This really is a heart-rending issue, so I decided to comment on it...
First of all, our prayers go out to them, our brothers in faith in a land of terrible spiritual darkness and political uncertainty. Only God can truly provide peace of mind and safety, through his influences on the world. Yet, even as humans, we have a big part to play in this.
It's clear to me that, however unfairly, the association of the Christians with the 'regime change' operation, along with others who actually helped, such as translators, is a large part of the reason they are being singled out like this. Whilst I don't hold with Islam being a tolerant religion, based upon it's history of being quite different, in other times and places such discrimination has also happened because of the assumed 'guilt of association', which is a toxic thing to begin with. It's a horrible shock to see, but it is something that humans have been capable of for a long time. We need reasonable solutions to make sure people are safe.
Bush and Co. should never have invaded unless they were sure they could produce a stable, secular government in a short time. Still, such a government, made by Iraqis for Iraqis is the only hope that this sort of thing, which doesn't tend to happen so much in stable countries, becomes a thing of the past.
Radical groups flourish in anarchy and removing not just Saddam Hussein, but also the Baath party administrators, police and army, pretty much ensured this anarchistic situation, which Iraq is still climbing out of. He was actually putting the brakes on Islamic radicalism, as it was a threat to him too.
It seems to me that evil loves chaos, as it can fulfill it's darkest fantasies in such a time, with no-one able or even willing to stop them. Good requires a certain amount of order, as it is a constructive force. This should be a lesson to the world about attempts to make things better. They should be careful to see that they create what they really want and ensure the safety of the innocent. It seems like radical Islam is so barbaric, it requires strong governments to control. The unsavoury things such governments do may just be the lesser of two evils compared with setting it free.
Freedom, in short, is closely related to safety. If we can't guarantee this to the Iraqi Christians in their own land, then they should be granted safe asylum, as a priority, partly because it seems to me almost no-where in the middle East is truly safe for anyone not a Muslim. We can't just wash our hands of this and hope things get better there. Obama and co has inherited these problems just as much as he inherited the wars that exacerbated them- ironically, as part of their intention was (publicly at least), to create stable, viable, friendly states out of tyranny. Whether this 'lead to gold' alchemy can work is a philosophical point to those living under the effects of it.
Well, that's my two cents on the situation, anyway. Right now north Korea is hogging the headlines, but not only will these issues not go away, we should also urgently study them, to see what lessons can be learnt if we do take part in other regime changes, such as the North Korean problem. In such a case, we shouldn't just fire everyone working for Li'l Kim, as they might actually be decent individuals just doing a job, essential for rebuilding the country. We should be realistic and avoid radical actions. That way, more reasonable people are likely to come to the fore in the aftermath. Your means define your ends, not the other way around.
Showing posts with label War on Terror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War on Terror. Show all posts
Friday, December 24, 2010
Saturday, September 04, 2010
The End of Iraqi Combat Operations- Yet When Will They Have Their Lives Back?
The wonderful Bill Blum says about the Iraqis
"( they) have lost everything — their homes, their schools, their electricity, their clean water, their environment, their neighborhoods, their mosques, their archaeology, their jobs, their careers, their professionals, their state-run enterprises, their physical health, their mental health, their health care, their welfare state, their women's rights, their religious tolerance, their safety, their security, their children, their parents, their past, their present, their future, their lives ."
"( they) have lost everything — their homes, their schools, their electricity, their clean water, their environment, their neighborhoods, their mosques, their archaeology, their jobs, their careers, their professionals, their state-run enterprises, their physical health, their mental health, their health care, their welfare state, their women's rights, their religious tolerance, their safety, their security, their children, their parents, their past, their present, their future, their lives ."
Monday, February 15, 2010
Hope for Afghanistan
By treating the people in Afghanistan as human beings, whatever their differences in appearance and religion, we have a better chance of improving their lives. Then their culture will change, as life will be seen as something precious to be preserved, with opportunities on the horizon worth fighting for. I see the reason for corruption in such places as part of the severe scarcity of resources- if there is only a small cake, people fight over it. Starting to meet the people's basic needs would make this a thing of the past (hopefully).
In terms of the Wall Street comparisons, I think anyone can see in this the human failings that may look different in various societies but amount to the same thing. Winning gat the cost of your opponent is a short-lived, pyrrhic victory. When you allow a group of people to think they are above any kind of law, like Afghan officials or the city bankers, it's a recipe for disaster that affects the whole society. Why not have some overseers there that have the power to fire corrupt police? Even so, the basic security issue needs to be resolved before any decent authority can operate there.
So far, the failure of our efforts can be related to our own top brass being lazy to build on the initial trust we receive. The skills to help rebuild a nation are totally different from those used in capturing it. They are also a lot less news-worthy. Until recently, I sensed a certain egotism, in this addiction to activities that garner more attention whilst necessary ones go undone. The kind of speeches we are seeing now seem to take the needs of the Afghan people more seriously and aim at healing the patient (poor, unstable living conditions), rather than just suppressing his symptoms (Taliban and their sympathisers, corrupt officials).
Helping the Afghan People
I'd see the 'hearts and minds' component as far more crucial than it is often given credit for. Only if the local people can sense that they are secure with the Coalition and that their lives are noticeably improving, will they have any reason to have the loyalty to the provisional government necessary for the Taliban to be unwelcome there. This would involve great cultural sensitivity- even if we find their values too backward, that's where they are at and it needs to be respected- much like if we time-travelled back to one of our societies hundreds of years ago, when issues involving 'modesty' were more crucial (I know, the comparison is in many ways invalid, but you get the picture that it is about shoeing more empathy than apathy).
All of this holds true whatever the real intentions of the Afghanistan mission- if the people's lives, impoverished for centuries, improve too it can only be be a good thing.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Investigating the Iraq War... Officially
Lord Goldsmith got taxpayer help for Iraq war inquiry legal advice | UK news | The Guardian
This is from the 'Chilcot Panel, set up to investigate the legality of the Invasion of Iraq. As the article says...
It seems to be turning out that the Iraq invasion, rather than being of 'dubious legality', as we have been told for so long, may actually be demonstrably illegal. The government lawyers consulted about it were actually, it seems unanimous on this point- that "without a specific UN resolution" it would be illegal. Now for many this is no news, but I hasten to add to them that their opinion is not only lacking in the legally binding power of a court, but also open to accusations of bias. The truth remains true (it is also my opinion, I might add, as it has consistently been throughout the whole affair), yet the legally enshrined powers will effect how much influence it has over decisions made.
What the inquiry is uncovering, which will probably not be the closed and toothless affair that the Labour Party wanted, is a consistent bullying from those higher up to rubber stamp an illegal invasion that wasn't just catastrophic- and I use the word advisedly, catastrophic, for the people in Iraq, but also for the reputation of the US and Britain in world affairs in general. The 'world's policemen' were seen to be bending the law in a way that suited them, even as it took place. Unprecedented demonstrations erupted as a result of this assumption of their own omnipotence. Now, tragically belatedly, but still welcome, courts are issuing verdicts that it was actually clearly illegal and as such people who lied about this will have to pay for their crimes. How far up the chain this will go is as yet unclear, though it should be remembered that Richard Nixon was impeached for far less severe offenses. Those with faith in the power of justice know that even if this particular enquiry falls short of the whole truth, others will pick up where they left off in due course. There is a word for what they got into that has stood the test of time... hubris.
Assuming it is established that it was an illegal war and that this is something they knew all along, the next question to answer- properly, not by the mob but by the jury- is why? Was it to increase the Western access to oil reserves, as is popularly believed, a classic neo-colonial war for resources much like Saddam's own invasion of Kuwait? Was it because they believed him to be a dangerous tyrant who's wings were not yet firmly clipped and that they would help the world by ridding it of him? Did they really believe that he might supply WMD's to terrorist groups to be used against Western cities (the most common reason given and one still being used for the controversial campaign or 'military adventure', depending on who you ask, in Afghanistan)? To my mind, the most plausible is the first answer- the invasion was clearly planned, both tactically and logistically well before the 'terrorist' attack of 9/11. The intention to take over the country, whether or not Saddam complied was established- if only by the moving of so many troops into position, at such great expense. It is almost inconceivable that they would be willing to go home 'empty handed'. It is also quite likely that the events of 9/11 were either permitted or even, (God forbid), staged so as to give some plausible reason for the whole invasion. Of course, all this is just my view, yet it seems to be increasingly widely accepted as more evidence emerges, most notably through inquiries such as these.
Yet it is also important to note just how badly Bush and Blair miscalculated. Their arguments failed to convince as many people or for that matter countries as they were hoping. Not only were tens of thousands of lives lost, but also their reputations. Resistance, both in the population and in the streets of Iraq was far fiercer than they anticipated and far less moderated. They succeeded in doing what many warned would happen- lionising Islamic Militancy and helping add fuel to it's fires throughout the Islamic world. They also weakened our on military deterrent by showing how our troops could be vulnerable to certain weaponry and how our strategies can be undermined by the power of the media itself to expose our hypocrisy. Rather than being lauded as heroes who understood the system enough to circumvent it, they are seen as tax avoiders who are yet to stand trial. This isn't just a 'liberal view'. It's one based around moral and legal facts, facts that are emerging ever more clearly into the limelight as I speak. I foresee a day when they really do stand trial, if for no other reason than the fact that whoever puts them on the stand will themselves be lauded as a hero and the media that supported them will have their own fresh story. Whether this is a good thing or not is another matter.
The main thing to remember is that they weren't just attacking Iraq. They were demonstrating an extreme contempt for the whole international order, including the democratic laws of their own countries. It is hard to say anything that hasn't yet been said. As a morality tale, it shows the bankruptcy of Machiavellian tactics, especially in a modern context in which information is freely available. The only hope they have is that they can demonstrate that they were sincerely pursuing 'good motives', so the judgment of history will be gentler than if it turns out to just be a search for personal profit.
