only coin that can pay it is blood. As tragic as every death is each one is part of a necessary chain of events, an unavoidable cost on the road to true peace and security in the Middle East. This is not an easy path, and it calls for fortitude and determination on the part of the United States and those allies who have chosen to step forward and shoulder their part of the burden. The ultimate result will be worth the cost, and those whose lives were given as a precious sacrifice upon the altar of freedom shall not have died in vain.

We have seen the military prowess of the West. Now we must see its courage. There are forces in play, both from the reactionary fundamentalist circles and those whose concepts of reality have been twisted by the shattered curse of Marxist socialism, which daily seek to convince the peoples of the west that they have failed, that the struggle was a lie foisted upon them by a deceiving government and that there can never, ever be a free and democratic Iraq. They seek to make such a prophecy self-fulfilling by sapping the will of the American people with a drumbeat of accusation, innuendo and despair. The courage required is that which stands in the face of such adversaries and declares: ?The path is long, the choices are hard, and the cost is dear, but the fight is ours to win and we are determined to prevail.?

Time, of course, will tell the tale of victory or failure. I remain optimistic.

Posted by

Filed in Politics | Comments (0)

Iraq

Time for another view of developments in the Iraq campaign. I note that the general American public seems to be reacting to events with a degree of sophistication that the modern media usually assumes them incapable of. There are lessons to be learned there.

I noted last week that it is very difficult to form a coherent opinion or sense of what is happening based on the hourly reports of the news media and nothing over the past several days has dissuaded me from this view. Last week there existed a nearly morose atmosphere amongst large segments of the media, yet just over a week later the Coalition is on the move, engaging and defeating Iraqi forces in detail. I am not a military buff, nor do I pretend to any great knowledge of tactics or strategy; however, it seems to me that the initial push served to essentially freeze the larger Iraqi units in place, then came a few days of re-supply and reorientation, and now the next phase appears to be under way.

In short, I would be very surprised if the media are given the gift of the huge ?Battle of Baghdad? they seem to be anticipating. Instead the Coalition will likely proceed as they have to date: swift moves, consolidation, continuing pacification of the rear areas. They will eliminate the Republican Guard units one at a time, then possibly just sit and wait to allow those remaining in Baghdad to embrace the inevitable.

As always, I await events to prove me right or wrong.

I do have to express a minor bit of irritation with the press regarding the rescue of PFC Lynch. Excellent news, no matter how one chooses to take it. Still, the press has done this woman and for that matter all women serving in uniform a disservice. Please, please stop referring to her as Jessica. She is a soldier. Her rescue, as welcome as it is, is no more remarkable for her gender. Those who set out on that mission did so not for Jessica, but for Private Lynch of the United States Army.

Posted by

Filed in Politics | Comments (2)

Mercy

What constitutes mercy? Under what circumstances does mercy become an ill-afforded luxury? Is there intrinsic value in sacrificing soldiers in order to retain a moral imperative? Does that value persist if exercising mercy may prolong the combat and prevent an immediate peaceable solution, post conflict? These two posts on Weekend Pundit and The Truth Laid Bear have turned my thoughts to this topic.

One of the overarching concerns of the Coalition has been to minimize civilian casualties as well as to avoid wholesale slaughter of Iraqi troops. The feeling is that most of the rank and file of the armed forces would just as soon go home as die fighting a futile war to preserve the reign of the tyrant Saddam. On the surface this seems a reasonable expectation, but as has been clearly demonstrated, the situation in Iraq is far more complex: it defies simple pronouncements and therefore confounds simple solutions. Offering troops the opportunity to surrender in a situation where the Coalition cannot guarantee they can be prevented from rejoining the battle, willingly or otherwise, renders the practice virtually meaningless and ultimately foolhardy. The desire to show mercy in these cases is counter to the objective of de-mobilizing the regular Iraqi Army.

Despite the above, mercy is ultimately the best weapon the west can wield against the reactionaries, both religious and socialist. The cost is high in the short term, both in blood and treasure and there will be absolutely no short-term reward. That bears repeating: There will be NO short-term reward. Those whose cultures are too diseased to see anything other than weakness in the willingness to forgo killing, just this one time, will exploit acts of mercy. A policy of mercy requires an acceptance of the vulnerability it imposes and an understanding that the ultimate reward will not be realized in days, or weeks, or months, but likely in decades.

Mercy does not require prostration to those who would abuse it. The hand that firmly clutches the sword can deliver mercy, often times far more effectively than the hand that refuses to wield one. Mercy is possessed of more meaning when it comes from a position of strength and determination and it is most effective when it constitutes a central pillar of a policy of reconstruction and reconciliation. Mercy can be given with the full intent to severely punish those who abuse it, but one must be willing to accept the cost, and must be willing to follow through with consequences.

An interesting (and admittedly not perfect) parallel to this can be found in the history of crime and punishment in the United States during the third quarter of the twentieth century. Increasingly the experts in criminal behavior were putting forth he idea that there were underlying causes that went beyond simplistic explanations that some people were simply ?bad seed?. Doctors became involved in attempts to truly rehabilitate those involved in a life of crime. Attempts were made to determine root causes, tie anti-social behavior to childhood traumas, find ways to allow the alienated to express the rage the experts were certain lay at the core of their misbehavior. Adjunct to this there were moves to loosen the penal system, to allow experts to pronounce on the worthiness of the rehabilitated. In short, there was an attempt to make a systematic application of mercy in an attempt to turn the tide against the undercurrents of criminal behavior.

