Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Monday, April 30, 2018
Zealots: Featuring this week on my Patreon
This week I did some ten minute thoughts on Josephus and the Zealots on my "patrons only" part of my Patreon blog. Also featured was a comparison between the Zealots and Starlord in Avengers: Infinity War and the ignorance of equating Iraq with Al Qaeda in the lead up to the Iraq War.
Wednesday, August 10, 2016
Gen Eds H2: From 9-11 to the Present
This election year is the strangest I can remember. I think it's fair to say there has never been a candidate like Donald Trump in my lifetime. How did we get here?
Today I start looking back through world history. See my previous post for my basic framework. I am starting from the present and moving backward, and I am starting from my present. When I say "my" present, I recognize that I am an American of European descent. So that is the best place for me as narrator to start.
This is a series of posts on World History, the second topic in a series called, "General Education in a Nutshell." These are ten subjects you might study in a general education or "liberal arts" core at a university or college. The first topic in the overall series was philosophy.
__________________
1. In the previous post, I presented a rationale for the way I am approaching world history. As we start today, I want to mention two key components of my analysis. The first tool is what I am calling "pivot points." Certainly any decision we make, even the smallest ones, can have massive repercussions for later history. But I am going to focus my analysis on what I consider to be the most crucial points where history would be massively different if the event had not occurred or had happened differently. [1]
The second tool I want to use is the "counterfactual." What might history have looked like if the event had played out differently? Of course we cannot know for certain, but these thought experiments help us reflect on the real impact of the pivot point on the course of history.
Each week we will start at the moment before a major pivot point. We will start with the question, "How did we get here?" Then we will proceed back to what seem to be the most important pivot points in that period of history. Of course there are an infinite number of things going on at any one time. Any selection of certain events means we are "de-selecting" an almost infinite amount of other events. Only God knows all the events, characters, and settings in all their details and proper relationships.
Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders
1. This is the most unusual election of my lifetime (2016). In Bernie Sanders we had a candidate who called himself a "democratic socialist," which is truly strange given the negative connotation the word socialist has had throughout most of twentieth century US history. [2] Meanwhile, Donald Trump, a businessman, has managed to undermine the entire Republican establishment with a campaign that has channeled the anxiety and anger of a demographic whose default dominance in US society seems to be steadily diminishing.
How did we get here?
2. It is interesting to say, but I don't think the election of a female president would truly reflect a change in the current trajectory of American history. Clinton represents the current momentum of history and Sanders perhaps an accelerated version of that momentum (possibly where the trajectory is currently headed). It more seems like the election of Trump would represent a turning point or at least a turning blip.
[Turning blip option: Constantine made Christianity legal in AD313. The trajectory was then toward making Christianity the only legal religion, which happened under Theodosius in 380. But there was a "push-back" emperor, Julian "the apostate" (361-63). For a brief time, the empire went back to its non-Christian, "pagan" roots. But he was a last push back, a blip rather than a turning point.
Similarly, Bloody Mary (ruled 1547-58) tried to bring England back to Catholicism after her father left the Roman Catholic Church. But it was only a blip. When her sister Elizabeth became queen in 1558, the Protestant trajectory of England was ensured.]
If Trump were elected, it is not clear that he would ultimately change the current trajectory of American culture--at least not without a violent and devastating hand. It is more likely that he would prove to be a blip on the current trajectory. At the moment, it is looking as if he will be defeated. But many things can change in 89 days.
Supreme Court Obergefell Decision
3. The first pivot point I want to mention is the 2014 Obergefell decision of the Supreme Court. This decision afforded gay marriage the same status as heterosexual marriage in the United States. The decision did not come out of the blue. It represented the culmination of over a decade of legal back and forth on the subject, with some states having opened the door to gay marriage and others passing laws against it.
[The speed with which this situation has changed is striking. As an opinion, I tend to see movies and media as the most significant trigger of these changes. They have created a climate of acceptance that not only humanized what had largely been a distant concept, but they have encouraged individuals to be open in a way that had previously been rare.]
Obergefell put into effect a trajectory that was already well in play in American culture. However, it has had a seriously disorienting effect on a certain segment of the American population, not least conservative Christianity. Although the Trump campaign has publicly supported the current trajectory on this specific issue, the insecurity and anger on which his campaign feeds was greatly fomented by the Obergefell decision, IMO.
3. As our first counterfactual, we can ask this question: Would Donald Trump be the Republican candidate if Obergefell had not taken place? Was this Supreme Court decision the straw that broke the back of a camel that had been watching as America became more and more what Trump has called, "politically correct"?
Opposition to "political correctness" has been a key feature of Trump's campaign. In this category we might place a number of current trends and factors that play into his push-back against the cultural trajectory: 1) the empowerment of gay Americans and transgendered individuals under the law, 2) the rising dominance of the Hispanic demographic, 3) protests by the African-American community about violent treatment by law-enforcement, 4) an African-American president and the prospect of a female president, 5) increased negative pressure and rebuke in relation to language and actions that were once casual behaviors, and 6) a perception of increasing disadvantage at the same time that white males are being told they are privileged.
In consequence of these forces, a rising anger and anxiety has built within a certain segment of the American population. The animus of Trump's campaign toward illegal immigrants, toward all Muslims, and toward refugees relates at least in part to this racial insecurity (we will mention the terrorism component in a moment). Trump himself has occasionally moved beyond individuals in these categories who are threats to decry individuals who are legal and even war heroes. [3] These moments in the Trump campaign suggest that it is not merely illegal immigration in play or merely Islamic terrorism that is the driver but race itself at least to some degree.
Video of the deaths of a number of African-Americans at the hands of law enforcement have set in motion first a "Black Lives Matter" movement protesting the way African-Americans are treated by the police. But the shootings of certain police officers have provided others with fodder for a counter protest ("Blue Lives Matter" or "All Lives Matter"). Long standing stereotypes are in play, fueling anger on all sides. Certainly some of those who support Trump are fueled in part by this aspect of our current situation.
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)
4. The recent surge in Islamic terrorism is also a major factor behind the current climate of insecurity. ISIS coming to dominance in 2014 is seen by some as a major failure of the current Obama administration.
A number of factors seem to have combined to empower ISIS, which previously was informally called Al-Qaeda in Iraq. One was certainly the withdrawal of troops by the Obama administration in 2011. Iraqi forces were simply not strong enough to resist ISIS when it stepped into a power vaccuum. The US likely resisted intervention at first because of the prevalent view among experts on the Middle East that US involvement usually creates as much future difficulty as it solves current problems. Similarly, there is the matter of giving space to Iraqi sovereignty. Nevertheless, the US resumed its military involvement in Iraq in 2014 when ISIS' forces had advanced so far as to put significant Kurdish territory in danger in the northeast part of Iraq.
5. Another factor in the rise of ISIS is what has been called the Arab Spring. It began in Tunisia in 2010 and spread to Egypt, Libya, and Syria. While the idea of democratic overthrow of dictatorships might seem desirable, the results have not been entirely positive, to say the least. Democracy without guaranteed rights for minorities usually becomes a situation where the majority party oppresses minorities.
In Iraq, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein led to a civil war between Shi'ites and Sunnis, with the Shi'ite now playing the role of the party in power where the Sunnis had been before. In Egypt, the army ended up taking back over the government because the democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood began to impose Islamic law on the entire population. In Libya we had the death of Ambassador Stevens at Benghazi in the chaos after the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi. Meanwhile, we are currently watching "democracy" erode the rights of minorities in Turkey.
