 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
October 2006
Elsewhere on the WebVictor Davis Hanson’s Private Papers Victor Davis Hanson Archive on National Review OnlineTour Books
A War Like No Other How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War
by Victor Hanson
Amazon.com’s Best of 2001 Many theories have been offered regarding why Western culture has spread so successfully across the world, with arguments ranging from genetics to superior technology to the creation of enlightened economic, moral, and political systems. In Carnage and Culture, military historian Victor Hanson takes all of these factors into account in making a bold, and sure to be controversial, argument: Westerners are more effective killers.
by Victor Davis Hanson
by Victor Davis Hanson
by Victor Davis Hanson
by Victor Davis Hanson, John Keegan Hanson, for those who somehow have missed him until now, is a professor of Classics at California State and also is a part time farmer, both of which have contributed to his writing as a military historian. As a classicist, Hanson is well versed in the sources in their original Greek, and as a farmer he understands how agriculture affected the experience of the Greeks at war.
by Victor Davis Hanson
by Victor Davis Hanson
Hanson relates the life stories of his farmer neighbors, writing that their way of life will likely soon disappear, thanks in part to a federal system of agricultural subsidies that favors large-scale, industrial farm corporations over individual “yeomen.” This is a sobering and eye-opening book. by Victor Davis Hanson On first glance, The Soul of Battle appears to be three different books: biographies of two well-known generals—Sherman and Patton—and one who is virtually unknown today, the ancient Greek leader Epaminondas. Yet Victor Davis Hanson, a classics professor and author of The Western Way of War, makes a compelling connection between these three men. They were “eccentrics, considered unbalanced or worse by their own superiors” who led democratic armies on missions of freedom.
by Robert B. Strassler (Editor), Victor Davis Hanson (Introduction)
|
October 22, 2006 6:15 PM
Middle East MadnessMore Rubble, Less Trouble? There is a new narrative—compare the recent essay in the New York Times Magazine on the supposed resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan—namely that the United States is failing not only in Iraq to win hearts and minds, but also in Afghanistan. People there are purportedly tired of the violence, the inability of the Western coalitions to suppress it, and thus prefer to return to their former status of secure and indigenous authoritarianism. I don’t know whether such pessimism is true or not, but I am interested in the frequent analysis that it is somehow the fault of the United States or its allies, not the Islamists themselves. Consider Kurdistan that is still thriving. Its population, devoutly Muslim, apparently understands the advantages of Western commerce and tolerance in a manner not true of the Iraqi Shiia and Sunni communities, or the Afghans. Yet the West has poured more aid money into the latter than the former. The difference seems to be that in Kurdistan when someone picks up a Westernized cell phone, drives an imported car, or turns on a computer, they seek to use such appurtenances to bring greater security and commerce to their own. In contrast, in tribal Afghanistan and the Sunni Triangle the Islamists are entirely parasitical on the West: they want our material products, but only to use them for destructive purposes. And if they employ televisions and videos to further the spread of Islam, they never pause for a second of self-critical analysis. It is not just that the world of the 7th century does produce what a Mullah Omar or Dr. Zawhri prefers to use, but that the Islamic Dark Ages ensure that such appurtenances could never be discovered or improved by fundamentalist cultures that adjudicate scientific research by Koranic purity, subjugate half the population, invest in scapegoating rather than in confident self-reliance, and predicate merit on blood ties and religious zeal. Such a strange war While we argue over various mathematical formulas to determine how many have died in the Iraq war, note that the passive is the voice of choice—as in “50,000 have been killed”, or “100,000 have died.” Culpability is ignored. And so we have the following Orwellian situation: the aggregate number must include everybody who dies violently in Iraq: an “insurgent” in jeans who blows himself up in an IED mishap, a terrorist killed by a Marine, a child murdered in a school by Islamists, Shiites blown up by Sunnis and vice versa—all these are lumped together as collateral civilian deaths. And how can it be otherwise, when the enemy wears no uniforms, counts on killing civilians to ruin the country, and most journalists will blame all deaths of any sort on the American presence in Iraq? Stung by the dishonesty of “body counts” in Vietnam, and worried that in postmodern warfare, Westerners are not only not supposed to die, but also should not kill, our own forces release no figures on how many enemy terrorists they have killed. The result is that the narrative of almost all the mayhem coming out of Iraq is bifurcated into either how many Americans were killed, or how many “Iraqis” perished—a sure method to convince the reader that the entire enterprise is a complete disaster in which we are mere sitting ducks, whose presence alone leads to Iraqis dropping dead like flies. Where does all this lead? Not where most expect. The Left thinks that the “fiasco” in Iraq will bring a repudiation of George Bush, and lead to its return to power. Perhaps. But more likely it will bring a