The attempts to make mercy a more central part of the criminal justice system are generally considered to have been a failure. Central to this assessment is the idea that mercy had transformed the penal system in to a revolving door through which offenders were cycled through the system and released in to society when ?experts? decided they were ready. Ten years in prison no longer meant ten years in prison. Mercy had been expanded to a point where it ceased to have any true meaning. It is almost tragic that the experience was perceived as such a failure by the public because those who attempted it had the right idea, but lacked the science to back them up. Today the west understands far more about the biochemistry of mental illness, but routinely locks up the mentally ill in holding pens where the emphasis is solely on punishment and lip service (if any) is paid to the idea of rehabilitation, but that is a topic for another day.

The lesson is that mercy was applied without a firm understanding of how it should work and with a popular perception that there was no great consequence to abusing the mercy one was shown. The result was a failure that the United States struggles with to this very day.

Military strength can crush armies. Economic prosperity can entice. But only mercy can begin to cure the disease of fundamentalist reactionary resentment. The reactionaries will not respect mercy shown by those whom they perceive to be weak- hence 300,000 soldiers march on Baghdad. The west has the strength to crush them. The west must also have the strength to offer the firm hand of mercy; the kind of mercy that is a second chance, not a third or a fourth or a fifth. Mercy that offers not blind forgiveness, but the chance for redemption. THAT is the great task of western society.

Posted by

Filed in PhilosophyPolitics | Comments (0)

Den Beste's Law

Steven Den Beste recently suggested guidelines for reacting to news reports on the war:

For any of the following reports, allow at least six hours before you even begin to take them seriously:


Any report of a Scud
The first three reports of mass casualties by anyone


For these, wait 12 hours:


Any report of an attack against a city outside of Iraq
Any report of use of chemical weapons
The first two reports of mass surrenders
The first two reports of use by the US of "wizard weapons"


For these, wait 24 hours if not even more:


Any report that a "name" in Iraq has been killed, captured or has defected
Any claim by the government of Iraq which looks good for them or bad for us
Any report of atrocities
Any report of Iraqi "scorched earth" destruction, especially oil well fires
Any report of mass Iraqi civilian casualties


For all of these, the proper response is to go take a nap. I know it's tough, but that's the best thing you can do.


My own feeling is that one should wait far longer; however, I am enough of a realist to recognize that this is nigh impossible for most people. With that in mind I have kept my opinions largely to myself over the past few days. Now enough time has passed to take a more detached and reasoned view of the opening phase.


I am surprised by the progress made by Coalition forces. While I have very little in the way of martial history in my past I must imagine that those in charge of executing this war are satisfied with how matters are unfolding, particularly in view of the lack of a realistic northern front. War is never an exercise in ?going through the motions?, despite the opinions of a few that this fight should be over in a few days. It has always been understood that resistance by the Iraqis would stiffen as forces approached Baghdad. From the reports over the weekend this is indeed the case. Nonetheless, the outcome of the war is not in doubt in any way.


To be very blunt: I expected things to be worse.


One of the problems facing the public as the war progresses in its normal, untidy way, is that they are forced to view that progress through the lenses of media structures ill-suited to the art of dispassionate analysis. The assorted news organs are placed in a rather distressing position: they have a competitive need to be the first to break any unfolding stories, they do not have anything even remotely resembling a reliable source of information even in the form of their own ?embedded? reporters, they are unable to reliably project in to the future, and as a result they are not able to seamlessly integrate their reporting in to the overall political spin desired by the editorial decision makers.


The above is NOT an indictment of the press, rather recognition of objective facts. Every news organization is guided by some overarching political agenda. This is the unavoidable result of the fact that these organizations are run by human beings. In some cases the guidance is less stringent, in others it is far more egregious, but it is all real and it often drives the news organizations to make leaps of illogic that can boggle the mind of a truly objective observer. News reports have been exhibiting classic examples of bipolar disorder as they move from upbeat to downbeat and back again with every new piece of information that scrolls across their screens. Sunday night, the gloom was palpable on American news broadcasts, a complete turnabout from the previous days, yet the only objective change had been the broadcast of the news that Coalition soldiers had been captured and that the Iraqis had apparently executed some while exploiting others on television. This is absurd on its face, but given the nature of the news cycle in modern societies it is entirely predictable. Modern news reporting has no reliable intrinsic mechanism for dealing with long term, real-time crisis situations.


At the risk of sounding callous, it is important to put the notion of prisoners in to perspective. There is simply no way to wage war without Coalition soldiers falling prisoner to Iraq. Their plight is unfortunate in that they are now in the hands of people with a proven record of inhuman brutality, but the only remedy to their plight is to continue with the careful, methodical execution of the war and press onward to complete victory. Anything short of that puts them, and for that matter everyone in the western world in very grave danger.


In the meantime, my suggestion would be to seek to adjust any opinions regarding the war on the basis of three or four days? events, rather than hourly news reports.

Posted by

Filed in Politics | Comments (0)

Determination

There is a thought I have run across once or twice in the past several months that seems to be missing from the general debate regarding the upcoming war to remove the current Ba?athist regime in Iraq. This is simultaneously disturbing and understandable. Disturbing in that it appears rather simple and straightforward to me. Understandable because where politics are concerned western peoples tend to immediately discount the simple and straightforward analysis, eschewing directness in favor of more convoluted explanations taking in to account all sorts of conflicting and esoteric political motivations.