By the time these revolutions reached Syria, the US was much more hesitant to get too involved, and Russia would soon take the side of the dictator in question, Bashar al-Assad. A stalemate would ensue that created a vacuum into which ISIS began to insert itself. Those inclined to support the jihadist cause flocked to Syria to join in the cause and be trained by ISIS.
Some of these jihadists have returned to Europe, along with the flood of refugees from the Syrian crisis. We have seen recent terrorist attacks in Belgium and France associated with such individuals.
6. ISIS has arguably facilitated the rise of home grown terrorists. Al-Qaeda did not have a fixed geographical location, but it was still strongly located first in Afghanistan and then Pakistan. When it pulled off the 9-11 attacks, it sent people here.
But ISIS has catalyzed lone terrorists who have no direct connection with ISIS and yet are nevertheless following its lead. The recent shootings in San Bernadino and Orlando may have involved multiple factors, but the example of ISIS is surely one of them. We should expect to see more because it is virtually impossible to identify such individuals until they strike or are about to strike. [4]
Something should be said about the rapid development of social media. It featured prominently in the Arab Spring. It may have stopped a 2016 coup attempt in Turkey. It has been a key trigger for outrage at police violence and thus the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement. It is playing a significant role in the 2016 election and in world events today. It is having a profound effect on history.
The Great Recession of 2008
7. If racial and national insecurity have created a climate in which a Donald Trump could become a candidate for president in 2016, the economic crisis of 2008 was the backdrop to the 2010 and 2012 elections in the United States. This economic crisis came on in the last year of Bush's presidency and some of the emergency actions that were taken in late 2008/early 2009 were taken jointly by the outgoing Bush and incoming Obama administrations. TARP, the "Troubled Asset Relief Program," was passed by Congress a month before the 2008 election.
By that time President George W. Bush had become deeply unpopular as a result of the prolonged Iraq War, the longest war in US history (with military action still continuing today). Obama won the 2008 election handily as a result. But the bail out of the auto industry, banks, and "too big to fail" corporations like AIG was seen as unfair by many when some of them had arguably played a role in the origins of the crisis.
The Iraq War, the beginnings of the bail out, and perhaps other features of the Bush era left a 10.6 trillion dollar deficit to Obama the day he took office. Continued bailouts would drive this figure much higher. [5] This economic situation gave rise to a subgroup within the Republican Party called the "Tea Party," for whom fiscal responsibility became the focal concern. They swept Congress in the 2010 election and were a major factor in the nature of the Republican primary in the 2012 election.
8. The idealism of the Tea Party in the face of the veto power of President Obama has resulted in six years of intense gridlock in Washington. One of the most defining features of Obama's administration will likely prove to be the passing of the Affordable Care Act (somewhat derisively known as Obamacare). While some of the individual components of this sweeping health care legislation are popular (no denial on the basis of pre-existing conditions, ability to keep children on a parent's plan till they are 26, 20 million more people insured), it has been widely unpopular in certain circles. Among those who previously had good insurance, it is widely blamed for a significant increase in health care cost.
This act was created during 2009 when Democrats had overwhelming control over both houses. However, it nearly did not make it fully through the system when Ted Kennedy died and was replaced in a special election by a Republican, which made it possible to filibuster any modifications to the legislation. This was ironic because Kennedy had long been one of the strongest proponents of health care reform. Nevertheless, the bill had already gone far enough through the system that it could be passed without modification. For the next six years the repeal of Obamacare would be a major goal of Republicans and a Congress now controlled by Republicans.
The deficit has been a major concern of the Tea Party for the last six years. On more than one occasion, what had been the routine increase of the debt ceiling was blocked by filibuster in protest of an ever increasing deficit. [6] In October 2013, the government actually shutdown for 16 days as this group in Congress refused to authorize the funding of several parts of the Affordable Care Act that were then scheduled to go into effect.
9. Different causes for the global Great Recession are often mentioned. Perhaps there is some truth in all of them. For example, a climate had persisted for some time in which large numbers of housing loans were given to individuals who were not likely to be able to pay them back. Similarly, a "housing bubble" was in play, where loans could be taken out on property that far surpassed the actual value of the property.
More complex was the new practice of bundling bad debt, where banks took collections of debts from bad loans and sold them to each other. This practice continues, leading some to suggest that the economic practices of Wall Street that at least partially caused the recession continue to pose a threat to the global economy. Bernie Sanders' campaign included a call for further regulation of Wall Street in these areas.
The Iraq War of 2003
10. Perhaps the most determinative event for the current world landscape was the war launched in 2003 against Iraq. Is it possible that this war was a greater pivot point in history than 9-11 itself? If we look at this event from a counterfactual point of view, the war arguably dragged on far longer than President Bush had originally anticipated. Indeed, less than two months after the offensive began, he announced that the mission had been accomplished (May 1, 2003) and that major combat operations in Iraq were ended.
Instead, the US would get mired in the middle of Iraqi infighting and insurgencies for almost nine years, with December 31, 2011 considered the final withdrawal. It is hard to imagine the profound effect this invasion has had on the world. More than 4500 soldiers lost their lives in Iraq and over 100,000 Iraqis. More than 1.5 million Americans served in Iraq during the almost nine year war. The impact of this service on families and on the soldiers themselves has been profound. It is easy to doubt if President Bush would have made the decision to go to war if he had known the way it would play out.
11. Again, it seems hard to underestimate the amount of hostility this invasion created in the Muslim world toward the United States. Most experts on the Middle East would argue that it is directly responsible for the exponential rise of terrorism in the last decade, creating a generation of potential enemies who would like nothing more than to destroy us. This is arguably the war with the West that Osama bin Laden had set out to ignite on 9-11. Without the Iraq War, there would have been no ISIS. Without the Iraq War, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would arguably not have been elected as president in Iran in 2005.
In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, the entire world seemed united behind the United States, including the countries of the Arab world. There was wide UN support for the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The situation was quite different in the lead up to the Iraq War. Few major powers backed the US, and the case for war was thin, even though most of the world did believe Saddam Hussein had WMD (weapons of mass destruction).
It would turn out of course that Iraq did not have such weapons. But in the climate after 9-11, it would have arguably been suicide for anyone in Congress to vote against the war. Only those in the most liberal of districts or states could have voted no and hoped to be reelected. The Bush administration seems to have had a noble but naive hope that they could "liberate" Iraq and that the Iraqi people would flock to democracy, greeting Americans as liberators. Then, with an ally in the Middle East, the entire landscape of the region could be changed for the better.
Alas, it did not turn out that way. The culture of the Middle East turned out to be quite different than such Western expectations.
9-11
12. The attacks on 9-11 punctured the psyche of America. There had been no attack comparable to it since the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941. It was almost unimaginable. Some insignificant figure from the Middle East had somehow managed to take down the most prominent feature of the New York City landscape.
Before 9-11, security at airports was generally casual. You used to be able to walk back to the gate and see your family board the airplane. There was no Department of Homeland Security to coordinate the security organizations of the government.
After 9-11, everyone was paranoid. Where was a terrorist going to jump out next? The then mayor of Marion, Indiana actually barricaded the courthouse after 9-11, as if the Middle East cared about some obscure town in Indiana that no one has ever heard of. Air marshals were put on planes, and paranoid people like me were on constant look out for someone to try to take over the plane. We watched the video of planes flying into the towers over and over again in disbelief.