return of realpolitik to American foreign policy, in which no action abroad is allowable (so much for the liberals’ project of saving Darfur), and our diplomacy is predicated only on stability abroad. The idealism of trying to birth consensual government will be discredited; but with its demise also ends any attention to Arab moderates, who whined for years about our support for the House of Saud, Pakistani generals, Gulf autocrats, or our neglect of the mayhem wrought by Islamists in Afghanistan. We know now that when the United States tries to spend blood and treasure in Afghanistan and Iraq that it will be slandered as naïve or imperialistic. (1) We will pump oil at $3 and must sell it over $50— and still blame you for stealing our natural treasure Comments (37)Liana :Tom Wall :Mr. Hanson, your 10 items are a very clear eyed analysis. Re: more rubble, less trouble. It is easy to understand Pres. Bush when he sometimes simply says, "Hey, it's a tough job." Those he aims it to have not a clue just how tough war can be. I'm sure most of the press have never served in the military and have no idea. We don't have control wires connected to the enemy. They think and plot on their own. Sometimes our plans goes to H**l right after the first bullet is fired. Ask anyone who has been in combat. You base it on logistics that are present now, not tomorrow. Sometimes they go right when you think left, so it's not always correct but it's all you got. How did the left ever form this sanitized notion of war? People get killed and things get broken but it does have meaning that totally escapes them. It's really disgusting to me to read and hear some of the liberal journalists and commentators wail and moan at the first downturn. They have no tough fiber in their being to know how the world at war behaves. Their mental conditions goes no farther than all war is bad. That's it. The real big problem is that the left is getting worse. Far worse. They seem willing to accept defeat for no other purpose than their befuddle thinking that everyone will tongue each other with happiness if only we would pull our forces out of both countries. They don't know how deep the snot's going to get when that happens. I know some of these people personally and they scare the hell out of me. They're adults for goodness sakes. I wonder if they will ever change?
Junius :Is not the US the lid to the Middle East's boiling pot? In all recorded history has not the lands between the Nile and the Tigris rivers been a cauldron of turmoil except when an outside power imposes stability? In that area of the world, does not political change only occur with a violent revolution? Petrit :I don’t know whether such pessimism is true or not, but I am interested in the frequent analysis that it is somehow the fault of the United States or its allies, not the Islamists themselves. The pessimism is true, and has been true for far longer than anybody in the US appears to have realised. They were tired of it as far back as 2002, which is when I left, and it hasn't got any better. The reason for pegging this to the US is that it was the US that promised Afghans a better life than the one they had under the Taliban. We have patently failed to deliver on that promise; hence the disappointment in the general population, and a hankering for the good old days. Those old days weren't very good at all, but there you go. Have you ever stopped to think that there might not be a magic formula for all of this? That the reason the Kurds are doing relatively well while the remaining Iraqis and the Afghans aren't is because *gasp* they're not the same? It's hard to grasp, I know - after all, Muslims all look the same, don't they? - but maybe that simple idea holds the key. I love your lessons since 9/11, by the way. gs :...the Islamists are entirely parasitical on the West... They are parasites struggling to evolve into cancers. ...our own forces release no figures on how many enemy terrorists they have killed. The result is...to convince the reader that the entire enterprise is a complete disaster... In case that isn't counterproductive enough, the DoD has begun stifling military blogging. While a forthcoming major action, e.g. a thrust against Iran, would justify such a tightening of operational security, tightening as an end in itself is how a bureaucracy proceeds when top-level leadership is deficient. Josh :I wonder when the deference to the Middle East will end? How much more carnage, how much more naked aggression? A friend of mine expressed his concern that Islam is going to steamroll everything; a world-wide Caliphate realized. But all world supremacy movements never really accomplish what they set out to do. Can any one group, one country, one religion control the majority of the globe? Petrit :How did the left ever form this sanitized notion of war? People get killed and things get broken but it does have meaning that totally escapes them. Perhaps you could be a little clearer in your definition: what you mean is, how did the "liberals" that I know form this sanitized notion of war, surely? The Soviet Union was about as left as you can get, and they certainly didn't have a particularly sanitized notion of war. The subtext of your comments is that it's fine for an unspecified number of civilians to die in the course of a war - the "can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs" argument. Ironically of course, that's exactly what the enemy terrorists believe, but there's no moral equivalence there - because your cause is just. ...our own forces release no figures on how many enemy terrorists they have killed. The result is...to convince the reader that the entire enterprise is a complete disaster... Can you share with