The thought? That the current President of the United States is more intent upon accomplishing a task he views as absolutely necessary to the security of his nation and the world, than he is upon securing his reelection in 2004.

I had this reinforced over the past few days as those dedicated to maintaining the processes of the UNSC to the detriment of the world in general and the Iraqi people in particular have maneuvered to ensure a nineteenth Security Council resolution on Iraq fails before it could come to a vote. When I see this and I listen to the unhappiness of those who understand the necessity of war and the glee of those sworn to maintaining the status quo I have to realize that many, many people who claim to have an encompassing world view have missed that one fundamental fact. George Bush has already decided that the time has come. The new resolution move served two purposes- an attempt to provide additional political cover for the United Kingdom, and a distraction to keep those determined to protect the current world order safely ensconced in the illusion that they actually have something to say about it.

I am not entirely delighted that events have unfolded as they have. There was a time not so long ago when I entertained the hope that other western nations would come to understand that the time had come to begin eradicating the brutish thug-ridden cesspools dotting the face of the earth. Unfortunately there is still a deeply entrenched cadre of nations whose view of world power includes recognizing regimes whose sole claim to legitimacy is that they have managed to rape, plunder and slaughter their way to the top of the rock pile in their tiny corner of the planet. How supposedly liberal and sophisticated polities can countenance such attitudes in this modern age is almost a mystery to me. Almost.

Posted by

Filed in Politics | Comments (4)

The EU

It is beginning to look as if the western governments have come to the understanding that the United States and the United Kingdom are deadly serious regarding Iraq. While nothing is ever finished until the votes are counted it appears that the French were not quite as prepared to sunder the United Nations as I had posited earlier. In particular I believe it was the recalcitrance of the Vilnius Group nations and the Gang of Eight that brought the French President up short. The truly indignant replies to Mssr. Chirac?s astoundingly arrogant and ill-advised outburst left France facing not only a loss of international stature via making her veto power in the Security Council irrelevant, but also a European Union in crisis. Between the two it is likely France shall yield, and with that done the Chinese and the Russians will decide they have had enough entertainment at the expense of the Americans and find a way to fall in line as well.

The Chinese veto in particular was never a very serious threat: they are as concerned about the North Koreans as everyone else, particularly since they are rightly seen as the North Korean?s major patron at this point: their mess, their responsibility.

The next ten days or so should by quite interesting indeed.


AFTERWORD: Pay no attention to the Russians right now. Unlike the French they have been consistent in opposition to military action and they will make crystal clear that any change of opinion is the result of events, not political shifts on the part of the French.

Posted by

Filed in Politics | Comments (2)

Yet More Politics

So, what will happen now? I do enjoy a mystery, but this hardly qualifies: why do so many have a hard time understand that the President of the United States was absolutely sober and deadly serious when he told the world that should the United Nations fail to fulfill its obligations the US and her allies would go on without it?

Many appear confused by the ongoing efforts in the UN Security Council. Steven Den Beste is bitterly disappointed and suspects a political disaster might be in the offing. My own view is that nothing has changed in any substantive way. There were large protests, but any person who believed that the world, and Europe in particular, was going to greet a resurgent and assertive America with unbridled joy has not been paying attention for the last few decades. Unless the US and her allies are ready to launch their attack tomorrow there is simply no reason not to work through the UN today. Perhaps Iraq will actually be foolish enough to hand the UNSC the firm excuse it needs to bend to American demands. Perhaps the French will decide they are not quite ready to surrender the power a relevant United Nations provides. My point is, there is simply nothing to lose- if the US fails to carry the day with UN and attacks Iraq regardless, the equation remains the same- victory and revelation of the horror that constitutes the daily operations of Saddam?s government will carry the moral argument and the United Nations goes the way of the League of Nations.

There will be war with Iraq, likely within just a pair of weeks. This is an immense gamble on the part of the US and the United Kingdom; however, it is a relatively intelligent wager. Any person who taking account of Iraq prior to September 11th knows that Saddam Hussein has been biding his time, waiting for the United Nations to grow weary of the sanctions and finally offer a simple way for Iraq to escape with but a gesture. If anything Iraq?s leader is likely as angry at the World Trade Center attackers as the US is- they refocused American attention upon the world?s despots and troublemakers before Iraq was able to slip free.

It is quite likely that the war will be brief and casualties light, which would be a boon of sorts for the United States and her allies; however, even in the event of a difficult war, perhaps with the deployment of chemical weapons by Iraq, it will likely still end well for the west. Should Iraq deploy such weapons in the face of sure defeat it can do nothing but give additional moral weight to those who argued that the war was necessary and unavoidable. Those determined to hate the United States could not hate her more, and could not hate her less even if she were to elect to turn her back on Iraq and return home. Given that equation, what real alternative is there?

I have repeatedly referred to the current events in terms of a struggle between the liberal modernist and the reactionary fundamentalist spheres of the world and I still hold to that view. If by some unforeseen eventuality the crisis of the moment were to be defused it would simply shift the focus of the battle. The west needs to reduce the Islamist Fanatic menace regardless of the outcome with Iraq. Furthermore there are reactionaries within the west itself that must be dealt with, both of religious bent and those who cling desperately to the shattered lie of Marxism- the forces in play are more numerous and ingrained than most people are willing to see. The world faces a new paradigm shift and the choice of paths is remarkably clear: a world of freedom, optimism and progress; or a world caught in a slowly tightening spiral of despair, withdrawal and decline.