The sense that the world was a safe place was gone. There was a twinge of doubt that America was invincible. Someone needed to pay.
13. 9-11 interrupted what was arguably a lazy but steady progressive trajectory of American history. An event of this kind inevitably causes a surge of conservatism, for conservatism by its very nature is a protective stance. Christian college students at the turn of the millennium tended to be very interested in social justice and not particularly interested in the theological debates that evangelicals of earlier decades had conducted. In 2002, Robert Webber wrote The Younger Evangelicals, highlighting a generation of evangelicals who were quite different from their forebears in these ways.
9-11 did not eliminate that trajectory. There remains a strong strand of Christians under 40 who are committed to social justice and progressive causes. Many of them supported Bernie Sanders in the recent primary. Some of that age demographic also, disgusted by a surge of Christian fundamentalism, have become "nones," young people with no religious affiliation whatsoever. This is currently the fastest growing religious demographic in America.
But 9-11 also naturally caused a resurgence of Christian fundamentalism in various forms. The strong rise of hyper-Calvinism ("young, restless, and Reformed") in some circles is one example of a conservative backlash no doubt fostered in part by the impact of 9-11. Several Christian colleges have undergone theological purges of sorts in the last decade. The Christian classroom of 2016 includes not only the progressives I mentioned above, but zealous neo-fundamentalists as well. These are students who were only three or four when 9-11 took place, students whose psyche was arguably formed in the zeal of the post-9-11 decade.
Next week: History 3: World War II to the Millennium
Major Take-Aways
[2] Marian Tupy suggests a more accurate term for Sanders would be a "social democrat."
[3] For example, when he suggested that a judge was being unfair to him because the judge was of Mexican descent or when he insulted the parents of a Muslim soldier killed in Iraq.
[4] The Constitution would prohibit any blanket action toward the Muslim community as Muslims and, in fact, the best way to stop such acts over time is for the Muslim community itself to identify such individuals among them. In the end, blanket targeting of the Muslim community is more likely to increase the number of future home grown terrorists rather than to diminish it.
[5] The federal deficit is 19.4 trillion dollars as I write this post.
[6] Filibuster can take place if the House does not have a supermajority of 60. It can thus keep a bill from even being voted on. The use of the filibuster by the Tea Party in Congress to prevent votes in the last six years is unprecented in US history. Increases of the debt ceiling are necessary in order to pay for budgets that Congress has already approved. In that sense, refusing to increase the debt ceiling prevents the government from paying its existing debts and commitments. It does not involve any new budgetary items.
Today I start looking back through world history. See my previous post for my basic framework. I am starting from the present and moving backward, and I am starting from my present. When I say "my" present, I recognize that I am an American of European descent. So that is the best place for me as narrator to start.
This is a series of posts on World History, the second topic in a series called, "General Education in a Nutshell." These are ten subjects you might study in a general education or "liberal arts" core at a university or college. The first topic in the overall series was philosophy.
__________________
1. In the previous post, I presented a rationale for the way I am approaching world history. As we start today, I want to mention two key components of my analysis. The first tool is what I am calling "pivot points." Certainly any decision we make, even the smallest ones, can have massive repercussions for later history. But I am going to focus my analysis on what I consider to be the most crucial points where history would be massively different if the event had not occurred or had happened differently. [1]
The second tool I want to use is the "counterfactual." What might history have looked like if the event had played out differently? Of course we cannot know for certain, but these thought experiments help us reflect on the real impact of the pivot point on the course of history.
Each week we will start at the moment before a major pivot point. We will start with the question, "How did we get here?" Then we will proceed back to what seem to be the most important pivot points in that period of history. Of course there are an infinite number of things going on at any one time. Any selection of certain events means we are "de-selecting" an almost infinite amount of other events. Only God knows all the events, characters, and settings in all their details and proper relationships.
Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders
1. This is the most unusual election of my lifetime (2016). In Bernie Sanders we had a candidate who called himself a "democratic socialist," which is truly strange given the negative connotation the word socialist has had throughout most of twentieth century US history. [2] Meanwhile, Donald Trump, a businessman, has managed to undermine the entire Republican establishment with a campaign that has channeled the anxiety and anger of a demographic whose default dominance in US society seems to be steadily diminishing.
How did we get here?
2. It is interesting to say, but I don't think the election of a female president would truly reflect a change in the current trajectory of American history. Clinton represents the current momentum of history and Sanders perhaps an accelerated version of that momentum (possibly where the trajectory is currently headed). It more seems like the election of Trump would represent a turning point or at least a turning blip.
[Turning blip option: Constantine made Christianity legal in AD313. The trajectory was then toward making Christianity the only legal religion, which happened under Theodosius in 380. But there was a "push-back" emperor, Julian "the apostate" (361-63). For a brief time, the empire went back to its non-Christian, "pagan" roots. But he was a last push back, a blip rather than a turning point.
Similarly, Bloody Mary (ruled 1547-58) tried to bring England back to Catholicism after her father left the Roman Catholic Church. But it was only a blip. When her sister Elizabeth became queen in 1558, the Protestant trajectory of England was ensured.]
If Trump were elected, it is not clear that he would ultimately change the current trajectory of American culture--at least not without a violent and devastating hand. It is more likely that he would prove to be a blip on the current trajectory. At the moment, it is looking as if he will be defeated. But many things can change in 89 days.
Supreme Court Obergefell Decision
3. The first pivot point I want to mention is the 2014 Obergefell decision of the Supreme Court. This decision afforded gay marriage the same status as heterosexual marriage in the United States. The decision did not come out of the blue. It represented the culmination of over a decade of legal back and forth on the subject, with some states having opened the door to gay marriage and others passing laws against it.
[The speed with which this situation has changed is striking. As an opinion, I tend to see movies and media as the most significant trigger of these changes. They have created a climate of acceptance that not only humanized what had largely been a distant concept, but they have encouraged individuals to be open in a way that had previously been rare.]
Obergefell put into effect a trajectory that was already well in play in American culture. However, it has had a seriously disorienting effect on a certain segment of the American population, not least conservative Christianity. Although the Trump campaign has publicly supported the current trajectory on this specific issue, the insecurity and anger on which his campaign feeds was greatly fomented by the Obergefell decision, IMO.
3. As our first counterfactual, we can ask this question: Would Donald Trump be the Republican candidate if Obergefell had not taken place? Was this Supreme Court decision the straw that broke the back of a camel that had been watching as America became more and more what Trump has called, "politically correct"?
Opposition to "political correctness" has been a key feature of Trump's campaign. In this category we might place a number of current trends and factors that play into his push-back against the cultural trajectory: 1) the empowerment of gay Americans and transgendered individuals under the law, 2) the rising dominance of the Hispanic demographic, 3) protests by the African-American community about violent treatment by law-enforcement, 4) an African-American president and the prospect of a female president, 5) increased negative pressure and rebuke in relation to language and actions that were once casual behaviors, and 6) a perception of increasing disadvantage at the same time that white males are being told they are privileged.
In consequence of these forces, a rising anger and anxiety has built within a certain segment of the American population. The animus of Trump's campaign toward illegal immigrants, toward all Muslims, and toward refugees relates at least in part to this racial insecurity (we will mention the terrorism component in a moment). Trump himself has occasionally moved beyond individuals in these categories who are threats to decry individuals who are legal and even war heroes. [3] These moments in the Trump campaign suggest that it is not merely illegal immigration in play or merely Islamic terrorism that is the driver but race itself at least to some degree.