Now for the most difficult question- one I have to admit I don't have a satisfactory answer for. What can we do about it all now? What would be a suitable way of finding 'closure', so that we can return to, or perhaps create in a purer way than ever before, a more honest and good government? Although many are baying for blood and crying 'war criminal' or 'traitor', I personally dislike the idea of punishments, which seem to me to be a crude way to deal with misdeeds- far better to teach by example and help others realise that lying is wrong than look for some dark satisfaction in vengeful suffering. Many say that they are responsible for immense suffering, yet I think it more the case that their miscalculations were responsible for said suffering. If it sounds like I am letting them off the hook, it's not the case. Their disregard for the law, their incompetence, is criminal. But I need to know that they really did have darker motives, darker than those publicly stated, before I can move down the path of wanting their punishment as such. We should be looking to establish ideals in government and remember important lessons learned. One is that international law is there to protect us all, if it slows the resolution of things down, than that is a necessary compromise and a path to goodness. Impatience itself demonstrates lack of compassion for those effected by it and is therefor a vice.
A civilised, nuanced approach is needed to these official investigations and thankfully, this seems to be the approach taken, even if it takes longer, it is so much more exhaustive. We should be wary of repeating the mistakes of the pair in seeking to resolve a problem faster than is possible to and thereby robbing ourselves of good results. Humiliating show trials (even if they were possible) could be a mistake, softer means need to be used to coax out the truth and hopefully- unlikely as it is- gain their repentance. I also am not sure if it is likely. Can the system really examine itself? I prefer a South African 'truth and reconciliation' approach, for being less divisive and serving the far more important goals of moving on.
If they had ruled as absolute dictators, it would be a different matter, we have to keep things in perspective if we are to make choices conductive to a better future. Justice needs to be tempered with compassion, for something good to come out of the whole, sordid affair. I am not alone in my view- it is being seen as one of the main weapons in the fight against Islamic militants, so why not use it with the neo-conservatives that paid and created them (a major problem of course is how to gauge when the repentance is genuine and when it is just 'buying time')? Maybe a compulsory spell in 'megalomaniacs anonymous', followed by international community service requiring them to go around lecturing on the importance of telling the truth and respecting human dignity. In a sense, they have already started to pay. Tony Blair lost his chance to be the President of the EU, which he would otherwise be a natural candidate for, and whilst he still gets paid millions to speak, George Bush Jr. more likely has to pay people to listen to him.
Now all these calls for moderation are what I think is best, but it has already been taking many years, with the whole world being forced to endure the most diabolical lies, just so this incompetent pair can mire us in ever-deepening quagmires of their own making. It is becoming hard for good, decent politicians such as Barak Obama to rule effectively, such is the confusion created as to right and wrong, left and right. The toxic mix of lies and military adventures have actually come close to wrecking our countries' economies, not just our reputations. Hundreds of thousands have died, millions have had their lives disrupted and even destroyed, all for 'freedom'? Really?
The only way to overcome this confusion of priorities is to put the culprits on trial- real, civilised trials, for jeopardising the greater good to their own agendas. Only then can we know for sure whether they really believed (falsely) that they were helping and then can repent for such costly, malpractice-like mistakes. Or, if as many suspect, pure greed for profit was the cause, the military-industrial complex up to it's old, dirty tricks, well then, if we can't get whichever dark actors are secretly responsible for the orders being followed, then at least we can criminalise those who go along with it and show that really, they would have been better off listening to the legal advice available to them in the first place. If such is the case, they can't claim now that they were never warned, nor can they escape censure for their attempts to 'shoot the messenger' for the news they brought.
Now for my temporary closure on this article, which turned out to be much longer than I envisioned and was not exactly easy to write. Let's remember that everything in this life is an opportunity for a learning experience. Whether it is politics, love, history, past-times, anything. Hence criticism, made in a spirit of love, is necessary, or else we can never move on. Mistakes can lead to evil- in fact they always lead to evil results, yet often their authors simply didn't foresee that, even if they should have. Intentional wrongdoing for personal gain, however, is closer to the definition of sin. Such actions are in their very nature unforgivable and the only way out of their karmic chains is repentance. The Iraq war and it's continuing counterpart, the invasion of Afghanistan, are certainly at the very least the former. In any case in which the latter is playing apart, it is absolutely imperative that we know, so that amends can be made, compensation paid, repentance started. Imperative, as we all live in a legal, faithful universe and however darkly buried, such thing simply must come to light if we are to be freed from the peril of their bad affects. Knowing, for sure, is the first step towards healing. It is my sincere wish that these inquiries do just that and unmask the truth, so we can be free from the confusion of half-truths and innuendos and, even worse, excuse-making, once and for all. We need to move on, we need closure. That will only be possible when all the facts are in the public eye, however embarrassing they may be to their actors. Living in Japan I can see the strain of a society essentially at war with itself about it's past, at least partly because it has yet to come clean about it. I want my own society to be spared the pain of this and I hope, as a democracy, we have the tools to do this and recover that most treasured virtue- clarity of mind.
May God have mercy on us all,
Amen.
Starfire
This is from the 'Chilcot Panel, set up to investigate the legality of the Invasion of Iraq. As the article says...
"At one point, as he continued to question the advice of Foreign Office lawyers, Straw accused Wood of being "very dogmatic" by warning that an invasion would be unlawful, the inquiry heard. It was told that Downing Street was reluctant to hear arguments about whether an invasion would be legal. Wood described how he received what he called a "curious request" from Straw in October 2002 asking for his views on the consequences of acting without international legal authority in using force against Iraq. He responded by saying that it was "inconceivable that a government which has on numerous occasions made clear its intentions to comply with international law would order troops into a conflict without justification in international law". He also reminded Straw that under their official code of conduct, ministers had a duty to "comply with the law, including international law".
He said his warnings were sent to Downing Street. Worried officials there asked: "Why has this been put in writing?"
Straw will give evidence on the legality of the war in a second round of evidence from him on 8 February."
It seems to be turning out that the Iraq invasion, rather than being of 'dubious legality', as we have been told for so long, may actually be demonstrably illegal. The government lawyers consulted about it were actually, it seems unanimous on this point- that "without a specific UN resolution" it would be illegal. Now for many this is no news, but I hasten to add to them that their opinion is not only lacking in the legally binding power of a court, but also open to accusations of bias. The truth remains true (it is also my opinion, I might add, as it has consistently been throughout the whole affair), yet the legally enshrined powers will effect how much influence it has over decisions made.
What the inquiry is uncovering, which will probably not be the closed and toothless affair that the Labour Party wanted, is a consistent bullying from those higher up to rubber stamp an illegal invasion that wasn't just catastrophic- and I use the word advisedly, catastrophic, for the people in Iraq, but also for the reputation of the US and Britain in world affairs in general. The 'world's policemen' were seen to be bending the law in a way that suited them, even as it took place. Unprecedented demonstrations erupted as a result of this assumption of their own omnipotence. Now, tragically belatedly, but still welcome, courts are issuing verdicts that it was actually clearly illegal and as such people who lied about this will have to pay for their crimes. How far up the chain this will go is as yet unclear, though it should be remembered that Richard Nixon was impeached for far less severe offenses. Those with faith in the power of justice know that even if this particular enquiry falls short of the whole truth, others will pick up where they left off in due course. There is a word for what they got into that has stood the test of time... hubris.
Assuming it is established that it was an illegal war and that this is something they knew all along, the next question to answer- properly, not by the mob but by the jury- is why? Was it to increase the Western access to oil reserves, as is popularly believed, a classic neo-colonial war for resources much like Saddam's own invasion of Kuwait? Was it because they believed him to be a dangerous tyrant who's wings were not yet firmly clipped and that they would help the world by ridding it of him? Did they really believe that he might supply WMD's to terrorist groups to be used against Western cities (the most common reason given and one still being used for the controversial campaign or 'military adventure', depending on who you ask, in Afghanistan)? To my mind, the most plausible is the first answer- the invasion was clearly planned, both tactically and logistically well before the 'terrorist' attack of 9/11. The intention to take over the country, whether or not Saddam complied was established- if only by the moving of so many troops into position, at such great expense. It is almost inconceivable that they would be willing to go home 'empty handed'. It is also quite likely that the events of 9/11 were either permitted or even, (God forbid), staged so as to give some plausible reason for the whole invasion. Of course, all this is just my view, yet it seems to be increasingly widely accepted as more evidence emerges, most notably through inquiries such as these.
Yet it is also important to note just how badly Bush and Blair miscalculated. Their arguments failed to convince as many people or for that matter countries as they were hoping. Not only were tens of thousands of lives lost, but also their reputations. Resistance, both in the population and in the streets of Iraq was far fiercer than they anticipated and far less moderated. They succeeded in doing what many warned would happen- lionising Islamic Militancy and helping add fuel to it's fires throughout the Islamic world. They also weakened our on military deterrent by showing how our troops could be vulnerable to certain weaponry and how our strategies can be undermined by the power of the media itself to expose our hypocrisy. Rather than being lauded as heroes who understood the system enough to circumvent it, they are seen as tax avoiders who are yet to stand trial. This isn't just a 'liberal view'. It's one based around moral and legal facts, facts that are emerging ever more clearly into the limelight as I speak. I foresee a day when they really do stand trial, if for no other reason than the fact that whoever puts them on the stand will themselves be lauded as a hero and the media that supported them will have their own fresh story. Whether this is a good thing or not is another matter.
The main thing to remember is that they weren't just attacking Iraq. They were demonstrating an extreme contempt for the whole international order, including the democratic laws of their own countries. It is hard to say anything that hasn't yet been said. As a morality tale, it shows the bankruptcy of Machiavellian tactics, especially in a modern context in which information is freely available. The only hope they have is that they can demonstrate that they were sincerely pursuing 'good motives', so the judgment of history will be gentler than if it turns out to just be a search for personal profit.