I know my choice.

Posted by

Filed in Politics | Comments (2)

More Politics

More politics, if I do ever become truly depressed it will be from the constant need to revisit this topic.

The French are beginning to be subjected to the negative feedback inherent in any bold move upon the geopolitical front. I find it difficult to accept that Mssr. Chirac believed there would be no reaction against his posture by other nations in Europe; however, his current string of public pronouncements regarding the actions of other European nations does give one pause. That the French would deliver a public tongue-lashing to Eastern European nations, making the explicit threat that France would prevent their entry in to the European Union unless they be seated and remain mute is indicative of problems brewing for France.

It has been pointed out by myself and others that the Eastern Europeans are acutely aware of the threat posed by men such as the current leader of Iraq. Furthermore the actions of France, Germany and Belgium with regard to Turkey?s request for NATO assistance in preparing its defenses in the event of an Iraq war can only leave the Eastern European nations wondering just how reliable the EU might be in the event of problems arising from the east. These are nations who still fear a resurgent Russia and desire guarantees against just such an event. It is quite reasonable of them to consider that their security is better served by a relationship with the United States than with a capricious and unreliable EU led by the French.

Politics of this sort are the whirlwind. A century from now historians will write of these times and this is the aspect that will be lost. Retrospect will prove what options were correct and which were founded in disastrous self-serving delusions. Treatises will be written analyzing the obvious wisdom of one or the horrible series of poor decisions of another, but none of those will capture the manic passions of events as experienced by those who lived them. This is why I often feel that history as it is taught in the modern world is lacking. The lessons are all there, but do modern peoples possess the requisite empathy to make the crucial connections between the past and the present? It is difficult for most people to see through this to an end where the world is a rational, more civilized place precisely because many alive today cannot grasp the sense of panic, exhilaration, despair and hope which colored the days of nations in crisis in the past. This is why each generation can so easily be convinced that this is the End of Ages.

Posted by

Filed in Politics | Comments (2)

France

I am neither a fan nor a foe of the French though their political maneuvers over the past few weeks have done nothing to endear that nation to me; however, it is incumbent upon any person who seeks to comment on politics and current events to step back and take a long, dispassionate look at what is happening.

I believe the case can be made that the major sin of the French government is that it recognized the shape of the new reality before the US and the United Kingdom were ready to have it do so. Many in the United States have been very vocal in the opinion that both the United Nations and NATO are old alliances that make no sense given the current situation. The governments of the US and the UK likely share this view to some degree; however, it seems that they have been willing to attempt to bend the old institutions to serve the needs of new situations, and to see them eventually break under the strain if that was what was required. Take that attitude, translate it in to French, and suddenly the machinations of those people in Paris and Berlin do not seem quite so irrational.

NATO and the United Nations were born of a bipolar world where two super entities stood in ideological opposition, but with similar goals. The great contest that was the Cold War made NATO, the Warsaw Pact and the UN both necessary and viable. NATO and the Warsaw Pact served to roughly define the boundaries of the conflicting ideologies and the UN served as a vital release valve that allowed both sides to cooperate when absolutely required under the umbrella of a pseudo-supranational body. The United Nations offered a forum whereby grievances could be aired, strategies proposed, and treaties struck while always giving each major power block the ability to halt anything diametrically opposed to their own self interest.

It worked because world politics were so structured as to make it work. Eventually though, catastrophe struck: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics collapsed under the weight of a massively mismanaged economy. In the maelstrom that followed the Warsaw Pact dissolved (an event that I suspect placed those nations well ahead of the curve of the NATO members) and lacking any other world-girdling socialist system to step in to the power vacuum, the United States was left as the world?s sole superpower.

Suddenly there was no bipolar world, but the detritus of that world still remained in the form of the old western alliance and the United Nations. Both NATO and the United Nations had lost their old callings and the only thing left to them was to reign in American power. Unfortunately for those bodies, they are utterly inadequate to the task.

The European Union (led by France) sought to position itself as a rival power to the US and her closest allies. In a post modernist world they felt they could build the economic and political power required to check what they considered to be a vibrant yet culturally inferior America. They thought they had time. They were wrong: the ruins of the Caliphate, fueled by petrodollars and Cold War legacies of weapons and training, were stirring to the call of reactionary elements which viewed the west as an evil to eradicated.

After September 11, 2001, the US knew what she needed to do and the post modern EU was forced to go along. This left a terrible aftertaste in the mouths of the EU leaders as they had allowed this ?cowboy? nation to run roughshod over them on its way to fight a war. When attention turned to Iraq the French in particular apparently understood that the only way the UN and NATO could be used to reign in the US/UK alliance was to sacrifice those bodies upon the altar of European power and position themselves to possess a solid grasp on power in whatever new body or bodies eventually emerge.

Taken in that light, it seems to me that France?s actions possess a certain element of rationality.

The truly interesting part has yet to unfold. Assuming that the US and the UK move forward without the UN and NATO there will follow several years (at least two, anyhow) of agonizing death-throes for those two organizations. The EU (or what remains of it once the NATO split is complete) could be forced to build a military of its own, or else come to terms with the idea of relying upon the Russians for their muscle. Keep in mind that many Eastern European nations will likely be unwilling in the extreme to become a part of an organization that relies on Russian troops to maintain order. While Russian troops are vastly inferior to modern western (read that US and UK) armies, they are not so inconsiderable in relation to what the EU is likely to have on hand when the dust settles. Part of the price will likely be the curtailment of the grand socialism that Europe enjoyed as a protectorate of the United States.