Video of the deaths of a number of African-Americans at the hands of law enforcement have set in motion first a "Black Lives Matter" movement protesting the way African-Americans are treated by the police. But the shootings of certain police officers have provided others with fodder for a counter protest ("Blue Lives Matter" or "All Lives Matter"). Long standing stereotypes are in play, fueling anger on all sides. Certainly some of those who support Trump are fueled in part by this aspect of our current situation.
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)
4. The recent surge in Islamic terrorism is also a major factor behind the current climate of insecurity. ISIS coming to dominance in 2014 is seen by some as a major failure of the current Obama administration.
A number of factors seem to have combined to empower ISIS, which previously was informally called Al-Qaeda in Iraq. One was certainly the withdrawal of troops by the Obama administration in 2011. Iraqi forces were simply not strong enough to resist ISIS when it stepped into a power vaccuum. The US likely resisted intervention at first because of the prevalent view among experts on the Middle East that US involvement usually creates as much future difficulty as it solves current problems. Similarly, there is the matter of giving space to Iraqi sovereignty. Nevertheless, the US resumed its military involvement in Iraq in 2014 when ISIS' forces had advanced so far as to put significant Kurdish territory in danger in the northeast part of Iraq.
5. Another factor in the rise of ISIS is what has been called the Arab Spring. It began in Tunisia in 2010 and spread to Egypt, Libya, and Syria. While the idea of democratic overthrow of dictatorships might seem desirable, the results have not been entirely positive, to say the least. Democracy without guaranteed rights for minorities usually becomes a situation where the majority party oppresses minorities.
In Iraq, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein led to a civil war between Shi'ites and Sunnis, with the Shi'ite now playing the role of the party in power where the Sunnis had been before. In Egypt, the army ended up taking back over the government because the democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood began to impose Islamic law on the entire population. In Libya we had the death of Ambassador Stevens at Benghazi in the chaos after the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi. Meanwhile, we are currently watching "democracy" erode the rights of minorities in Turkey.
By the time these revolutions reached Syria, the US was much more hesitant to get too involved, and Russia would soon take the side of the dictator in question, Bashar al-Assad. A stalemate would ensue that created a vacuum into which ISIS began to insert itself. Those inclined to support the jihadist cause flocked to Syria to join in the cause and be trained by ISIS.
Some of these jihadists have returned to Europe, along with the flood of refugees from the Syrian crisis. We have seen recent terrorist attacks in Belgium and France associated with such individuals.
6. ISIS has arguably facilitated the rise of home grown terrorists. Al-Qaeda did not have a fixed geographical location, but it was still strongly located first in Afghanistan and then Pakistan. When it pulled off the 9-11 attacks, it sent people here.
But ISIS has catalyzed lone terrorists who have no direct connection with ISIS and yet are nevertheless following its lead. The recent shootings in San Bernadino and Orlando may have involved multiple factors, but the example of ISIS is surely one of them. We should expect to see more because it is virtually impossible to identify such individuals until they strike or are about to strike. [4]
Something should be said about the rapid development of social media. It featured prominently in the Arab Spring. It may have stopped a 2016 coup attempt in Turkey. It has been a key trigger for outrage at police violence and thus the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement. It is playing a significant role in the 2016 election and in world events today. It is having a profound effect on history.
The Great Recession of 2008
7. If racial and national insecurity have created a climate in which a Donald Trump could become a candidate for president in 2016, the economic crisis of 2008 was the backdrop to the 2010 and 2012 elections in the United States. This economic crisis came on in the last year of Bush's presidency and some of the emergency actions that were taken in late 2008/early 2009 were taken jointly by the outgoing Bush and incoming Obama administrations. TARP, the "Troubled Asset Relief Program," was passed by Congress a month before the 2008 election.
By that time President George W. Bush had become deeply unpopular as a result of the prolonged Iraq War, the longest war in US history (with military action still continuing today). Obama won the 2008 election handily as a result. But the bail out of the auto industry, banks, and "too big to fail" corporations like AIG was seen as unfair by many when some of them had arguably played a role in the origins of the crisis.
The Iraq War, the beginnings of the bail out, and perhaps other features of the Bush era left a 10.6 trillion dollar deficit to Obama the day he took office. Continued bailouts would drive this figure much higher. [5] This economic situation gave rise to a subgroup within the Republican Party called the "Tea Party," for whom fiscal responsibility became the focal concern. They swept Congress in the 2010 election and were a major factor in the nature of the Republican primary in the 2012 election.
8. The idealism of the Tea Party in the face of the veto power of President Obama has resulted in six years of intense gridlock in Washington. One of the most defining features of Obama's administration will likely prove to be the passing of the Affordable Care Act (somewhat derisively known as Obamacare). While some of the individual components of this sweeping health care legislation are popular (no denial on the basis of pre-existing conditions, ability to keep children on a parent's plan till they are 26, 20 million more people insured), it has been widely unpopular in certain circles. Among those who previously had good insurance, it is widely blamed for a significant increase in health care cost.
This act was created during 2009 when Democrats had overwhelming control over both houses. However, it nearly did not make it fully through the system when Ted Kennedy died and was replaced in a special election by a Republican, which made it possible to filibuster any modifications to the legislation. This was ironic because Kennedy had long been one of the strongest proponents of health care reform. Nevertheless, the bill had already gone far enough through the system that it could be passed without modification. For the next six years the repeal of Obamacare would be a major goal of Republicans and a Congress now controlled by Republicans.
The deficit has been a major concern of the Tea Party for the last six years. On more than one occasion, what had been the routine increase of the debt ceiling was blocked by filibuster in protest of an ever increasing deficit. [6] In October 2013, the government actually shutdown for 16 days as this group in Congress refused to authorize the funding of several parts of the Affordable Care Act that were then scheduled to go into effect.
9. Different causes for the global Great Recession are often mentioned. Perhaps there is some truth in all of them. For example, a climate had persisted for some time in which large numbers of housing loans were given to individuals who were not likely to be able to pay them back. Similarly, a "housing bubble" was in play, where loans could be taken out on property that far surpassed the actual value of the property.
More complex was the new practice of bundling bad debt, where banks took collections of debts from bad loans and sold them to each other. This practice continues, leading some to suggest that the economic practices of Wall Street that at least partially caused the recession continue to pose a threat to the global economy. Bernie Sanders' campaign included a call for further regulation of Wall Street in these areas.
The Iraq War of 2003
10. Perhaps the most determinative event for the current world landscape was the war launched in 2003 against Iraq. Is it possible that this war was a greater pivot point in history than 9-11 itself? If we look at this event from a counterfactual point of view, the war arguably dragged on far longer than President Bush had originally anticipated. Indeed, less than two months after the offensive began, he announced that the mission had been accomplished (May 1, 2003) and that major combat operations in Iraq were ended.
Instead, the US would get mired in the middle of Iraqi infighting and insurgencies for almost nine years, with December 31, 2011 considered the final withdrawal. It is hard to imagine the profound effect this invasion has had on the world. More than 4500 soldiers lost their lives in Iraq and over 100,000 Iraqis. More than 1.5 million Americans served in Iraq during the almost nine year war. The impact of this service on families and on the soldiers themselves has been profound. It is easy to doubt if President Bush would have made the decision to go to war if he had known the way it would play out.