Now for the most difficult question- one I have to admit I don't have a satisfactory answer for. What can we do about it all now? What would be a suitable way of finding 'closure', so that we can return to, or perhaps create in a purer way than ever before, a more honest and good government? Although many are baying for blood and crying 'war criminal' or 'traitor', I personally dislike the idea of punishments, which seem to me to be a crude way to deal with misdeeds- far better to teach by example and help others realise that lying is wrong than look for some dark satisfaction in vengeful suffering. Many say that they are responsible for immense suffering, yet I think it more the case that their miscalculations were responsible for said suffering. If it sounds like I am letting them off the hook, it's not the case. Their disregard for the law, their incompetence, is criminal. But I need to know that they really did have darker motives, darker than those publicly stated, before I can move down the path of wanting their punishment as such. We should be looking to establish ideals in government and remember important lessons learned. One is that international law is there to protect us all, if it slows the resolution of things down, than that is a necessary compromise and a path to goodness. Impatience itself demonstrates lack of compassion for those effected by it and is therefor a vice.
A civilised, nuanced approach is needed to these official investigations and thankfully, this seems to be the approach taken, even if it takes longer, it is so much more exhaustive. We should be wary of repeating the mistakes of the pair in seeking to resolve a problem faster than is possible to and thereby robbing ourselves of good results. Humiliating show trials (even if they were possible) could be a mistake, softer means need to be used to coax out the truth and hopefully- unlikely as it is- gain their repentance. I also am not sure if it is likely. Can the system really examine itself? I prefer a South African 'truth and reconciliation' approach, for being less divisive and serving the far more important goals of moving on.
If they had ruled as absolute dictators, it would be a different matter, we have to keep things in perspective if we are to make choices conductive to a better future. Justice needs to be tempered with compassion, for something good to come out of the whole, sordid affair. I am not alone in my view- it is being seen as one of the main weapons in the fight against Islamic militants, so why not use it with the neo-conservatives that paid and created them (a major problem of course is how to gauge when the repentance is genuine and when it is just 'buying time')? Maybe a compulsory spell in 'megalomaniacs anonymous', followed by international community service requiring them to go around lecturing on the importance of telling the truth and respecting human dignity. In a sense, they have already started to pay. Tony Blair lost his chance to be the President of the EU, which he would otherwise be a natural candidate for, and whilst he still gets paid millions to speak, George Bush Jr. more likely has to pay people to listen to him.
Now all these calls for moderation are what I think is best, but it has already been taking many years, with the whole world being forced to endure the most diabolical lies, just so this incompetent pair can mire us in ever-deepening quagmires of their own making. It is becoming hard for good, decent politicians such as Barak Obama to rule effectively, such is the confusion created as to right and wrong, left and right. The toxic mix of lies and military adventures have actually come close to wrecking our countries' economies, not just our reputations. Hundreds of thousands have died, millions have had their lives disrupted and even destroyed, all for 'freedom'? Really?
The only way to overcome this confusion of priorities is to put the culprits on trial- real, civilised trials, for jeopardising the greater good to their own agendas. Only then can we know for sure whether they really believed (falsely) that they were helping and then can repent for such costly, malpractice-like mistakes. Or, if as many suspect, pure greed for profit was the cause, the military-industrial complex up to it's old, dirty tricks, well then, if we can't get whichever dark actors are secretly responsible for the orders being followed, then at least we can criminalise those who go along with it and show that really, they would have been better off listening to the legal advice available to them in the first place. If such is the case, they can't claim now that they were never warned, nor can they escape censure for their attempts to 'shoot the messenger' for the news they brought.
Now for my temporary closure on this article, which turned out to be much longer than I envisioned and was not exactly easy to write. Let's remember that everything in this life is an opportunity for a learning experience. Whether it is politics, love, history, past-times, anything. Hence criticism, made in a spirit of love, is necessary, or else we can never move on. Mistakes can lead to evil- in fact they always lead to evil results, yet often their authors simply didn't foresee that, even if they should have. Intentional wrongdoing for personal gain, however, is closer to the definition of sin. Such actions are in their very nature unforgivable and the only way out of their karmic chains is repentance. The Iraq war and it's continuing counterpart, the invasion of Afghanistan, are certainly at the very least the former. In any case in which the latter is playing apart, it is absolutely imperative that we know, so that amends can be made, compensation paid, repentance started. Imperative, as we all live in a legal, faithful universe and however darkly buried, such thing simply must come to light if we are to be freed from the peril of their bad affects. Knowing, for sure, is the first step towards healing. It is my sincere wish that these inquiries do just that and unmask the truth, so we can be free from the confusion of half-truths and innuendos and, even worse, excuse-making, once and for all. We need to move on, we need closure. That will only be possible when all the facts are in the public eye, however embarrassing they may be to their actors. Living in Japan I can see the strain of a society essentially at war with itself about it's past, at least partly because it has yet to come clean about it. I want my own society to be spared the pain of this and I hope, as a democracy, we have the tools to do this and recover that most treasured virtue- clarity of mind.
May God have mercy on us all,
Amen.
Starfire
Friday, January 15, 2010
Torture in the US Media
Ever since I saw '24', I've seen a rash of TV shows from the US portraying graphic torture scenes with hardly any moral examination. The torturer is often portrayed as a dutiful man doing what needs to be done, and I am expected to draw some vicarious enjoyment, mixed with my natural horror for what is going on.
Torture has to be rejected, as not only does it breach basic human rights, including those protecting against 'cruel and unusual punishments', but is also counter-productive. Information gained could well be wrong (something the TV shows shy away from) and the tortured is sure to be an implacable enemy, in the political field if not becoming a terrorist/torturer himself.
To be fair to the shows, my window into the American psyche, they generally have an awareness that it is wrong. But by consistently portraying it as effective, they are essentially attempting to legitimise it. Morally speaking, how is that essentially different from TV programs in the Islamic world, trying to justify suicide bombers by calling them martyrs?
If it's said that the torturers are trying to save lives, well then the counterproductive potential of it should be noted. No doubt it's use can be related to the growth of 'insurgencies' being faced, but this recieves little press. Let us remember that the so-called 'protectors' in the CIA et all, helped and armed the followers of a younger Bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein- forces that the regular US forces later confronted. Their excuse of a near-incompetent 'not knowing what would happen' have to be taken with a grain of salt, or two. They are professionals, right, why else would they dabble in such 'dark magic'. Apparently, evidence is even emerging that they funded the early Viet Cong- all of which makes me wonder. Could the dependence of the military-industrial complex for 'hot wars' to try out new tactics and machinery play some part in this? No-one with any sense would confront the vast armies of the US.
Even a child can see that evil means lead to similar ends. The law of karma won't be abrogated just for 'special countries' like the US. It may not effect them directly, but it will certainly affect those they are trying to protect. So it is quite sad that the freedom-loving US is trying to see if the means of tyrants can prove effective. They will have to find other ways to deal with implacable opponents.
Torture has to be rejected, as not only does it breach basic human rights, including those protecting against 'cruel and unusual punishments', but is also counter-productive. Information gained could well be wrong (something the TV shows shy away from) and the tortured is sure to be an implacable enemy, in the political field if not becoming a terrorist/torturer himself.
To be fair to the shows, my window into the American psyche, they generally have an awareness that it is wrong. But by consistently portraying it as effective, they are essentially attempting to legitimise it. Morally speaking, how is that essentially different from TV programs in the Islamic world, trying to justify suicide bombers by calling them martyrs?
If it's said that the torturers are trying to save lives, well then the counterproductive potential of it should be noted. No doubt it's use can be related to the growth of 'insurgencies' being faced, but this recieves little press. Let us remember that the so-called 'protectors' in the CIA et all, helped and armed the followers of a younger Bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein- forces that the regular US forces later confronted. Their excuse of a near-incompetent 'not knowing what would happen' have to be taken with a grain of salt, or two. They are professionals, right, why else would they dabble in such 'dark magic'. Apparently, evidence is even emerging that they funded the early Viet Cong- all of which makes me wonder. Could the dependence of the military-industrial complex for 'hot wars' to try out new tactics and machinery play some part in this? No-one with any sense would confront the vast armies of the US.
Even a child can see that evil means lead to similar ends. The law of karma won't be abrogated just for 'special countries' like the US. It may not effect them directly, but it will certainly affect those they are trying to protect. So it is quite sad that the freedom-loving US is trying to see if the means of tyrants can prove effective. They will have to find other ways to deal with implacable opponents.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Israel and Palestine Together
Politically speaking, I can't in good conscience support either side, but I want to do what I can to bring peace to them and open the way to more authentic and humane arrangements that will respect all person's dignity by valuing their identity as human beings.
If Israeli pressure has indeed been behind rejecting humanitarian appeals, if Hamas really is using it's population as tools for propaganda rather than caring about them, rather than sticking to the tired tradition of blame and judgement in what has to be one of the most seemingly irreconcilable conflicts in the world's history, isn't it time to look afresh? To ask what really is it that drives such inhumanity on the actors of each 'side'. Could it be in reality that there are no sides at all, save in the minds of those caught up in it, concerned onlookers included? Not at all to say we should justify any inhuman actions, whomever tries to make their point through the paralysing and mind-numbing strategy of inducing terror. More that we should stop and breath in and wonder what is actually behind it, we who want a fair peace that will last, as opposed to just another 'cease-fire'.
The real story here is that we are looking in on a level of distrust and animosity reminiscent not of a conflict between nations over particular and soluble issues (though these exist), but a civil war-esque struggle for national legitimacy. In this way of thinking, Israel and Palestine cannot both be right, or one would be wrong- an existential and ideological log-jam that can only be solved by the resolution of opposites and a coming together into an entity greater than the sum of it's parts.
The so-called two state solution, with it's casual acceptance of the outdated presumption that ethnic groups must live separately to be in peace is here revealing it's absurdity. Actually, the groups need one another, their proposed statelets being absurdly compromised left alone. 1948 Israel, the Gaza strip and it's it's geographically separate West Bank being not just indefensible, but ludicrously under-resourced when compared to any decent-sized entity. The intention should be for them to come together, however long it takes.