Keep in mind that during and after this realignment there will still be reactionary forces to be dealt with and that none of them have any more love for Europe than they do for the United States.


Afterword: Mr. Den Beste has a different take on what may have happened to bring NATO and the UN to this point. As always, his analysis is thorough and engaging.

Posted by

Filed in PoliticsThe PastThe Present | Comments (8)

Twists and Turns

Looking over the displeasure on display over the past weekend reminds me of why I usually stay clear of day-to-day politics: my viewpoint is too far-reaching to make sense to most people. The impulse (which I indulged in the other day) is to react to every occurrence and shift in the political winds; however, this is ultimately pointless. It is somewhat unlikely that history will look back on the weeks leading up to the conclusion of the Iraq issue and take serious note of the various machinations of the players at the time, unless of course this ends disastrously. Disaster is always possible, but it seems quite unlikely, at least at this juncture.

The diplomatic row brewing between parts of Europe and the United States is actually somewhat small in comparison to other events. I know that this sounds counterintuitive; however, does anyone actually believe that the world faces the threat of war in Europe over the issue of Iraq? If the answer is ?no? (and if you are a reasonably astute individual, the answer must be ?no?), then the aftermath of any perceived political break is in truth quite minor. It is entirely possible that the various alliances and institutions are preparing to be thrown down and replaced by newer, more vital, and more rational entities. The United Nations is not a useless body so long as one views it merely as a second try at establishing a consensual world body. To my view it seems that the world is preparing to set the stage for a third attempt and I suspect that the end result will be similar to the UN, but will recognize that all nations are not equal; not in strength, not in freedom and not in legitimacy. That will be the hard transformation for the world to accept, and I would warn everyone that the make up of such a body is unlikely to be what anyone would expect or enjoy for the single most qualifying attribute will be, as it has always been, power. What direction this new body takes will depend entirely on who can muster the power to lead it.

Posted by

Filed in Politics | Comments (3)

Developments

People certainly do become excited when something unexpected appears on the horizon. In this case it is the prospect of the reported Franco-German proposal for occupation of Iraq by a force of several thousand UN troops supporting 300 or more weapons inspectors.

Forgive me my failure to be impressed. I do think it is a positive sign that the French have chosen to make a somewhat bold move in the face of impending military action by the United States and her numerous allies; however, this amounts to far too little, far too late and compounds that with the additional sin of lacking even a semblance of originality. What has been proposed (or more correctly, is rumored to be proposed in the near future) is simply a none-too-clever recapitulation of the ?Robust Inspection Regime? proposed last year: several thousand soldiers traipsing through the Iraqi countryside seeking out illicit weapons sites.

This is certain to be grasped close to the breast of those seeking any option to prevent the west from taking any sort of concerted action against Iraq. It is also doomed to rapid failure for one very simple reason: Iraq will never accede to this. Even if they feign interest in the concept simply insisting upon rapid implementation can catch them out. The only danger this proposal presents is that of delay, and even that is unlikely to succeed.

Let us examine the following:

Assume that the US feels they have no choice but to accept this proposal, what would the first move be in Washington? To insist on moving troops in to Iraq immediately. American troops. It would be a reasonable insistence that would likely break the deal on the spot.

Look at the track record of UN Peacekeeping forces in dangerous situations- to say they have not earned a reputation for honor and effectiveness is to put absolutely the most positive light upon them that one can. Blue helmets have stood by and watched the slaughter of innocents, they have become hostages and they have proven repeatedly to be ineffective over the past few decades. Is there any reason to believe that there will suddenly be a change? The short answer is ?No?. The long answer is that given the nature and organization of such forces and the extraordinarily political nature of the leadership of same it would be na?ve in the extreme to expect such forces to be capable of confronting even the mildest resistance from Iraqi forces or institutions.

Neither of the above are earth-shattering revelations. If I can propose them here others have doubtless taken their measure as well. There are other objections, all of which have been raised before when this idea was originally proposed and rejected as unworkable and unlikely to succeed.

A logical conclusion might be that those proposing this plan do not expect it to be implemented. So why propose it? The French are staring irrelevancy in the face and they do not like what they see. This ploy allows them to establish themselves as the preeminent political opposition to the United States on the world stage, at least in their domestic sphere and the arena of the European Union.

If the French are hoping against logic that this plan will actually be put in to action one would be forced to consider the extremely unpleasant possibility that they are desperate to hide something. In that case the possibilities become numerous and in some cases quite ghastly.

Only time will tell.

Posted by

Filed in PoliticsPolitics | Comments (0)

Developments

People certainly do become excited when something unexpected appears on the horizon. In this case it is the prospect of the reported Franco-German proposal for occupation of Iraq by a force of several thousand UN troops supporting 300 or more weapons inspectors.

Forgive me my failure to be impressed. I do think it is a positive sign that the French have chosen to make a somewhat bold move in the face of impending military action by the United States and her numerous allies; however, this amounts to far too little, far too late and compounds that with the additional sin of lacking even a semblance of originality. What has been proposed (or more correctly, is rumored to be proposed in the near future) is simply a none-too-clever recapitulation of the ?Robust Inspection Regime? proposed last year: several thousand soldiers traipsing through the Iraqi countryside seeking out illicit weapons sites.