11. Again, it seems hard to underestimate the amount of hostility this invasion created in the Muslim world toward the United States. Most experts on the Middle East would argue that it is directly responsible for the exponential rise of terrorism in the last decade, creating a generation of potential enemies who would like nothing more than to destroy us. This is arguably the war with the West that Osama bin Laden had set out to ignite on 9-11. Without the Iraq War, there would have been no ISIS. Without the Iraq War, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would arguably not have been elected as president in Iran in 2005.
In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, the entire world seemed united behind the United States, including the countries of the Arab world. There was wide UN support for the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The situation was quite different in the lead up to the Iraq War. Few major powers backed the US, and the case for war was thin, even though most of the world did believe Saddam Hussein had WMD (weapons of mass destruction).
It would turn out of course that Iraq did not have such weapons. But in the climate after 9-11, it would have arguably been suicide for anyone in Congress to vote against the war. Only those in the most liberal of districts or states could have voted no and hoped to be reelected. The Bush administration seems to have had a noble but naive hope that they could "liberate" Iraq and that the Iraqi people would flock to democracy, greeting Americans as liberators. Then, with an ally in the Middle East, the entire landscape of the region could be changed for the better.
Alas, it did not turn out that way. The culture of the Middle East turned out to be quite different than such Western expectations.
9-11
12. The attacks on 9-11 punctured the psyche of America. There had been no attack comparable to it since the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941. It was almost unimaginable. Some insignificant figure from the Middle East had somehow managed to take down the most prominent feature of the New York City landscape.
Before 9-11, security at airports was generally casual. You used to be able to walk back to the gate and see your family board the airplane. There was no Department of Homeland Security to coordinate the security organizations of the government.
After 9-11, everyone was paranoid. Where was a terrorist going to jump out next? The then mayor of Marion, Indiana actually barricaded the courthouse after 9-11, as if the Middle East cared about some obscure town in Indiana that no one has ever heard of. Air marshals were put on planes, and paranoid people like me were on constant look out for someone to try to take over the plane. We watched the video of planes flying into the towers over and over again in disbelief.
The sense that the world was a safe place was gone. There was a twinge of doubt that America was invincible. Someone needed to pay.
13. 9-11 interrupted what was arguably a lazy but steady progressive trajectory of American history. An event of this kind inevitably causes a surge of conservatism, for conservatism by its very nature is a protective stance. Christian college students at the turn of the millennium tended to be very interested in social justice and not particularly interested in the theological debates that evangelicals of earlier decades had conducted. In 2002, Robert Webber wrote The Younger Evangelicals, highlighting a generation of evangelicals who were quite different from their forebears in these ways.
9-11 did not eliminate that trajectory. There remains a strong strand of Christians under 40 who are committed to social justice and progressive causes. Many of them supported Bernie Sanders in the recent primary. Some of that age demographic also, disgusted by a surge of Christian fundamentalism, have become "nones," young people with no religious affiliation whatsoever. This is currently the fastest growing religious demographic in America.
But 9-11 also naturally caused a resurgence of Christian fundamentalism in various forms. The strong rise of hyper-Calvinism ("young, restless, and Reformed") in some circles is one example of a conservative backlash no doubt fostered in part by the impact of 9-11. Several Christian colleges have undergone theological purges of sorts in the last decade. The Christian classroom of 2016 includes not only the progressives I mentioned above, but zealous neo-fundamentalists as well. These are students who were only three or four when 9-11 took place, students whose psyche was arguably formed in the zeal of the post-9-11 decade.
Next week: History 3: World War II to the Millennium
Major Take-Aways
- There are often temporary reversals in the overall trajectories of history.
- It's best to talk through certain issues long before flash points take place.
- Democracy is not natural for many cultures. Great care must be taken when moving in that direction.
- Meddling in the affairs of other nations should be a last resort of action. Trying to fix other countries regularly makes things worse.
- Don't start a war as a strategy, only as a last resort.
- Deregulation has its limits. Unbridled capitalism does almost always lead eventually to economic crises.
- Don't over-react to terrorists. Over-reaction tends to play into their hands.
[2] Marian Tupy suggests a more accurate term for Sanders would be a "social democrat."
[3] For example, when he suggested that a judge was being unfair to him because the judge was of Mexican descent or when he insulted the parents of a Muslim soldier killed in Iraq.
[4] The Constitution would prohibit any blanket action toward the Muslim community as Muslims and, in fact, the best way to stop such acts over time is for the Muslim community itself to identify such individuals among them. In the end, blanket targeting of the Muslim community is more likely to increase the number of future home grown terrorists rather than to diminish it.
[5] The federal deficit is 19.4 trillion dollars as I write this post.
[6] Filibuster can take place if the House does not have a supermajority of 60. It can thus keep a bill from even being voted on. The use of the filibuster by the Tea Party in Congress to prevent votes in the last six years is unprecented in US history. Increases of the debt ceiling are necessary in order to pay for budgets that Congress has already approved. In that sense, refusing to increase the debt ceiling prevents the government from paying its existing debts and commitments. It does not involve any new budgetary items.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
The Last Ten Years (Part 1)
With tomorrow being the ten year anniversary of September 11, I thought it was an appropriate time to reflect on the last 10 years or so. I know these are sensitive and heavily debated issues, but I offer you my historical perspective.
November 2000
First, some background. I couldn't decide who to vote for in 2000. Even walking into the voting booth (then at Center School), I contemplated writing my wife in as a write-in. I had the thought, "The country is pretty much running itself. It doesn't really matter who the President is." My Republican upbringing kicked in. I voted for Bush.
September 11, 2001
9-11 changed everything. No longer did I listen to morning comedy in the car. Now I listened to NPR for any news I could get my hands on. The climate of the news changed from hearing almost nothing international to a regular stream of news about places I couldn't then find on a map, like Afghanistan.
I've almost forgotten the climate of fear that immediately followed here in the States. It's funny now but I felt the paranoia that led the then mayor of Marion to put concrete barriers around our court house. I flew to Greece right before we invaded Iraq and was immensely paranoid on the plane.
It's hard to remember how we thought before. I would never have believed someone could attack us here in that way before. I really thought they were joking that morning when I heard about it. No one ever worried about a plane getting hijacked back then. Everyone wants to blame people after the fact. We can't remember how we thought before.
2001-2002
We had the sympathy of the world. There was broad international support for our invasion of Afghanistan and removal of the Taliban. This was a great opportunity for us in the world, I thought. So far so good.
But then the Bush administration began to divert our attention to Iraq. It has emerged after the fact that Powell and Cheney likely stood on opposite sides of this issue. Most would say that history has vindicated Powell. The series of events that followed has taken a man I once hoped would be president and almost removed him from the public sphere altogether.
It would have been political suicide for anyone but those from the most liberal of districts to vote against authorizing President Bush to take action in Iraq. It is a reminder in times like these where American emotions are on a similar high. We're probably not thinking straight. I have never been a big fan of Hillary Clinton, but I didn't hold it against her that she voted in favor of authorizing Bush. It would have been political suicide not to.
I do not believe Ahmadinejad would have come to power in Iran if we had not invaded Iraq. The people elected him in reaction to our impingement in the region. I believe the horrible situation in Iran is thus one of many unforeseen consequences of the Iraq war.
2003
We invaded Iraq. I remember thinking as Powell presented evidence of WMD to the UN Council that I sure hoped they had more evidence than he was sharing. Funny not to present your best stuff, though.
I truly believe that Bush had very good intentions in invading Iraq. Remember that there was a strong avoidance of the word "invasion." People fought over a word that everyone now uses without thinking.