One hopes that leaders with the vision for such arrangements will come along sooner, rather than later. Such 'multi-ethnic states' are the basis of a sustainable peace. They may end up states within a state, but while the problems fester, so will this horrendous exhibition of humanity's flaws. Think a little deeper and you may get the answers you are looking for.
If Israeli pressure has indeed been behind rejecting humanitarian appeals, if Hamas really is using it's population as tools for propaganda rather than caring about them, rather than sticking to the tired tradition of blame and judgement in what has to be one of the most seemingly irreconcilable conflicts in the world's history, isn't it time to look afresh? To ask what really is it that drives such inhumanity on the actors of each 'side'. Could it be in reality that there are no sides at all, save in the minds of those caught up in it, concerned onlookers included? Not at all to say we should justify any inhuman actions, whomever tries to make their point through the paralysing and mind-numbing strategy of inducing terror. More that we should stop and breath in and wonder what is actually behind it, we who want a fair peace that will last, as opposed to just another 'cease-fire'.
The real story here is that we are looking in on a level of distrust and animosity reminiscent not of a conflict between nations over particular and soluble issues (though these exist), but a civil war-esque struggle for national legitimacy. In this way of thinking, Israel and Palestine cannot both be right, or one would be wrong- an existential and ideological log-jam that can only be solved by the resolution of opposites and a coming together into an entity greater than the sum of it's parts.
The so-called two state solution, with it's casual acceptance of the outdated presumption that ethnic groups must live separately to be in peace is here revealing it's absurdity. Actually, the groups need one another, their proposed statelets being absurdly compromised left alone. 1948 Israel, the Gaza strip and it's it's geographically separate West Bank being not just indefensible, but ludicrously under-resourced when compared to any decent-sized entity. The intention should be for them to come together, however long it takes.
One hopes that leaders with the vision for such arrangements will come along sooner, rather than later. Such 'multi-ethnic states' are the basis of a sustainable peace. They may end up states within a state, but while the problems fester, so will this horrendous exhibition of humanity's flaws. Think a little deeper and you may get the answers you are looking for.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
War for the Sake of War?
What is needed is a fresh view of what is going on in warfare- and it seems to me that the most rational and uncomplicated way of looking at things is based on motivation. Gain. Who gets what. Hence my decision to see it as a power-play, not really as a morality-play, despite the fact that ethnic identities in the Middle East are bound up with religious ones.
It seems to me that a main reason for otherwise inexplicably unnecessary military campaigns is simply for countries to use the army they have. Use it or lose it, give the troops a chance to get real experience. The reasoning and excuses may well come later. Whilst this can have horrendous consequences for any civilians in the vicinity, it may well be the missing explanation I was looking for. An insane proposition for the most insane activity known to man- modern war itself.
It seems to me that a main reason for otherwise inexplicably unnecessary military campaigns is simply for countries to use the army they have. Use it or lose it, give the troops a chance to get real experience. The reasoning and excuses may well come later. Whilst this can have horrendous consequences for any civilians in the vicinity, it may well be the missing explanation I was looking for. An insane proposition for the most insane activity known to man- modern war itself.
Terror is an Verb, not a Noun
What is becoming abundantly clear to all but the most obtuse observers is that the 'War on Terror' (WOT) is creating just as much fear and contains just as many compromised intentions as the terrorists themselves have. This isn't so much an issue of tactics on the ground, in which Western moral superiority may well exist (in the absence of reliable media, we will never know). It is more the chosen battlegrounds- is it really a case of confronting threats to our security, or are they in fact being made so tremendous as to be unmanageable? Is it in fact for us more a war over territory at the end of the day, rather than one over ideas?
Whilst militant groups claim to fight for their nation's sovereignty and freedom, they really want the power to impose their own religious ideals on a subject population.
Meanwhile, those fighting them militarily have confused it with other national objectives, such as energy needs and the balance of geopolitical power. From such a perspective, the 'WOT' is little more than a smokescreen for other objectives and the maintenance of a costly military machine that provides employment to millions. In fact, power in it's various forms seems to be overriding concern, one which is only loosely connected with actual security.
For all this, great changes may well come about through and with these conflicts. This is not in any way to justify them, just a reminder that the cloud of destruction may well have a silver lining. As people awaken to the horror of of war, if becomes increasingly hard to contemplate. Whilst many suffer in these localised conflicts, a mature and effective pro-peace movement may well stave even more costly ones off.
Whilst militant groups claim to fight for their nation's sovereignty and freedom, they really want the power to impose their own religious ideals on a subject population.
Meanwhile, those fighting them militarily have confused it with other national objectives, such as energy needs and the balance of geopolitical power. From such a perspective, the 'WOT' is little more than a smokescreen for other objectives and the maintenance of a costly military machine that provides employment to millions. In fact, power in it's various forms seems to be overriding concern, one which is only loosely connected with actual security.
For all this, great changes may well come about through and with these conflicts. This is not in any way to justify them, just a reminder that the cloud of destruction may well have a silver lining. As people awaken to the horror of of war, if becomes increasingly hard to contemplate. Whilst many suffer in these localised conflicts, a mature and effective pro-peace movement may well stave even more costly ones off.
Why Loving Words and Prayers are the Answer
Right now, we see the leaders in the Middle East playing politics with the lives of their people. We have to see beyond the loves and avoid getting caught up in the emotions they inspire. We have to see truly, honestly and fairly. This is the path of justice, the path of decency, which leads to quite a different destination to the ruinous path of vengeance.
As humans, words, sincere ones, are part of our scope for action. If the peoples of the Middle-East would only resolve their differences through talking to each other, we would all be in a much better position.
One has to be even-handed and understand the situation. Israeli politicians are seeking to establish themselves as the 'best protector' of their community- a strong attack, even risking the terrible human tragedy in Gaza is being cynically used at this time. There is also a desire to weaken the Iranian-linked Hamas regime just before Obama is sworn in, with his promise to listen more to the Arab side of the equation making action after this implausible. Right now, Israel is able to protect itself on the whole from the weapons being smuggled there, but not without life becoming very hard for their citizens in bombarded towns. From their point of view, why should they just wait and hope for the best, when the world around them appears to be actively helping their enemies? A regime like Hamas, that executes their own opponents is unlikely to show any mercy to Israel if their power does grow.
It is worth remembering that whilst both sides have built underground networks with their extensive aid budgets, Israel has civilian bomb shelters, whereas Hamas invested in a tunnel network for it's fighters and actually seems to hope it's civilians become victims. This is, of course, par for the course with insurgent movement and movements that see themselves as 'anti-colonial' (still an attractive, if somewhat fanatical epithet in the post-colonial, developing world).
All of this means that Israel is once again blundering into a costly experience of warfare. I cannot for the life of me excuse some of their excesses here. Frustration at an inability to hit sneaky, shadowy forces is no excuse for attacking civilian areas. The fact others do worse has no bearing on this- state terrorism deserves just as much approbation as 'underground' movements. There is no room for hypocrisy. The danger of disproportionate use of force is that it ends up being counter-productive. As such, no true friend of Israel would recommend it and the world as a whole won't accept it. A decent leadership in the US is needed to reign in a fanaticism on the part of the State. Love is curbing excess, not just understanding it. Hopefully, God willing, Obama will be just the right person to do this.
What is ultimately needed is a real United Nations. Not just the present one, one that promotes the likes of authoritarian Syria to their human-rights council, but one that is deeply committed to human rights for everyone. One that can see deeply below the surface and beyond media trends. In short, we need something that we don't have, and the nearest we have is the USA, hopefully back with us after the disastrous Bush years. Also imperfect, the US is at least able to be fair-handed, partly due to the mixture of multi-ethnicity and a culture valuing personal freedom for as many as possibly can receive it- hence the Camp David accords, the best chance yet for the conflict, or the Daytown ones in the case of the Balkans. The US is the peacemaker, she just needs an effective UN to go with this.
With all that said, progress is apparently being made. Wars are more limited and the weapons used comparatively accurate- a new concern similar to the ones for appliances being more energy-efficient. Things are actually getting better, despite appearances to the contrary and the tendency of the media to spread bad news. People care more and once the sense of sharing a common humanity spreads further, their bias will be a bias for everyone, not just their own chosen preferences. This undercurrent, to my mind, makes a hugely destructive World War III close to an impossibility. Progress in it's many forms will continue, though it will remain a moral roller-coaster in terms of what is right or wrong at each juncture.
It all comes down to love. Love is deeds, love is words, love is prayer, whatever makes the most sense. To my mind it is prayer that helps the most, the contacting of the highest part of us to send a message to eternity, inviting the purest of responses. The lack of love in that region, creating a void in which hatred manifests itself seems to be the biggest problem. It does concern me that so many think that stigmatising the (imperfectly) democratic and pluralist Israel is going to bring any sort of real peace. Making them more secure would be the best way to help- they certainly have the institutions in place to be a real benefit to the region.
In the longer term, a more enlightened perspective in which everyone feels secure is what that region needs. Violence is a symptom of a deeper problem- the same one Europe once, quite recently in the grand scale of things, suffered from.
As humans, words, sincere ones, are part of our scope for action. If the peoples of the Middle-East would only resolve their differences through talking to each other, we would all be in a much better position.
One has to be even-handed and understand the situation. Israeli politicians are seeking to establish themselves as the 'best protector' of their community- a strong attack, even risking the terrible human tragedy in Gaza is being cynically used at this time. There is also a desire to weaken the Iranian-linked Hamas regime just before Obama is sworn in, with his promise to listen more to the Arab side of the equation making action after this implausible. Right now, Israel is able to protect itself on the whole from the weapons being smuggled there, but not without life becoming very hard for their citizens in bombarded towns. From their point of view, why should they just wait and hope for the best, when the world around them appears to be actively helping their enemies? A regime like Hamas, that executes their own opponents is unlikely to show any mercy to Israel if their power does grow.