us the equation that you use to calculate whether it's a complete disaster? How many enemy terrorists do we have to kill to qualify as a success? Richard Quigley :Victor Davis Hanson, Thank You! WillyShake :Sadly, this "new narrative" has the same old effect: the trashing of our military. What do I mean? I'm referring to what I've called the "Sy Hersh school of journalism" which teaches that because the US--and not its enemies--is to blame for all of the trouble in the world, then the American soldier accordingly must be either: (a) a hapless victim trapped in a third-world hell hole because of the warmongering machinations of a Republican president or (b) be a rampaging, cowboy-like baby-killer who was has been nursed on a diet of Rambo movies and unthinking nationalism. To those journalists who have (perhaps unconsciously) adopted this paradigm, the thought that our military men & women can be anything outside of this is unthinkable. Is there an antidote to this shortsighted bias? The study of history is perhaps our best hope--as VDH has stated: "Reading about Gettysburg, Okinawa, Choisun, Hue, and Mogadishu is often to wonder how such soldiers did what they did. Yet never has America asked its youth to fight under such a cultural, political, and tactical paradox as in Iraq, as bizarre a mission as it is lethal. And never has the American military--especially the U.S. Army and Marines--in this, the supposedly most cynical and affluent age of our nation, performed so well." Robert Mandel :Professor, I have read many of your books, a resource I use often in my classes. However, you and I both know the real problem with the Middle East. They haven't ever tasted defeat, not in a way that European powers have. For a millenium, they have been beaten by the West, but have never faced the wages of their defeats. They have never (save for the Mongols in 1258) had a Dresden, Tenchtitlan, or Hiroshima. Thus, they can live in their adolscence, pursuing dreams that an adult population would never contemplate. They can really believe that some day the caliphate will return, and even worse, that the one society they hate, the one with the true means to destroy them, will not act. When they truly know the wages of their sins, as Germany and Japan found out in 1945, then I believe we will see the great changes we all hope can be accomplished without. Brendan :1. It's blame on the USA and Israel - not OR. 2. Where in the MSM do you see a map of progress in Iraq? During WW2 I wonder if the general populace was as clueless as it is now. Here is my list of questions and answers some one must provide before they can start saying we have failed: 1. How many provinces are in Iraq? 2. How many provinces are in Kurdistan? 3. How many provinces have been handed over to the Iraqi goverment? 4. How many more are expected to be passed over this year? Petrit: What did the Kurds accomplish before the US and UK setup a no fly zone and prevented Sadam from using nerve gas on them, not much. Checkout how the Kurds in Turkey are doing, under the Turkish boot for refrence. Ken :I'm perplexed by item #10, especially as it pertains to India. There have been numerous Islamist terror attacks there, and not much response (that I'm aware of) from the Indian government. Also, of course, there has been conflict between Russia and Islamists in Chechneya. Byron :The left wants to walk away. But the Islamic world has very high birth rates and moribund economies, guaranteeing population outflow. Quarantine is not feasible. The only strategic policy option that seemed to make sense was to reform the societies that spawn Islamic backwardness and hostility. Nobody has come up with a better idea, but that doesn't mean it can be done. The left would like to turn its back on the whole problem, but even if we aren't interested in the Islamic world, it is very interested in us. All the facile analogies with Viet Nam end right there. Philip Cassini :This Arab Muslim pathology is more a result of Western weakness than any change in the Mideast. When westerners were strong, numerous and culturally confident the Arabs were diffident and cowed. Now that we beat ourselves up over the slightest thing and denigrate our own civilization on a daily basis the Arabs have sensed weakness and exploit it to the hilt. This may change in a very short period of time if westerners grow tired of constantly living under cultural siege. Sean :The insurgencies and militias on either side of the Sunni/Shiite divide are being fuelled by Syria and Iran, respectively. Those two nations are calling the shots, both with expertise and financing. Without both the insurgencies would crumple. When the political climate in the United States is finally such that we do withdraw from Iraq en masse (no later than 2008, likely much sooner), those two nations will call off their local attack dogs. We will leave Iraq, the insurgency and tribal warfare will largely stop, as per the orders from Syria and Iran. That, combined with those nations willingness to murder en masse to acheive their ends, will be enough to keep these warring factions at bay. American presence and intervention will have been "proven" as the cause of all the strife. That "idealism of trying to birth consensual government" will not simply be discredited, but it will be killed for at least a generation or two. Just as it was 30 years between Vietnam and this attempt, it will be another 30 before the west ever attempts such a thing again. Three new nations will be born, two of which will obstensibly be satellites for Iran and Syria, with only Kurdistan emerging as a true, Western style democracy. What exactly that will bring, I don't know. But that is the Iraqi reality in 2008. Hezbollah, al Qaeda and friends will all have their own homes from which they train and operate out of. We will be worse off than before. It's best we accept this now and get out. DADvocate :that asks as much of others ...