Almost everyone recognizes now that there was no connection between Al-Qaeda and Hussein. Yes, Hussein was a very bad man. Yes, most people were sure he had WMD at the time. But the war in Iraq is a textbook case against pre-emptive war in virtually every situation.
I believe that what was behind our attack on Hussein was a well-intentioned uber-strategy for the Middle East. With the Arab spring, it is possible that it is actually working, although ironically not at all like the think tanks of the time thought it would. It doesn't justify invading a country out of the blue morally, but it is possible that our mistake will, in the end, lead roughly to its uber-objective: a region that is more friendly to us and somewhat democratized.
At the same time, I truly believe that Bush would not have invaded Iraq if he had known that mission was not going to be accomplished as quickly as he thought it was on that air craft carrier. I pictured him making that decision with a heavy heart and only because he thought that it would not cause many American (or Iraqi) lives. Unfortunately, he was massively, massively wrong.
My hunch is that he was culturally naive on a grand scale. He thought that everyone wants democracy. Only someone who doesn't know much about other cultures would think that.
2004-2007
I was in Germany the Spring of 2004. I remember a concerned German at church saying something to me about us going into Iraq and I responded that I didn't think Bush had known what he was doing. I do believe that Bush was a lot wiser in his second term and that Cheney had less influence. It must be nice to be a second term president who doesn't have to worry about re-election.
It seemed impossible that Bush would not be re-elected in 2004. People like me were taking a lot of flack at that time for saying things everyone was saying by the 2008 election. 9-11 put us in a massive defensive and protectionist mode. In my opinion, we still cannot quite think straight. The anger and fear of that event have gone down, but have yet to return to normal levels. And the economic crisis has in its own way refueled that same mode of thinking.
The rest of the story, as I see it, tomorrow...
November 2000
First, some background. I couldn't decide who to vote for in 2000. Even walking into the voting booth (then at Center School), I contemplated writing my wife in as a write-in. I had the thought, "The country is pretty much running itself. It doesn't really matter who the President is." My Republican upbringing kicked in. I voted for Bush.
September 11, 2001
9-11 changed everything. No longer did I listen to morning comedy in the car. Now I listened to NPR for any news I could get my hands on. The climate of the news changed from hearing almost nothing international to a regular stream of news about places I couldn't then find on a map, like Afghanistan.
I've almost forgotten the climate of fear that immediately followed here in the States. It's funny now but I felt the paranoia that led the then mayor of Marion to put concrete barriers around our court house. I flew to Greece right before we invaded Iraq and was immensely paranoid on the plane.
It's hard to remember how we thought before. I would never have believed someone could attack us here in that way before. I really thought they were joking that morning when I heard about it. No one ever worried about a plane getting hijacked back then. Everyone wants to blame people after the fact. We can't remember how we thought before.
2001-2002
We had the sympathy of the world. There was broad international support for our invasion of Afghanistan and removal of the Taliban. This was a great opportunity for us in the world, I thought. So far so good.
But then the Bush administration began to divert our attention to Iraq. It has emerged after the fact that Powell and Cheney likely stood on opposite sides of this issue. Most would say that history has vindicated Powell. The series of events that followed has taken a man I once hoped would be president and almost removed him from the public sphere altogether.
It would have been political suicide for anyone but those from the most liberal of districts to vote against authorizing President Bush to take action in Iraq. It is a reminder in times like these where American emotions are on a similar high. We're probably not thinking straight. I have never been a big fan of Hillary Clinton, but I didn't hold it against her that she voted in favor of authorizing Bush. It would have been political suicide not to.
I do not believe Ahmadinejad would have come to power in Iran if we had not invaded Iraq. The people elected him in reaction to our impingement in the region. I believe the horrible situation in Iran is thus one of many unforeseen consequences of the Iraq war.
2003
We invaded Iraq. I remember thinking as Powell presented evidence of WMD to the UN Council that I sure hoped they had more evidence than he was sharing. Funny not to present your best stuff, though.
I truly believe that Bush had very good intentions in invading Iraq. Remember that there was a strong avoidance of the word "invasion." People fought over a word that everyone now uses without thinking.
Almost everyone recognizes now that there was no connection between Al-Qaeda and Hussein. Yes, Hussein was a very bad man. Yes, most people were sure he had WMD at the time. But the war in Iraq is a textbook case against pre-emptive war in virtually every situation.
I believe that what was behind our attack on Hussein was a well-intentioned uber-strategy for the Middle East. With the Arab spring, it is possible that it is actually working, although ironically not at all like the think tanks of the time thought it would. It doesn't justify invading a country out of the blue morally, but it is possible that our mistake will, in the end, lead roughly to its uber-objective: a region that is more friendly to us and somewhat democratized.
At the same time, I truly believe that Bush would not have invaded Iraq if he had known that mission was not going to be accomplished as quickly as he thought it was on that air craft carrier. I pictured him making that decision with a heavy heart and only because he thought that it would not cause many American (or Iraqi) lives. Unfortunately, he was massively, massively wrong.
My hunch is that he was culturally naive on a grand scale. He thought that everyone wants democracy. Only someone who doesn't know much about other cultures would think that.
2004-2007
I was in Germany the Spring of 2004. I remember a concerned German at church saying something to me about us going into Iraq and I responded that I didn't think Bush had known what he was doing. I do believe that Bush was a lot wiser in his second term and that Cheney had less influence. It must be nice to be a second term president who doesn't have to worry about re-election.
It seemed impossible that Bush would not be re-elected in 2004. People like me were taking a lot of flack at that time for saying things everyone was saying by the 2008 election. 9-11 put us in a massive defensive and protectionist mode. In my opinion, we still cannot quite think straight. The anger and fear of that event have gone down, but have yet to return to normal levels. And the economic crisis has in its own way refueled that same mode of thinking.
The rest of the story, as I see it, tomorrow...
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
New York Times quotes...
... with which I agree. Nothing to gloat about here. It's like the oil spill. Mentally very happy to see it capped. Too emotionally drained from the cost to celebrate with much exuberance.
_________
From the NYT
... "The speech also made us reflect on how little Mr. Bush accomplished by needlessly invading Iraq in March 2003 — and then ludicrously declaring victory two months later.
"Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction proved to be Bush administration propaganda. The war has not created a new era of democracy in the Middle East — or in Iraq for that matter. There are stirrings of democratic politics in Iraq that give us hope. But there is no government six months after national elections.
"In many ways, the war made Americans less safe, creating a new organization of terrorists and diverting the nation’s military resources and political will from Afghanistan. Deprived of its main adversary, a strong Iraq, Iran was left freer to pursue its nuclear program, to direct and finance extremist groups and to meddle in Iraq...
"There was no victory to declare last night, and Mr. Obama was right not to try."
_________
From the NYT
... "The speech also made us reflect on how little Mr. Bush accomplished by needlessly invading Iraq in March 2003 — and then ludicrously declaring victory two months later.
"Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction proved to be Bush administration propaganda. The war has not created a new era of democracy in the Middle East — or in Iraq for that matter. There are stirrings of democratic politics in Iraq that give us hope. But there is no government six months after national elections.
"In many ways, the war made Americans less safe, creating a new organization of terrorists and diverting the nation’s military resources and political will from Afghanistan. Deprived of its main adversary, a strong Iraq, Iran was left freer to pursue its nuclear program, to direct and finance extremist groups and to meddle in Iraq...
"There was no victory to declare last night, and Mr. Obama was right not to try."