It is worth remembering that whilst both sides have built underground networks with their extensive aid budgets, Israel has civilian bomb shelters, whereas Hamas invested in a tunnel network for it's fighters and actually seems to hope it's civilians become victims. This is, of course, par for the course with insurgent movement and movements that see themselves as 'anti-colonial' (still an attractive, if somewhat fanatical epithet in the post-colonial, developing world).
All of this means that Israel is once again blundering into a costly experience of warfare. I cannot for the life of me excuse some of their excesses here. Frustration at an inability to hit sneaky, shadowy forces is no excuse for attacking civilian areas. The fact others do worse has no bearing on this- state terrorism deserves just as much approbation as 'underground' movements. There is no room for hypocrisy. The danger of disproportionate use of force is that it ends up being counter-productive. As such, no true friend of Israel would recommend it and the world as a whole won't accept it. A decent leadership in the US is needed to reign in a fanaticism on the part of the State. Love is curbing excess, not just understanding it. Hopefully, God willing, Obama will be just the right person to do this.
What is ultimately needed is a real United Nations. Not just the present one, one that promotes the likes of authoritarian Syria to their human-rights council, but one that is deeply committed to human rights for everyone. One that can see deeply below the surface and beyond media trends. In short, we need something that we don't have, and the nearest we have is the USA, hopefully back with us after the disastrous Bush years. Also imperfect, the US is at least able to be fair-handed, partly due to the mixture of multi-ethnicity and a culture valuing personal freedom for as many as possibly can receive it- hence the Camp David accords, the best chance yet for the conflict, or the Daytown ones in the case of the Balkans. The US is the peacemaker, she just needs an effective UN to go with this.
With all that said, progress is apparently being made. Wars are more limited and the weapons used comparatively accurate- a new concern similar to the ones for appliances being more energy-efficient. Things are actually getting better, despite appearances to the contrary and the tendency of the media to spread bad news. People care more and once the sense of sharing a common humanity spreads further, their bias will be a bias for everyone, not just their own chosen preferences. This undercurrent, to my mind, makes a hugely destructive World War III close to an impossibility. Progress in it's many forms will continue, though it will remain a moral roller-coaster in terms of what is right or wrong at each juncture.
It all comes down to love. Love is deeds, love is words, love is prayer, whatever makes the most sense. To my mind it is prayer that helps the most, the contacting of the highest part of us to send a message to eternity, inviting the purest of responses. The lack of love in that region, creating a void in which hatred manifests itself seems to be the biggest problem. It does concern me that so many think that stigmatising the (imperfectly) democratic and pluralist Israel is going to bring any sort of real peace. Making them more secure would be the best way to help- they certainly have the institutions in place to be a real benefit to the region.
In the longer term, a more enlightened perspective in which everyone feels secure is what that region needs. Violence is a symptom of a deeper problem- the same one Europe once, quite recently in the grand scale of things, suffered from.
Monday, August 20, 2007
A Focus of Direction for this Blog
Due to the unfolding disaster of the Middle East, this blog will be focusing as much as possible on the true way to combat hatred with the force of love and hence bring peace to that region- a peace that the world's politicians can't give. It is the writer's earnest hope that this goes some way to finding a stable, fair and as far as is possible permanent solution to the region, one that respects both it's multi-cultural heritage and the need for human rights. Deeply good intentions, prayers and meditation will inevitably bring such results- the keyboard is mightier than the gun- inasmuch as we are pure of heart, the results we long for will be borne as fruit on life's tree.
Note- 4th January 2008
Such a particular focus to this blog was not to be, at least so far. Yet peace in the Middle-East is a touchstone to peace everywhere and visa versa. The evolution and progress to peace is the main thing in our lives- and it is an evolution, as it is an attaining of a particular level of understanding and mutual justice at which real, sustainable and sincere peace is at last possible. We need to grow together a lot to realise this. We need to learn to grow together, like vines winding around the same tree of life.
Note- 4th January 2008
Such a particular focus to this blog was not to be, at least so far. Yet peace in the Middle-East is a touchstone to peace everywhere and visa versa. The evolution and progress to peace is the main thing in our lives- and it is an evolution, as it is an attaining of a particular level of understanding and mutual justice at which real, sustainable and sincere peace is at last possible. We need to grow together a lot to realise this. We need to learn to grow together, like vines winding around the same tree of life.
The Horror of the Middle East
It seems that there is one region of the world, or at least one region of the world exposed by our media, in which horrors never seem to cease. People will blame politicians, history, geographic boundaries and these are indeed all factors to be considered. Yet in this blog one of the primary aims is get right, deep down at the very core reasons as to why man treats man so inhumanely there. I intend to use all my intelligence (what there is of it) and aptitude for discerning truth to discover this. For we need something more than blame and rumours- we need truth. Peace- lasting peace- requires truth. So it must be the absence of truth that is making this region bleed tears of sorrow.
Now for some, the reason for the problems there can be explained quite simply- the very existence of Israel, a foreign implant in the Arab territorial sphere, that pushed aside native people in order to establish herself. Yet, considering that so little of the killing going on there is actually done by Israel, this claim necessitates wild conspiracy theories of terrorism solely being the work of Zionist agent-provocateurs. This is a real possibility- but at the same time an outrageous one and not much different from the historical penchant for 'blaming the Jews' whenever something goes wrong. The plain fact is that not only does Israel have a large Arab population- far larger than any Jewish population in any Arab country at present, but that they are too busy trying to survive and have a normal country to be responsible for absolutely everything that goes wrong there. Much less the atrocities being committed by 'militants' in the region. Something deeper is going on.
We have to see what is going on in the hearts of the people to see how they can act this way. There are an array of terrible emotions- fear, hatred, feeling of betrayal, false hopes in the success of violence. Yet, all of this is taking place in the 'Holy Lands', if one believes in such a thing. The cradle of the three 'great' monotheistic religions. Who could spoil all this work to make a paradisaical Earth for us all?
The answer, simply, is Satan. He, ultimately, is responsible for putting the evil thoughts in mens minds to do atrocious things. He is quite clearly corrupting the minds of the people there whose fear lets him in, so as to block as well as he can the dreams they have of a better life there. Of course, this all has a childish simplicity to it. But, it is the most basic truth of them all and the reason so much anger and confusion arises around this topic.
You can blame Israel or America. You can blame Britain's colonial legacy. You can blame the extremists and opportunists in Iran or Syria, or the displaced Palestinian refugees that have been treated so coldly by Arab and Jew alike. But it will do no good, it will only add fuel to the fire and another partisan voice to the cacophony.
Satan wants to wreck God's plans. Right there, in the middle of the Earth, the middle that we still instinctively place this way on our maps, was not just the cradle of the great religions, but also the cradle of civilisation. The first humans evolved there and were bred with by the 'gods'- advanced, angelic extra-terrestrials, who infused them with advanced DNA and taught them the basics of civilised life.
A little remains- the aforesaid religions, the Bible, things like the Pyramids and Karnak temple complex in Egypt. But this was once the area of Eden, the Arcadian beginning of it all. Part of a a kingdom that Satan would rather corrupt than serve under. So corrupt it he and his kingdom does- and no people would he more dearly love to turn from their maker than the Jews, the people who the living God chose to show and spread his messages. How could he bear to let them live in peace and prosperity so that God's plans be fulfilled?
Yet, at every turn, there is the constant stream of love, the stream of the spirit, around us. always, everywhere and every time. If we listen to it's voice, we too can be saved. The reason Jesus came, right back to this region, was to show quite clearly the appropriate way to live and know God. This isn't to say that Christians are necessarily closer to these teachings than other people- they could just be hypocrites or culturally respectful of them, but, as the Western nations, they are custodians of the way forward, whether they know it or not. This also isn't to detract from secular efforts- religion, especially wrong-headed religion can do the worst damage of all and to live Jesus' teachings is not to be religious in the conventional sense of that term- hence his constant refutation of the legalistic Pharasies who put the law and their traditions before love.
We have the way forward, we have the holy spirit- yet we also have a region of the world where not only are Christ's teachings as recorded in the gospels actually illegal to distribute in many countries- a sad fact and one no apologetics will do away with- but they are quite simply not being followed. The fact that certain aggressive westerners have given a bad image of these teachings here and elsewhere doesn't help- but the people deserve the chance to see them for themselves. In fact, ironic though it may be, the last place for these teachings to spread and be commonplace is the area from which they arose.
Hence we have the continual terrible events of the middle-East, a sandstorm of chaos hiding God's promises from view. But one day it will clear. One day the promises will come true. Which is why the peace of the middle-east, the mutual survival of her peoples and the preservation of their multicultural heritage is something worth fighting for. Something that will always be worth fighting for, at least until it fully arrives and the peacemakers' blessed mission is complete.
Now for some, the reason for the problems there can be explained quite simply- the very existence of Israel, a foreign implant in the Arab territorial sphere, that pushed aside native people in order to establish herself. Yet, considering that so little of the killing going on there is actually done by Israel, this claim necessitates wild conspiracy theories of terrorism solely being the work of Zionist agent-provocateurs. This is a real possibility- but at the same time an outrageous one and not much different from the historical penchant for 'blaming the Jews' whenever something goes wrong. The plain fact is that not only does Israel have a large Arab population- far larger than any Jewish population in any Arab country at present, but that they are too busy trying to survive and have a normal country to be responsible for absolutely everything that goes wrong there. Much less the atrocities being committed by 'militants' in the region. Something deeper is going on.
We have to see what is going on in the hearts of the people to see how they can act this way. There are an array of terrible emotions- fear, hatred, feeling of betrayal, false hopes in the success of violence. Yet, all of this is taking place in the 'Holy Lands', if one believes in such a thing. The cradle of the three 'great' monotheistic religions. Who could spoil all this work to make a paradisaical Earth for us all?