This is certain to be grasped close to the breast of those seeking any option to prevent the west from taking any sort of concerted action against Iraq. It is also doomed to rapid failure for one very simple reason: Iraq will never accede to this. Even if they feign interest in the concept simply insisting upon rapid implementation can catch them out. The only danger this proposal presents is that of delay, and even that is unlikely to succeed.

Let us examine the following:

Assume that the US feels they have no choice but to accept this proposal, what would the first move be in Washington? To insist on moving troops in to Iraq immediately. American troops. It would be a reasonable insistence that would likely break the deal on the spot.

Look at the track record of UN Peacekeeping forces in dangerous situations- to say they have not earned a reputation for honor and effectiveness is to put absolutely the most positive light upon them that one can. Blue helmets have stood by and watched the slaughter of innocents, they have become hostages and they have proven repeatedly to be ineffective over the past few decades. Is there any reason to believe that there will suddenly be a change? The short answer is ?No?. The long answer is that given the nature and organization of such forces and the extraordinarily political nature of the leadership of same it would be na?ve in the extreme to expect such forces to be capable of confronting even the mildest resistance from Iraqi forces or institutions.

Neither of the above are earth-shattering revelations. If I can propose them here others have doubtless taken their measure as well. There are other objections, all of which have been raised before when this idea was originally proposed and rejected as unworkable and unlikely to succeed.

A logical conclusion might be that those proposing this plan do not expect it to be implemented. So why propose it? The French are staring irrelevancy in the face and they do not like what they see. This ploy allows them to establish themselves as the preeminent political opposition to the United States on the world stage, at least in their domestic sphere and the arena of the European Union.

If the French are hoping against logic that this plan will actually be put in to action one would be forced to consider the extremely unpleasant possibility that they are desperate to hide something. In that case the possibilities become numerous and in some cases quite ghastly.

Only time will tell.

Posted by

Filed in PoliticsPolitics | Comments (0)

War and Politics

I grow increasingly weary of the war debate, politics is not my forte; however, it is much on the minds of many people, and particularly of those whom I call friends. So many seem fixated upon the narrow topics of oil, Iraqi support for terror and the desire to liberate the Iraqi people from an admittedly terrible tyranny. These are all individually valid concerns and when one takes the time to consider them as a whole I suppose it is enough to sway many people to a decision that war is at least necessary, even if undesirable.

First, let me briefly dispose on these three points. Oil: it is the lifeblood of the modern world, there are unstable regimes which threaten the world?s supply of oil, and the choices are starkly clear: act to protect the flow of oil or accept an inevitable economic disaster precipitated by the actions of a nation, group, or groups who believe they have nothing to lose by bringing the current world order to the brink of collapse. Terror: Iraq does support terror groups, both directly and indirectly. Involvement with the al-Qaida organization is likely tangential, but that is somewhat akin to the old saw regarding being ?a little bit pregnant?, one either tolerates support for terrorism, or one does not. Liberation: Regimes are legitimate or they are not, they either serve the interests of their citizens or they do not, they reign by popular consent or by popular submission. When citizens disappear at the behest of government it is usually an indication that the rule is illegitimate.

I do not begin to presume that the above encompasses all there is to say on these topics; however, it serves to make clear my own mind in these areas.

What the world faces today is not a war of American Imperialism. Rather it is a battle between the forces of reactionary fanaticism and western liberalism. The world is divided in to two essential spheres (three, if one is fond of splitting hairs): the modern, liberal sphere; and the primitive sphere mired in strongman leadership and internecine struggle. Portions of the primitive sphere struggle to join the modern, other portions struggle to destroy the modern. The second camp is not one that can be ignored, or held at arm?s length, nor can it be negotiated with. The basic assumptions of both sides between the modern and the reactionary primitive are too divergent for there to be a common interest around which to build a framework for discussion.

The world is dotted with small dictatorships and lands steeped in a seemingly endless cycle of sanguinary anarchy. Most of this is the admitted aftermath of the war-by-proxy that was the Cold War, where both sides supported regimes and movements which had little in common with the patron other than that they stood in apparent opposition to the will of the opposite side. This is not to say that the Cold War alone was responsible for these regimes, but it certainly abetted them. With the Cold War over, there remains a responsibility to begin attempting to clean up the mess. It is the current Iraqi regime?s ill fortune that it has wandered in to the crosshairs at this time in history.

Regardless of what reasons the west gives at this time, the move against Iraq constitutes the first phase of what will eventually become an effort to clean up the detritus of the Cold War. It is an eminently practical choice on several levels beginning with the threat Iraq poses to the stability of the world oil supply and its strategic location in a geographical area immersed in the conflict between the modern and the reactionary. The Iraqi regime is dangerous and it holds its population in thrall through terror. It is also weak enough to be handled easily- lacking any hard, fast friends in the area it stands alone and its passing will be mourned only by those who see that passing as a foreshadow of their own fate. That act alone will likely move some of the problematic regimes towards some sort of rapprochement with the west, which would include some basic reformation of their own governments.

I am not implying that this is some sort of conscious plan on the part of the west for it most assuredly is not, rather this is a possible outgrowth of a successful reduction of the Iraqi regime. With Iraq liberated the anti-war protests of ?why Iraq and not North Korea or Zimbabwe? morph in to a pro-liberation protest of ?Iraq is free, why not North Korea, or Zimbabwe?? At this point the West will either step up to its obligations, or shy away and the tone of the next few decades will likely have been set.