Monday, December 15, 2008
Bush looks into the sole of the Iraqis
By now everyone has seen this clip of a man throwing his shoes at President Bush during his last visit to the country. The man calls Bush a dog and says several other things.
I don't know about the comedy scene last night, but a couple good puns on the Today show, as well as by Bush himself.
Bush said he didn't know what the man was saying, but he got a good look into his sole. Bush also was a good dodge.
This morning Meredith Vierra asked if this event "flies in the face" of the idea that Iraq is now at peace.
Not really a laughing matter--a big insult--but Bush's reaction was the best one, to have fun with it. What better way to trivialize a serious insult than by laughing at the man.
I don't know about the comedy scene last night, but a couple good puns on the Today show, as well as by Bush himself.
Bush said he didn't know what the man was saying, but he got a good look into his sole. Bush also was a good dodge.
This morning Meredith Vierra asked if this event "flies in the face" of the idea that Iraq is now at peace.
Not really a laughing matter--a big insult--but Bush's reaction was the best one, to have fun with it. What better way to trivialize a serious insult than by laughing at the man.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Miscellaneous in the News
Very busy this week--maybe you're enjoying it more because of the absence of long interpretive posts. Somehow we managed for three of our children to have birthdays on the 8th, 9th, and 10th of September. Not good planning!
Also there were some major events this week in the possibility of an MDIV and seminary at IWU. We moved significantly closer to seeing this become a reality this week. Nothing certain and no promises, but the snail moves along.
I heard part of an interview on NPR with Bob Woodward on his latest book having to do with Iraq. He suggested that the violence was decreasing for four reasons:
1. The shift of allegiance from Al-Qaeda to the US by various Sunnis in Al-Anbar province (that is, homegrown Al-Qaeda in Iraq that didn't exist at the time of invasion). This of course happened before the surge. McCain misspoke on this one during some interview.
2. The decision on the part of Muqtada al-Sadr to tell his cronies to stop attacking US troops. Again, this had nothing to do with the surge. If anything, he did it on the advice of Iran.
3. The surge. Clearly with so many troops on the ground, violence is going to be down. The big question is what will happen when the troops lead. We have to hope it will stay down.
4. A secret weapon. Apparently it is classified, but with Woodward talking Manhattan Project as an example of technology making all the difference, apparently we now have something that makes it easier to target people. The Bush administration has confirmed.
I don't personally feel like I have enough information to know whether to pat anyone on the back for the surge yet. I'm willing to. I won't in any case pat Bush on the back since it was an act of desperation to clean up a mess he caused in the first place.
Another interesting item in the news is the new particle collider in France-Switzerland. Certainly I hope it doesn't destroy the earth, but am excited about this sort of stuff. Part of me wonders why this thing is in Europe and not in the US. I hope we're not in the twilight of our culture, where we're fat and enjoying the benefit of past hard working generations without realizing that others are passing us and will leave their children the next prosperity.
Also there were some major events this week in the possibility of an MDIV and seminary at IWU. We moved significantly closer to seeing this become a reality this week. Nothing certain and no promises, but the snail moves along.
I heard part of an interview on NPR with Bob Woodward on his latest book having to do with Iraq. He suggested that the violence was decreasing for four reasons:
1. The shift of allegiance from Al-Qaeda to the US by various Sunnis in Al-Anbar province (that is, homegrown Al-Qaeda in Iraq that didn't exist at the time of invasion). This of course happened before the surge. McCain misspoke on this one during some interview.
2. The decision on the part of Muqtada al-Sadr to tell his cronies to stop attacking US troops. Again, this had nothing to do with the surge. If anything, he did it on the advice of Iran.
3. The surge. Clearly with so many troops on the ground, violence is going to be down. The big question is what will happen when the troops lead. We have to hope it will stay down.
4. A secret weapon. Apparently it is classified, but with Woodward talking Manhattan Project as an example of technology making all the difference, apparently we now have something that makes it easier to target people. The Bush administration has confirmed.
I don't personally feel like I have enough information to know whether to pat anyone on the back for the surge yet. I'm willing to. I won't in any case pat Bush on the back since it was an act of desperation to clean up a mess he caused in the first place.
Another interesting item in the news is the new particle collider in France-Switzerland. Certainly I hope it doesn't destroy the earth, but am excited about this sort of stuff. Part of me wonders why this thing is in Europe and not in the US. I hope we're not in the twilight of our culture, where we're fat and enjoying the benefit of past hard working generations without realizing that others are passing us and will leave their children the next prosperity.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Bush's Iraq Speech
It will be interesting to see how Bush's speech tonight will be viewed with the hindsight of history. It has to be the first or second most important speech of his presidency to date.
My impressions and reaction:
I agree with Bush that there are scary prospects for an Iraq right now without American troops. I think he's right that Malaki's government would collapse and the civil war would become much worse and anarchic. I agree that Iraq would become an even greater haven for terrorists. Let me also note that Bush himself has created this situation. Iraq was no safe haven for terrorists under Hussein. I think Basra and the Kurdish north are much better now than they were before, but Baghdad is drastically worse. And since Baghdad is the nexus of Iraq's place in the political map of the region, that makes the current Baghdad far more dangerous to us now than it was under Saddam.
Having said that, good luck on his proposal having any real effect. The only real hope I heard in his speech were the things he said he would hold Malaki accountable for: policing of groups like Al Sadr, oil for the Sunnis, rebathification. If Bush can get the Iraqis to do this, this would be significant.
But I doubt 20,000 troops will accomplish anything lasting at all. Perhaps Bush should have one last shot, although I mourn the billions of dollars and extra 1000 American lives it will waste in the process. I hope it succeeds.
Bad tastes in my mouth: Principally two. First, the problem in Iraq is not terrorism and the terrorists are not the primary problem right now. The problem are the Shiite death squads and people like Al Sadr. I have no idea how to reign them in. They're good at laying low until we leave, and we simply cannot stay forever. They're the ones who lynched Hussein.
The second taste is this impotent talk about freedom and the talk of brave Iraqis. Who are they? The ones sneeking around dragging Sunni's out of their houses? We are neck deep in real politique here. Drop the vacuous ideological rhetoric that means absolutely nothing about now.
These are not democrats. This is a tribal group culture. Our freedom is great and would be great for them. But they aren't built to want it. They don't draw paintings of liberty valiantly holding the flag amidst the death around her.
My impressions and reaction:
I agree with Bush that there are scary prospects for an Iraq right now without American troops. I think he's right that Malaki's government would collapse and the civil war would become much worse and anarchic. I agree that Iraq would become an even greater haven for terrorists. Let me also note that Bush himself has created this situation. Iraq was no safe haven for terrorists under Hussein. I think Basra and the Kurdish north are much better now than they were before, but Baghdad is drastically worse. And since Baghdad is the nexus of Iraq's place in the political map of the region, that makes the current Baghdad far more dangerous to us now than it was under Saddam.
Having said that, good luck on his proposal having any real effect. The only real hope I heard in his speech were the things he said he would hold Malaki accountable for: policing of groups like Al Sadr, oil for the Sunnis, rebathification. If Bush can get the Iraqis to do this, this would be significant.
But I doubt 20,000 troops will accomplish anything lasting at all. Perhaps Bush should have one last shot, although I mourn the billions of dollars and extra 1000 American lives it will waste in the process. I hope it succeeds.