The answer, simply, is Satan. He, ultimately, is responsible for putting the evil thoughts in mens minds to do atrocious things. He is quite clearly corrupting the minds of the people there whose fear lets him in, so as to block as well as he can the dreams they have of a better life there. Of course, this all has a childish simplicity to it. But, it is the most basic truth of them all and the reason so much anger and confusion arises around this topic.
You can blame Israel or America. You can blame Britain's colonial legacy. You can blame the extremists and opportunists in Iran or Syria, or the displaced Palestinian refugees that have been treated so coldly by Arab and Jew alike. But it will do no good, it will only add fuel to the fire and another partisan voice to the cacophony.
Satan wants to wreck God's plans. Right there, in the middle of the Earth, the middle that we still instinctively place this way on our maps, was not just the cradle of the great religions, but also the cradle of civilisation. The first humans evolved there and were bred with by the 'gods'- advanced, angelic extra-terrestrials, who infused them with advanced DNA and taught them the basics of civilised life.
A little remains- the aforesaid religions, the Bible, things like the Pyramids and Karnak temple complex in Egypt. But this was once the area of Eden, the Arcadian beginning of it all. Part of a a kingdom that Satan would rather corrupt than serve under. So corrupt it he and his kingdom does- and no people would he more dearly love to turn from their maker than the Jews, the people who the living God chose to show and spread his messages. How could he bear to let them live in peace and prosperity so that God's plans be fulfilled?
Yet, at every turn, there is the constant stream of love, the stream of the spirit, around us. always, everywhere and every time. If we listen to it's voice, we too can be saved. The reason Jesus came, right back to this region, was to show quite clearly the appropriate way to live and know God. This isn't to say that Christians are necessarily closer to these teachings than other people- they could just be hypocrites or culturally respectful of them, but, as the Western nations, they are custodians of the way forward, whether they know it or not. This also isn't to detract from secular efforts- religion, especially wrong-headed religion can do the worst damage of all and to live Jesus' teachings is not to be religious in the conventional sense of that term- hence his constant refutation of the legalistic Pharasies who put the law and their traditions before love.
We have the way forward, we have the holy spirit- yet we also have a region of the world where not only are Christ's teachings as recorded in the gospels actually illegal to distribute in many countries- a sad fact and one no apologetics will do away with- but they are quite simply not being followed. The fact that certain aggressive westerners have given a bad image of these teachings here and elsewhere doesn't help- but the people deserve the chance to see them for themselves. In fact, ironic though it may be, the last place for these teachings to spread and be commonplace is the area from which they arose.
Hence we have the continual terrible events of the middle-East, a sandstorm of chaos hiding God's promises from view. But one day it will clear. One day the promises will come true. Which is why the peace of the middle-east, the mutual survival of her peoples and the preservation of their multicultural heritage is something worth fighting for. Something that will always be worth fighting for, at least until it fully arrives and the peacemakers' blessed mission is complete.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
The Fall of Gaza
Seeing the horror unfolding in Iraq, Gaza, and Lebanon, which does seem to be sourced from Iran, I can only say that this so-called Islam-derived pseudo-religion of the terrorists is a force of nothing more than misguided evil. Sure, they have had hard times, but all this ransacking and cruelty is nothing more than chaos for it's own sake, the end of civilised norms; I weep for the innocent caught up in the midst of it. I can only hope that peace, order and justice can return... the 'justice' offered by such terrorist groups is really only dismal revenge, offering no hope of a better world.
Unfortunately, with the war in Iraq and it's subsequent break-down, more fools have been attracted to such apocalyptic cults and have been brain-washed into giving their lives to them. I wonder how it is that people can stoop so low- maybe primitive, reptilian parts of the brain take over and our usual human conscience gets short-circuited? Of course, there are probably politics going on here I don't understand, but that doesn't mean I need to excuse it, any more than I excuse heroine-addiction, which is also seen as 'a way out'.
We need to minimise the spread of this virus and also inoculate the population against it, with real education, of how to love other people more and how to practice sincere communication, of how to face life bravely rather than retreating into suicidal cowardice. As, ultimately, all this violence is fear and cowardice, avoiding what being a human is about. We have to also change the social environment so people are treated fairly and have something to live for. Equal rights and right education are the keys to a better future for all.
The violence has to be blamed squarely on those perpetrating it, yet at the same time, the mismanagement of the region by George Bush (and, less so, several of his predecessors), was criminally incompetent. He poured oil on the fire, by ignoring all the professional advice as to what would be unleashed, should the Iraqi army be dissolved and the forces of anarchy set free. How will we put the genie back in the bottle? We just have to show that terrorism doesn't pay and then no-one will support it. We have to set up systems guaranteeing equal rights so there is hardy any 'recruitment ground' for such groups. Presently, people seek to gain profit from the uncertainty- no doubt some of them being quite unsupected people, fueling pointless conflicts for their own selfish ends. Force may restrain terror, barriers may minimise it, but in the final analysis these won't be enough to end it. There is only one plan that can accomplish that.
That is God's own plan- to teach the peoples of the Middle-East to love one another, as if they are all one family. To have a peaceful social system that embraces all, whatever their creed, whatever their historical roots- To end this pseudo-religion that 'preaches' hatred and replace it with real religion, divine religion, that preaches endless love. One Nazarene introduced this fresh idea over 2,000 years ago to this region, indeed to the world. Let us pray humanity, especially Middle-Eastern humanity, listens to this vital Gospel message, before it is too late.
Unfortunately, with the war in Iraq and it's subsequent break-down, more fools have been attracted to such apocalyptic cults and have been brain-washed into giving their lives to them. I wonder how it is that people can stoop so low- maybe primitive, reptilian parts of the brain take over and our usual human conscience gets short-circuited? Of course, there are probably politics going on here I don't understand, but that doesn't mean I need to excuse it, any more than I excuse heroine-addiction, which is also seen as 'a way out'.
We need to minimise the spread of this virus and also inoculate the population against it, with real education, of how to love other people more and how to practice sincere communication, of how to face life bravely rather than retreating into suicidal cowardice. As, ultimately, all this violence is fear and cowardice, avoiding what being a human is about. We have to also change the social environment so people are treated fairly and have something to live for. Equal rights and right education are the keys to a better future for all.
The violence has to be blamed squarely on those perpetrating it, yet at the same time, the mismanagement of the region by George Bush (and, less so, several of his predecessors), was criminally incompetent. He poured oil on the fire, by ignoring all the professional advice as to what would be unleashed, should the Iraqi army be dissolved and the forces of anarchy set free. How will we put the genie back in the bottle? We just have to show that terrorism doesn't pay and then no-one will support it. We have to set up systems guaranteeing equal rights so there is hardy any 'recruitment ground' for such groups. Presently, people seek to gain profit from the uncertainty- no doubt some of them being quite unsupected people, fueling pointless conflicts for their own selfish ends. Force may restrain terror, barriers may minimise it, but in the final analysis these won't be enough to end it. There is only one plan that can accomplish that.
That is God's own plan- to teach the peoples of the Middle-East to love one another, as if they are all one family. To have a peaceful social system that embraces all, whatever their creed, whatever their historical roots- To end this pseudo-religion that 'preaches' hatred and replace it with real religion, divine religion, that preaches endless love. One Nazarene introduced this fresh idea over 2,000 years ago to this region, indeed to the world. Let us pray humanity, especially Middle-Eastern humanity, listens to this vital Gospel message, before it is too late.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
To The End of Terrorism
I just came across something remarkable on YouTube- Walid Shoebat, a former terrorist, speaks his mind about the real roots of terror . Just as you may have suspected, terrorism isn't just a response to policies or injustices. all that hatred and violence isn't just a 'response' the way the US civil rights movement was, the way Ghandi's movement was. It's something different, it has different goals. Now I can't agree with all of Israel's actions, as they can stigmatise peaceful Palestinians who just want a better life. But the terrorism is far worse, as it's behaviour is so irrational and self-destructive, so 'sick'.
It is truly shocking to see the sheer hatred that is being preached in radicalised mosques, the racism that has poisoned their religion. I am pretty sure that authentic Islam, or should I say the Islam that God would intend if he indeed established that faith, is not a racist creed (although the presence of dubious phrases in the Koran does at times make me wonder). All this anti-Jewish propaganda, all this talk of extreme judgments leading souls to heaven and hell, and the lies of going to heaven by making others suffer- all of this is a darkness sweeping the Islamic world, much like the effect of Sauron you can see in Lord of the Rings. Hatred is never a force for good- the spiritually clear-headed can see this. People who fought Nazism didn't hate Germans as such, they hated the corrupt ideology, the spiritual darkness of it. Which is why we now have peace with Germany, but could never make peace with the mercifully brief period of Nazi rule.
Now I am willing to admit that the most extreme of the 'Zionists' themselves have a destructive ideology, one that is antithetical to the spirit of the Jewish Faith. Also, that colonialism left a chain of ludicrous borders and damaged egos in this region, egos that are unlikely to heal soon. But, from what I can gather, this has never become the norm amongst Jewish people or Israelis, who have stayed relatively rational. Meanwhile, in much, unfortunately perhaps even most of the Arab world, you see Jews being demonised much the way they were in Europe, especially (but not only) the way this happened in the Nazi regime. You also have a commonly held, genocidal notion that Israel shouldn't even be talked to, but rather should be totally destroyed, despite the United nations specifically granting them a state, however short-sighted the borders given were.
So you have the situation where Israel, despite patterns of vengeful abuse from some of her citizens, really wants to live in peace with her neighbours and, as I have always promoted, establish peaceful cultural and economic ties. Meanwhile, many surrounding her pray and work for her destruction, even in shockingly blood-thirsty ways, thinking that this will get them into heaven. Now I don't want to stereotype here- I am sure that there are many rationally-minded, reasonable Arabs who want a peaceful future and are happy to co-exist. It would imply forgiveness, as many Arabs have suffered from Israel being established. But only through such reconciliation can things move on.