Posted by

Filed in PoliticsThe Present | Comments (0)

What happens after the

What happens after the war is a very good question. One would hope that the US government has put a great deal of thought and preparation in to the post-war reconstruction of Iraq?s infrastructure and social support systems, but the current situation in Afghanistan does leave ample room for doubt. Afghanistan is being left essentially to build its own path, with a moderate force of peacekeepers in the region to discourage any large-scale insurrections. The west is very interested in seeing the Afghan government evolve in to a stable democracy, but the truth is that the fate of Afghanistan is not of utmost concern. So long as it does not again become a haven for extremist reactionaries the west seems content to allow it to struggle along on its own.

Iraq is a different situation altogether. Strategically located in the middle of a most important geographic locale with easy air and sea access, it simply does not compare with Afghanistan in any way. Furthermore, Iraq actually has civic institutions based on a secular model that can be easily resurrected from the post-war turmoil. Afghanistan?s social and civic constructs were somewhat limited and devoted inordinately to maintaining a state of religious purity. There simply was ?no there there? to begin with. In Iraq, assuming the west is so motivated, a new civic order can be established with relative ease.

One of the pressing issues will be what form the new government will take. As I read the accounts and speak with various other people it becomes somewhat clear that the one thing that will not happen will be a handing over of the government to opposition figures. This is very reassuring, for eschewing the easy path makes it necessary for the west to engage in a long-term effort at nation-building, a prospect which Iraq is uniquely suited for.

One of the primary positives for Iraq is that it has now and in the past been a secular society. There are strong religious institutions in the nation, but they do not run the government and have had little say in public policy for a very long time. Give the Iraqi people an opportunity to run their own affairs and it is not a forgone conclusion that they would turn solely to the mosques for leadership. Difficulty lies in the lack of a fundamental democratic tradition- for a very long time there has only been one real choice on any ballot and voting has been merely an exercise in stroking the ego of the current strong man.

Another large positive is oil. Iraq has a ready source of national income, meaning that it will not long require the huge influx of financial and material aid that other nations require. Assuming that any significant portion of the petroleum infrastructure escapes destruction at the hand of some misguided scorched-earth defense Iraq will immediately begin earning the capital it needs to rebuild on its own terms. This is a psychological advantage that cannot be overstated- they will be masters of their own destiny.

A very real danger in the post-war scenario is the possibility of other Arab nations offering aid. What this will doubtless consist of is food, building materials, and of course schools. To be more precise, madrasas- Islamic religious schools which have formed the basis of the groundswell of anti-western sentiment over the past decades. This alone is reason enough to keep other Middle Eastern nations out of post-war Iraq. It will be a delicate, but necessary point for the west to win.

Another very real danger is the destabilization of world oil markets. There will be a run up of oil prices once the war begins, but a quick ending should rapidly put an end to that. Once the west begins opening up Iraq?s oil production prices will likely fall somewhat. One can speculate what the west?s ultimate goals are in the Gulf region, however, precipitating another conflict directly on the heels of an successful Iraq operation is not one of them. If the west threatens to destabilize OPEC those nations will act, probably not with open warfare, but perhaps with a shut-off of oil supplies. Iraq?s reserves cannot take up all that slack. This muddies the future and must be avoided- the assorted theocracies and dictatorships of the region will need time to assimilate what has happened if any real progress is to be made at anything other than the point of a bayonet. The governments and peoples of the Middle East need to see a swift victory followed by a relatively peaceful occupation and a foundation of liberty and prosperity. That alone will put the proper fear in to those who would hold their peoples in thrall.

This can be done. The west can do it. The only question is does it have the will to see it through. Only time will tell.




Afterword: Stanley Kurtz has an interesting take on the effort to democratize Iraq, and why Iraq bears no resemblance to World War II Japan. He foresees a difficult, but not impossible task, simultaneously dragging the overly-optimistic and the reflexively pessimistic towards a more realistic point of view.

Posted by

Filed in Politics | Comments (2)

War

What is the tipping point for war? When does a build up towards hostilities morph in to an ?inevitable? conflict? I noted earlier that no war is unavoidable until it begins; however, one has to be careful how one defines war. Another writer recently wrote of the broader definition of war that includes such things as economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure backed by rewards and punishments, etc. I am inclined to agree with his lengthy analysis, and by that measure war against Iraq began more than ten years ago and has been on-going since that time. What the world awaits now is an answer to the following question: will this war finally end? Oddly enough, those opposed to conventional action against Iraq are in favor of prolonging the conflict, while those in favor of invasion support bringing this war to a close.

Posted by

Filed in PoliticsThe Present | Comments (3)

In To The West

I enjoy living in America, and I have spent more than eighty percent of my time here over the past three centuries. Initially, it simply afforded me a perfect social/cultural jungle to hide within. As the colonies and then the nation expanded there were always new places where I could set up a life for twenty or thirty years (in one case even longer). As time progressed it became clear to me that there really was no other place to reside if one wanted to ride the edge of cultural and material advances. The United States of America is a remarkably resilient and optimistic place and as such is uniquely prepared to face the coming challenges of the new century.

In my view there is little doubt that western cultural liberalism will prevail over the next century. The only real question is where the synthesis of European semi-democratic socialism and American semi-democratic capitalist/individualism will eventually lead. That the two will combine in some way is inevitable, but the result is likely to be surprising even to me. At the moment it is clear that America?s social/economic structure is far more adaptable than that of the vast majority of Europe, as well as being more focused on the issues of importance that shall define the next two decades. Europe?s advantages in these times are to be frank, nil; however, there are things to be admired in the desire for total social justice. In the end it will be American ingenuity and drive which will bring the European ideals as close to reality as any human utopia is likely to come.