Bad tastes in my mouth: Principally two. First, the problem in Iraq is not terrorism and the terrorists are not the primary problem right now. The problem are the Shiite death squads and people like Al Sadr. I have no idea how to reign them in. They're good at laying low until we leave, and we simply cannot stay forever. They're the ones who lynched Hussein.
The second taste is this impotent talk about freedom and the talk of brave Iraqis. Who are they? The ones sneeking around dragging Sunni's out of their houses? We are neck deep in real politique here. Drop the vacuous ideological rhetoric that means absolutely nothing about now.
These are not democrats. This is a tribal group culture. Our freedom is great and would be great for them. But they aren't built to want it. They don't draw paintings of liberty valiantly holding the flag amidst the death around her.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
The Danger of Labels
The human mind uses labels, general headings, to help "manage" a reality that is full of incredible diversity of detail and complexity. This is of course a good and helpful thing.
The problem comes when we forget that the labels are only aids because our human minds cannot manage the infinite. They are helps to thinking and processing reality. But when we turn them into stereotypes, into self-fulfilling realities, they can service falsehood and evil.
The easy example is prejudice: "all black people" ... or "all 'white' people" (what's a white person anyway? I'm part Dutch, English, Scotch-Irish, and who knows what...).
These are the tools of a demogogue. Hitler used the label of "Jew" to kill a segment of his population. Notice the technique that occurs all the time in much less serious ways: 1) you identify a characteristic that you map to a label, 2) you villify or stereotype or praise the label, 3) then you either intentionally or unintentionally sweep any other good, bad, or ugly out of the picture and let the label itself take over with whatever new connotations you have assigned it--once you have attached the label, the label can determine the meaning regardless of reality or complexity. So the category "Jew" was a fixed category, but Hitler used the significance he attached to the label to justify their elimination.
As a much less harmful example (and, please, I am not intending to compare Bush's war tactices to Hitler's killing of the Jews) the Bush administration tends to do this slight of hand with the word terrorist and with the phrase the war on terror. If the Bush administration can attach this label to something--Iraq, for example--then they can transfer the feelings of 9-11 etc to a different situation. It's why the rhetoric is warming up as the election approaches, counting on the possibility that people will blur things together and vote their emotions.
But actually none of that is what sparked this entry. What sparked this entry is the way I fear some are treating terms like "emergent" or "post-modern." Frankly, these labels are so diverse that they don't really have much meaning to them at all. And that's what makes them dangerous. If you can attach the label "post-modern" to something, then you can dismiss it lock, stock, and barrel. Indeed, at this point "straw men" come into play. You pick the most extreme example of a "post-modern," get a congregation or radio audience angry at it, then you can transfer those emotions to something that is actually valid or insignificant.
I tell you the truth (and so beware trying to use the label post-modern on me in the fashion I just mentioned)--I am not the most intelligent or most informed person. I could give you names of people in academia who regularly make me feel stupid. I do not write what I write now out of arrogance. But the level of logic that passes for thinking from so many Christian pulpits out there and in so many pews is simply pathetic, riddled full of so many holes that it embarrases me as a Christian.
Here are some more reminders (again) on absolutes, relativism, and post-modernism: first, there is a difference between these terms in ethics and these terms in knowledge. The first has to do with morality, the second has to do with truth. They are related, but don't confuse them. They are separate issues.
Second, at least from a pragmatic perspective, all people are both absolutist and relativist in both domains at the same time. If you believe in convictions, you are a relativist on some questions of morality. And even the most extreme professed postmodernist gets out of the way of moving traffic. And clearly Christians can have different perspectives on the same issue when there is not a clear cut answer either from the Bible or Christian tradition. To say that doesn't mean that there are no right answers to many questions. Sheeze, get a brain!
Bottom line: stop beating up on the label "postmodern" or "emergent"--you don't know what you're talking about. All it does is get irrational, feeble minded people to go burn things down. The real questions are these: what moral actions are exceptionless, which ones are universal with exceptions, which ones are relative, which ones are not even a matter of morality? What is the degree of certainty we have on various questions of truth? Which ones require blind faith and which ones are demonstrable on the basis of evidence.
Oh American Christian, please, please stop being a disgrace to the God of truth. Develop the brain He hath given thee.
The problem comes when we forget that the labels are only aids because our human minds cannot manage the infinite. They are helps to thinking and processing reality. But when we turn them into stereotypes, into self-fulfilling realities, they can service falsehood and evil.
The easy example is prejudice: "all black people" ... or "all 'white' people" (what's a white person anyway? I'm part Dutch, English, Scotch-Irish, and who knows what...).
These are the tools of a demogogue. Hitler used the label of "Jew" to kill a segment of his population. Notice the technique that occurs all the time in much less serious ways: 1) you identify a characteristic that you map to a label, 2) you villify or stereotype or praise the label, 3) then you either intentionally or unintentionally sweep any other good, bad, or ugly out of the picture and let the label itself take over with whatever new connotations you have assigned it--once you have attached the label, the label can determine the meaning regardless of reality or complexity. So the category "Jew" was a fixed category, but Hitler used the significance he attached to the label to justify their elimination.
As a much less harmful example (and, please, I am not intending to compare Bush's war tactices to Hitler's killing of the Jews) the Bush administration tends to do this slight of hand with the word terrorist and with the phrase the war on terror. If the Bush administration can attach this label to something--Iraq, for example--then they can transfer the feelings of 9-11 etc to a different situation. It's why the rhetoric is warming up as the election approaches, counting on the possibility that people will blur things together and vote their emotions.
But actually none of that is what sparked this entry. What sparked this entry is the way I fear some are treating terms like "emergent" or "post-modern." Frankly, these labels are so diverse that they don't really have much meaning to them at all. And that's what makes them dangerous. If you can attach the label "post-modern" to something, then you can dismiss it lock, stock, and barrel. Indeed, at this point "straw men" come into play. You pick the most extreme example of a "post-modern," get a congregation or radio audience angry at it, then you can transfer those emotions to something that is actually valid or insignificant.
I tell you the truth (and so beware trying to use the label post-modern on me in the fashion I just mentioned)--I am not the most intelligent or most informed person. I could give you names of people in academia who regularly make me feel stupid. I do not write what I write now out of arrogance. But the level of logic that passes for thinking from so many Christian pulpits out there and in so many pews is simply pathetic, riddled full of so many holes that it embarrases me as a Christian.
Here are some more reminders (again) on absolutes, relativism, and post-modernism: first, there is a difference between these terms in ethics and these terms in knowledge. The first has to do with morality, the second has to do with truth. They are related, but don't confuse them. They are separate issues.
Second, at least from a pragmatic perspective, all people are both absolutist and relativist in both domains at the same time. If you believe in convictions, you are a relativist on some questions of morality. And even the most extreme professed postmodernist gets out of the way of moving traffic. And clearly Christians can have different perspectives on the same issue when there is not a clear cut answer either from the Bible or Christian tradition. To say that doesn't mean that there are no right answers to many questions. Sheeze, get a brain!
Bottom line: stop beating up on the label "postmodern" or "emergent"--you don't know what you're talking about. All it does is get irrational, feeble minded people to go burn things down. The real questions are these: what moral actions are exceptionless, which ones are universal with exceptions, which ones are relative, which ones are not even a matter of morality? What is the degree of certainty we have on various questions of truth? Which ones require blind faith and which ones are demonstrable on the basis of evidence.
Oh American Christian, please, please stop being a disgrace to the God of truth. Develop the brain He hath given thee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