The same goes for Israel- they would have to forgive all the barbarous terrorist acts and all the lies and slander leveled at them. From what I can gather, Israel has a lot more to forgive, as it's horrible to be lied about and they made clear from the very beginning that they were happy to have a mixed state, with both Jews and Arabs (in fact they do, which is different from the Arab countries, who forbade any Jews from living there, a 'fait acomplit' that the media does it's best to hide. But the the Israelis do seem to be prepared to do this.
So what's the big hold-up? Why do the negotiations always fail, why is Israel never allowed to be considered a 'normal state'? Is it because of the injustice, the policies? Partly, yes, but without terrorism ending it is pretty hard to see them changing altogether, as they are part of a defensive strategy, removal of which may make some left-wing people happy in Europe and the BBC, but in the current situation exposes Israel to being targeted as weak and actually increasing terrorism. (Or militancy, as the PC has it.) Golda Meir is often held up as an example of an admirable Israeli ruler by European left-wingers and she does seem to be a great woman. But the fact that Israel was forcefully attacked to the point at which she was almost taken over makes me think that, for now, it just isn't safe to follow that path for Israel. Better to annoy some European left-wingers and live, than follow their advice and die, as unlike in video-games, you don't get a second chance.
So what's the hold-up? Why is it not safe to do a Golder Meir, why all the hatred? It isn't just policies and politics. It isn't that the religions can't co-exist if followed normally. It is addiction. An addiction to hatred and violence. Part of this
is in the sadly mislead Muslim youth, who are made all kinds of false promises of where such hatred will lead them. To paradise, where they'll have their 77 virgins. This has become a whole subculture, which moderate Muslims find it almost impossible to control, as they are not considered, 'cool' enough to be an influence. Now, there is nothing cool about violence, but it is almost natural for young males to have aggressive tendencies, which can be directed towards wars, careers, drug-use, or this. The so-called 'radical' imams are to blame here and they are literally profiting on terrorism, as this is how they make their name and their living. It's not real religion, at least in my book, but whilst people are going to listen to them, they feel, why should they stop. It is all an addiction... a drug addiction. The saddest thing is it gets in the way of humanely solving very real problems, problems that are often solved in other parts of the world.
However, there is also another audience to all of this... the media. Violence makes front pages, reasoned arguments don't. A successful war, such as the Falklands War, or the Bosnian campaign, can raise a politicians; stature, receiving far more media attention than a gentle peace process. Then of course, who can be blamed for the media's shortcomings, hungry for viewers and attention as they are, but... we ourselves. Yes, by buying newspapers or tv viewing time 'laced' with terroristic violence, we help keep it a prominent force in the world. We give the immature the attention they seek, simultaneously robbing those moderates who truly deserve it of airtime. I'd rather listen to Nelson Madella (a reformed terrorist, it must be noted), than Bin Ladin. But, without scouring the airwaves or the net, I just can't. I'd rather know what Ghandi has to say than Hitler. But documentaries on him are far harder to come by.
We need to end this addiction to violence, to solving problems through force alone, before it is too late for all of us. We have to stop or arrest anyone preaching violence in a religious place- we can't let anyone use the cover of religion to spread hatred. We need a more responsible media that, whilst it covers the psychotic violence of the terrorists and the military attempts to root them out, also gives airtime to moderate people who authentically care about others. Who really want to make the world better for everyone. Not just world political leaders and experts, also intellectual leaders and artists, people who understand deeply the feelings involved here. Most of all, we need an education system that doesn't just preach peace, it actually encourages it. Whilst some people need this more than others, it's something we all need, something humanity needs. Before it is too late.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Remembering 9/11
Today, being the anniversary of the events of 9/11, we all should pause to consider what has been going on ever since those moments. We saw on TV the victims of what can only be described as a crime against humanity and also how the usual police investigations were buried under the rush to war. Many questions remain unanswered to this day- why did NORAD stand down? Why were FBI investigators hot on the trail of the perpetrators turned away and even warned not to proceed in a 'matter that didn't concern them'? One feels that justice for the victims is something yet to come.
In the aftermath of this depressing shock, this intrusion into the very depths of our civil society and the securities that Pax Americana had hitherto ensured, we were further startled by the campaign of 'Shock and Awe' unleashed upon certain countries, with an as-yet unfulfilled promise to turn them into stable democracies. Horrendous suffering has ensued, especially for the inhabitants but also for the young soldiers being sent there, and it shows no sign of abating.
Many questions remain to be answered and the end result of many strategies remains to be seen. Yet we will have lost a very essential thing if any of this makes us value less the lives of the innocent, if we forswear compassion and faith in the benefits of the civil society and the securities it brings. If we lose this, if we allow ourselves to plumb to long-forgotten depths, then indeed the terrorists will have won. However harsh the realities of war may be, compassion is a greater truth. A truth worth clinging to in an often disorientatingly shocking world.
In the aftermath of this depressing shock, this intrusion into the very depths of our civil society and the securities that Pax Americana had hitherto ensured, we were further startled by the campaign of 'Shock and Awe' unleashed upon certain countries, with an as-yet unfulfilled promise to turn them into stable democracies. Horrendous suffering has ensued, especially for the inhabitants but also for the young soldiers being sent there, and it shows no sign of abating.
Many questions remain to be answered and the end result of many strategies remains to be seen. Yet we will have lost a very essential thing if any of this makes us value less the lives of the innocent, if we forswear compassion and faith in the benefits of the civil society and the securities it brings. If we lose this, if we allow ourselves to plumb to long-forgotten depths, then indeed the terrorists will have won. However harsh the realities of war may be, compassion is a greater truth. A truth worth clinging to in an often disorientatingly shocking world.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
7 Facts You Might Not Know about the Iraq War
We are becoming pretty accustomed to hearing reports in the media as to the grim events in Iraq, often accompanied with claims from 'Coalition of the Willing' politicians as to how the situation is 'getting better'. Yet in reality, as people there report, it has been getting steadily worse and the 'Iraqi Army' or 'Iraqi Government' we hear mentioned so often is in reality no where near as representative as such terms might indicate. In fact, at any time it could well lose control of vast swarths of the country if the Coalition forces were to leave.
We are getting used to hearing lies, damned lies and statistics- well here instead is a bit of analysis. I'm not really in a position to verify or otherwise what the following author has to say, but the gist of it is that the Western, primarily American forces being stationed there, with enormous international opposition and an increasingly vocal one within the US itself, may in fact be doing more harm than good as far as stablising the county goes. So here are his- 7 Facts You Might Not Know about the Iraq War.
We are getting used to hearing lies, damned lies and statistics- well here instead is a bit of analysis. I'm not really in a position to verify or otherwise what the following author has to say, but the gist of it is that the Western, primarily American forces being stationed there, with enormous international opposition and an increasingly vocal one within the US itself, may in fact be doing more harm than good as far as stablising the county goes. So here are his- 7 Facts You Might Not Know about the Iraq War.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
In Lebanon, a Ceasefire Declared
A guerrilla army can be fought but not militarily dismantled and war is a game men play just like any other, with it's own rules and rhythms. Therefor it is wisest not to escalate and rather to appear strong, relying on the consent of the enemy to moderate itself. Absolute force, total war... such things are mere tragedies. Israel appears a lot stronger when she shows her strength with restraint- for then the measure of her strength is unguessable and her comparative nobility clear.
Of course, many other countries do far worse and cruder things than Israel and I fully believe her sovereignty and dignity should be respected, yet Israel is at heart a finer country than the others, who would react far worse to similar provocations. It is love for Israel that make us all instinctively hold her to a higher standard, not a spirit of injustice. Special standards for special people... a law followed by the universe and only interpreted by humankind.
Of course, many other countries do far worse and cruder things than Israel and I fully believe her sovereignty and dignity should be respected, yet Israel is at heart a finer country than the others, who would react far worse to similar provocations. It is love for Israel that make us all instinctively hold her to a higher standard, not a spirit of injustice. Special standards for special people... a law followed by the universe and only interpreted by humankind.
Monday, August 07, 2006
Towards a Federation
We need some kind of unanimous voice which will stand up to the threats from radicals in the Middle East, which will make clear the benefits of having peaceful democratic states cooperate in the region, seeking peace with Israel; the only democracy in the region, however flawed it may be. We need America to spread an optimism about just how much this will improve the lives of the people there, scarred by war and internal, ethnic conflicts. We need Israel to feel secure and thus find the strength to curb their right-wing, which is causing so much corruption. Radicalism is an expression of emotion, of fear of 'the other'. It can't just be supressed, moralised away- the conflict-based landscape in which radicals thrive needs to be altered.
It is easy for outsiders (such as this writer) in more peaceful regions to moralise, but what would they do, in a similar situation? I'd argue that, left with the feeling that their very survival was at stake, at least some of them would fall into the maze of terror and repression that poisons this regional life. Fear and an urge to intimidate lies behind this just as much as rage. Peace can come when the fear subsides- when there is no longer anything to be afraid of. Then, common interests will take over.
I remain convinced that a peaceful, democratic federation, something like the EU, is the only answer to the regional problems. Fundamentalist Islam, like fundamentalist Judaism, Christianity or any other one, is destined to be a private affair, with no business controlling governments at the expense of the rights of ordinary Muslims, Jews, Christians, or Bahais. It may be an essentially Christian thought, but we need to separate religion from politics and also bring politics back to rationality, or we risk losing what we seek to gain by such activities in the first place. Love conquers all. The selfish human will conquers nothing!
It is easy for outsiders (such as this writer) in more peaceful regions to moralise, but what would they do, in a similar situation? I'd argue that, left with the feeling that their very survival was at stake, at least some of them would fall into the maze of terror and repression that poisons this regional life. Fear and an urge to intimidate lies behind this just as much as rage. Peace can come when the fear subsides- when there is no longer anything to be afraid of. Then, common interests will take over.