At the moment, though, there are many unpleasant tasks to be completed, not least of which is the political reduction of fundamentalist reactionaries in the Middle East. While this is currently viewed as primarily a military and law enforcement action I find myself speculating that in the future history will pass lightly over the decade (give or take five years) of conflict that begins this century and instead count as the great accomplishments of Twenty-First Century Western Civilization the reconstruction of political order in what is now mostly a cesspool of poverty, repression, tyranny and random, indiscriminate death. Let us be absolutely clear on this point: there are cultures too warped to survive without being corrected by outside influences, and there are cultures which are, at their very core, simply Evil. Not Evil in the religious sense (since even any hint of spirituality seems to give so many people hives), rather Evil in the sense that they do nothing to promote even a semblance of progress for human dignity and freedom. Evil in that they stand in active opposition to the very things which form the core of Western Cultural Liberalism: freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, and oh-so-very importantly the freedom to try and to fail.

Posted by

Filed in PhilosophyPoliticsThe Present | Comments (0)

Lessons Learned And Forgotten

?Nazi Germany taught us that sometimes you have to stop talking peace and just start dropping bombs.? If only this were the case. It is simple in retrospect to conclude that such a lesson both presented itself and was understood; however, in my experience human beings are quite adept at shading the lessons of history to accommodate whatever ideology holds sway with them at the moment. Furthermore it is seldom so clear in the thick of events just when one has crossed that line.

Obviously I am referring to the current situation in the Middle East. There are diametrically opposed ideologies in the West regarding the correct method of dealing with threats both real and perceived and these positions are being shouted from the various vantage points of punditry and demagoguery for all to hear. In the meantime there is (as there has always been) a more centrist core of leadership attempting to both navigate through the current crisis and simultaneously avoid giving either of the polarized opponents in the western ideology conflict anything to latch on to as casus belli. I am certain that the people involved would be grateful for the opportunity to leap ahead fifty or one hundred years to see what the proper course should have been.

Unfortunately for all concerned my expertise is limited to human interaction first and history as a distant second.

What I can offer is a carefully crafted circumlocution: it has been my experience that no war is inevitable until it begins, but some wars simply must be fought. There is always an option to avoid war. Compromise, capitulation, surrender; it is simply a matter of what one is willing to do to avoid war. Whether or not such actions are desirable or even possible depends upon the basic nature of the conflict and the cultural imperatives of the potential combatants. When one side is willing to bargain and the other side is bent on total victory what exactly is there to discuss? Sometimes it is the blatant display of the willingness to fight that brings the other side to the bargaining table- no rational nation/state launches a war they do not expect to win. If the potential opponent appears formidable it is likely that the belligerent party may choose another path. This is the ?If you desire peace, arm for war? philosophy, and it does have its place.

War is an immensely complex cultural interaction, one that humanity has been practicing and perfecting for millennia. Even in its earliest manifestations it served multiple purposes, such as the expansion of territory, the mixing of gene pools, redistribution of wealth, testing of social structures and more. War has always left cultural change in its wake and the results are usually, though not universally, to the long-term good. When the results are not to the long-term good war is usually, though not universally, the correcting mechanism.

So, where does the Middle East fit in to all this? I noted earlier that we are embroiled in the midst of a true paradigm shift that has been on going for approximately a century. Many very wise people saw the Cold War as the defining issue; however, it is my contention that the Cold War was nothing more than a side issue, such as a sporting event where two teams must play to see which will move on to the next level of competition. In the midst of that competition both sides facilitated the growth of other combatants whose driving ideologies were far divergent from those of the two major Cold War powers. What was seen as a victory in the Cold War was merely gaining to opportunity to attempt to put to rest the vestiges of religious/intolerance motivated aggression. What makes this issue slightly more pressing than it might have been is the threat of so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction and the world dependence on oil reserves located on what could easily become major battlefields.

Interesting times indeed.

Posted by

Filed in Politics | Comments (0)

I do not care

I do not care about politics. In my experience any single election or coup or coronation or revolution is of little long-term consequence. Truly, elections and coronations tend to inch forward towards some distant goal whereas coups and revolutions often are merely minor setbacks. There are exceptions of course- in the science of humanity progress is usually measured by the exceptions encountered. I lived through several of those exceptions, ?interesting times? according to the popular misquotation of an ancient Chinese curse, and I can say with authority that the current situation simply does not qualify.

It is simplistic to see the events of the past ten decades as full of separate defining moments, each ushering in a new paradigm; however, from my somewhat unique perspective the century just ended was merely the beginning of the final reconciliation between the eastern and western world. This began with the collapse of the Caliphate and was exacerbated by the rise of the oil-based energy economy and the solidification of the western model of what currently passes for political and cultural liberalism. The Cold War standoff between the warped pseudo-socialist despotism of the USSR and western style Capitalism served to pause the process and in turn allowed certain pressures to escalate; however, things are now proceeding forward in a predictable fashion. The tools and the numbers are modern, the pace is accelerated, but the process is the same. Come back in one hundred years and the results should be? intriguing.

See? I have a cruel streak.

Posted by

Filed in PhilosophyPoliticsThe PastThe Present | Comments (4)