I remain convinced that a peaceful, democratic federation, something like the EU, is the only answer to the regional problems. Fundamentalist Islam, like fundamentalist Judaism, Christianity or any other one, is destined to be a private affair, with no business controlling governments at the expense of the rights of ordinary Muslims, Jews, Christians, or Bahais. It may be an essentially Christian thought, but we need to separate religion from politics and also bring politics back to rationality, or we risk losing what we seek to gain by such activities in the first place. Love conquers all. The selfish human will conquers nothing!
Where is Democracy?
It would be easy to see the current crisis in the middle East as a break-out of war between democracy and fundamentalist Islamic forces. But, it would also be wrong to see it this way. It needs to be remembered that the current leaders of America and Israel were never authentically elected. In the case of Bush, his first election was a fraudulent one, in which democratic votes from black people were systematically destroyed. Also, there is a certain amount of evidence from his verbal mistakes and lengthly public absences that we are dealing with an alcoholic (the excuse that he is merely stupid is pretty unrealistic- no-one merely stupid could survive as long in politics as he has). His second election was secured only by the events of 9/11, which fellow right-wingers could well have been responsible for allowing to happen, if not even helping to happen- which is another manipulation of the democratic process.
Meanwhile, in Israel, we had the situation in which Ariel Sharon had the unpopular idea of unilateral disengagement from The Gaza Strip and Southern Lebanon. Unpopular in Israel with his own elected party and their allies who were not prepared to leave such areas at that point, and unpopular with the world, which was urging the negotiations. So he formed a new political party to support these ideas and overcome his coalition's objections and simply forced the policy.
Now whilst it was good to withdraw from unnecessary entanglements for Israel, anything that gives the impression of retreat rather than of moral choice could well strengthen the fanatical enemies that lurk in the area, and we can see this in the assention of Hamas and Hezbollah to actually winning certain elections, if only as a protest vote. They didn't win just because of their militancy, but because of their impression of being freer from corruption than the alternatives to them, such as the Palestinian authority and their involvement in social programs in deprived neighbourhoods. Whilst this may have been more to do with encouraging support than a sincere regard for human well-being, it has built up their popularity in neglected areas, with people who were left with the feeling that no-one else really cared about them. This desperation makes such populations ripe for exploitation of the very worst kind, they need people who sincerely want to help them, not to use them as 'human shields'. Still, as terrorist groups, their election is widely regarded as illegitimate- election or no election, they in no way represent democracy itself, with it's implicit assertion of the rights of minorities and the duty to coexist with those who differ from ourselves.
From stress or simply age, Sharon quite recently succumbed to a coma, leaving in charge the inexperienced and unelected Olmert- an acting Prime Minister, though an unelected one. Like George Bush junior, he looks up to an older, more experienced and more respected leader. This leaves him to want to shore up his position and authority not only with those inside the country, but also in the eyes of external adversaries who are always on the lookout for weakness. He also seeks to use military power as a means to resolve a situation that requires long-term diplomatic commitments that can appear fruitless at first glance. Many have commented that it was unnecessary to use full-blown military power in Iraq at specifically the time of the invasion there- and have been more or less vindicated by the endless guerrilla entanglements that have followed it. Similarly, whilst it was certainly a great temptation to try to use the high-tech army to respond to the provocation when Hezboullah attacked and kidnapped soldiers from an Israeli patrol, we need to remember the need to be carful on this point and remember the nature of 'asymetrical warfare' that uses low-tech weapons and treats local populations as if they were the notorious 'human shields' by hiding amongst them.
The historical resistance of guerrilla fighters to even far more technologically proficient armies means that they should only be encountered when victory is virtually assured and there is wide support for such a risky and costly venture. Guerillas can marshall support even in the face of very wide-spread attacks and have ways to make themselves look like the victim- only by making it clearly morally reprehensible to support them can their lines of support- those of the local population, whoever their real backers may be- be effectively broken. If they are to be defeated, they can never seem to have the moral high-ground. Of course, they can also be politically eroded from within, as should have happened in Lebanon long before, as the central government took over and rebuilt the country.
Basically we have a situation in which two leaders whose democratic credentials are very much in doubt turning to military force as a way of imposing security and democratic norms on an admittedly lawless region. They claim to have liberal aspirations, but are using techniques that would make even the right-wing blush and especially in Bush's case have caused terrible damage to the lives of civilians and the stability of society in the affected region. It seems to be to be a very unfortunate, even tragic misuse of force (especially in the case of Iraq), which leaves me wondering why it should happen, although there may be some reasons known to intelligence sources that make it all neccessary, as part of a grand strategy, but it seems like an inflamation of the disease more than a cure. This doesn' seem to be a case of Western democracy fighting radical Islam, however reprehensible extremist Islam is. It is something else.... I'm not sure what, exactly, but something else...
Which leaves me apprehensive that more rough beasts await to be born..
Meanwhile, in Israel, we had the situation in which Ariel Sharon had the unpopular idea of unilateral disengagement from The Gaza Strip and Southern Lebanon. Unpopular in Israel with his own elected party and their allies who were not prepared to leave such areas at that point, and unpopular with the world, which was urging the negotiations. So he formed a new political party to support these ideas and overcome his coalition's objections and simply forced the policy.
Now whilst it was good to withdraw from unnecessary entanglements for Israel, anything that gives the impression of retreat rather than of moral choice could well strengthen the fanatical enemies that lurk in the area, and we can see this in the assention of Hamas and Hezbollah to actually winning certain elections, if only as a protest vote. They didn't win just because of their militancy, but because of their impression of being freer from corruption than the alternatives to them, such as the Palestinian authority and their involvement in social programs in deprived neighbourhoods. Whilst this may have been more to do with encouraging support than a sincere regard for human well-being, it has built up their popularity in neglected areas, with people who were left with the feeling that no-one else really cared about them. This desperation makes such populations ripe for exploitation of the very worst kind, they need people who sincerely want to help them, not to use them as 'human shields'. Still, as terrorist groups, their election is widely regarded as illegitimate- election or no election, they in no way represent democracy itself, with it's implicit assertion of the rights of minorities and the duty to coexist with those who differ from ourselves.
From stress or simply age, Sharon quite recently succumbed to a coma, leaving in charge the inexperienced and unelected Olmert- an acting Prime Minister, though an unelected one. Like George Bush junior, he looks up to an older, more experienced and more respected leader. This leaves him to want to shore up his position and authority not only with those inside the country, but also in the eyes of external adversaries who are always on the lookout for weakness. He also seeks to use military power as a means to resolve a situation that requires long-term diplomatic commitments that can appear fruitless at first glance. Many have commented that it was unnecessary to use full-blown military power in Iraq at specifically the time of the invasion there- and have been more or less vindicated by the endless guerrilla entanglements that have followed it. Similarly, whilst it was certainly a great temptation to try to use the high-tech army to respond to the provocation when Hezboullah attacked and kidnapped soldiers from an Israeli patrol, we need to remember the need to be carful on this point and remember the nature of 'asymetrical warfare' that uses low-tech weapons and treats local populations as if they were the notorious 'human shields' by hiding amongst them.
The historical resistance of guerrilla fighters to even far more technologically proficient armies means that they should only be encountered when victory is virtually assured and there is wide support for such a risky and costly venture. Guerillas can marshall support even in the face of very wide-spread attacks and have ways to make themselves look like the victim- only by making it clearly morally reprehensible to support them can their lines of support- those of the local population, whoever their real backers may be- be effectively broken. If they are to be defeated, they can never seem to have the moral high-ground. Of course, they can also be politically eroded from within, as should have happened in Lebanon long before, as the central government took over and rebuilt the country.
Basically we have a situation in which two leaders whose democratic credentials are very much in doubt turning to military force as a way of imposing security and democratic norms on an admittedly lawless region. They claim to have liberal aspirations, but are using techniques that would make even the right-wing blush and especially in Bush's case have caused terrible damage to the lives of civilians and the stability of society in the affected region. It seems to be to be a very unfortunate, even tragic misuse of force (especially in the case of Iraq), which leaves me wondering why it should happen, although there may be some reasons known to intelligence sources that make it all neccessary, as part of a grand strategy, but it seems like an inflamation of the disease more than a cure. This doesn' seem to be a case of Western democracy fighting radical Islam, however reprehensible extremist Islam is. It is something else.... I'm not sure what, exactly, but something else...
Which leaves me apprehensive that more rough beasts await to be born..
Monday, July 24, 2006
Beyond Reasonable Limits
Seeing the bombardment of Lebanon continue, taking in whole swaths of the city and the infrastructure, it has to be asked- what limits are reasonable, what is proportional. It seems that, in her unrealistic haste to dismantle Hezbullah, these limits have been very much crossed, leading not only to pointless deaths of civilians, but also to an unnecessary escalation. War has to avoid hurting civilians, even if there is an intention to punish them, to scare them from lending support to an enemy.
However, those that say that when faced with Islamicist terrorism, everyone should just roll over and sucumb, are perhaps forgetting the adgenda of these people. they may well be skilled at fooling liberals into supporting them, but their game-plan is as different as Stalin's was from Roosevelt. supposting terrorist,or militant organisations, even in giving them 'moral support' must be frowned on by all reasonable people who care for innocent life. Such people seek to sacrifice innocent life to their goals, not protect it.
We need the wisdom of moderates. We don't need the destructive naivety of fools.
However, those that say that when faced with Islamicist terrorism, everyone should just roll over and sucumb, are perhaps forgetting the adgenda of these people. they may well be skilled at fooling liberals into supporting them, but their game-plan is as different as Stalin's was from Roosevelt. supposting terrorist,or militant organisations, even in giving them 'moral support' must be frowned on by all reasonable people who care for innocent life. Such people seek to sacrifice innocent life to their goals, not protect it.
We need the wisdom of moderates. We don't need the destructive naivety of fools.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)