—and yet so little of itself. Reminds me of contemporary American liberalism. Chris Smith :Summarizing your ten points, is the Middle East a two year old, and "appeasing liberals" an fawning mother? pat hendershott :Response to Petrit The Soviet Union is liberal? Please. A place that shoots reporters and politicians, kills civilians, etc. I don't know whether the SU is left or right, but certainly not liberal. By the way, the ten points are excellent. claunchs :that's exactly what the enemy terrorists believe, but there's no moral equivalence there - because your cause is just. I think you miss an important difference; if our enemy simply stopped blowing people up in markets and participated in democracy, we'd stop fighting and leave. There are those in this world (some of whom have formally declared war on the US) who will not voluntarily stop their attacks no matter what we do. Yet many people on the left simply dismiss this notion and seem to only be able to identify enemies of the country that are in the Republican Party. Jason Bo Green :I don't want to sound like an echo chamber, but - what a great article. Especially the point about charging for oil and then claiming we are robbing them -- I never tire of pointing this out to my idiotic friends. I'm a liberal as much as anyone could be - yet I'm confused and frustrated by the idiocy that surrounds me in a group of them. Mark :The expectations of the Islamist world is not irrational. They sense weakness in the West and they are taking advantage of it. They are forcing themselves on Europe, and may take it without firing a shot. They are pressuring all their boundaries and taking advantage of the weak spots. Until the West wakes up from its multicultural/PC delusions and then gens up the will to do something about the threat in their midst, the Islamists will continue their fight. There's not too much to respect in Islamist philosophy, but will to conquer in the face of (on paper) huge odds is one thing. Would that the West could generate a little will power of its own. cubanbob :Perhaps the time has come to remind the Arabs that while oil is indispensable Arabs on the other hand are entirely dispensable. In other words we do not need them to acquire and produce oil. The possible fatal conceit (for the Arabs) is the notion of winning a lottery (oil) makes one a financial genius. They are well past the time for a reality check. Mike Perry :It's a great article but for this all-too-common remark: It is not just that the world of the 7th century does produce what a Mullah Omar or Dr. Zawhri prefers to use, but that the Islamic Dark Ages ensure that such appurtenances could never be discovered or improved by fundamentalist cultures that adjudicate scientific research by Koranic purity, subjugate half the population, invest in scapegoating rather than in confident self-reliance, and predicate merit on blood ties and religious zeal. I challenge Prof Hansen to find one basic trait of these "7th century... Dark Ages... Fundamentalist cultures" that isn't also true the academia of our most elite universities. It's no accident that militant Islam is finding more sympathy at Columbia University than in Columbus, Georgia. At our elite universities politically correct doma rules over science and common sense. There President Bush and the "red state" US are irrationally scapegoated as the source of all the world's ills. There merit is based on one's academic blood ties and political zeal. And judging by the conversations, you might even suspect that in that world the New York Times is held is much the same high regard as an Islamist regards the Koran. No, good and bad have absolutely nothing to do with the age in which one lives and they certainly have nothing to do with whether a "religious" or "secular" label can be attached to someone's beliefs. Scientific communism--modern, secular and until very recently highly fashionable--killed more people in the twentieth century than any other religion or ideology in human history. It wasn't a product of "7th century... Dark Ages... Fundamentalist cultures." It was conceived by a well-educated Prussian journalist and probably spawned more dull, dry, footnoted academic books than any other idea in human history. New is not good, old is not bad. As a historian and a classicist you know that. Michael W. Perry, editor of the soon-out Chesterton at War: Barbarism, Militarism and Pacifism in the Illustrated London News articles of G. K. Chesterton Petrit :pat hendershott: please read my post again. I was replying to somebody who asked "How did the left ever form this sanitized notion of war?" and my reply was intended to point out that the "left" - using the Soviet Union as an example of socialist politics - never had a sanitized notion of war. What the original poster meant by "left" was US liberal politics (which would be considered right-wing in Europe, for example). Also, you might want to note that the Soviet Union hasn't existed for some years now. The place you are referring to that currently "shoots reporters" is the Russian federation. Petrit :Brendan: What did the Kurds accomplish before the US and UK setup a no fly zone and prevented Sadam from using nerve gas on them, not much. Checkout how the Kurds in Turkey are doing, under the Turkish boot for refrence. I'm not entirely sure what your point is. My point was that each of these populations are different, and to lump them all together as "ungrateful Muslims" (in the case of the Afghans and the southern Iraqis) and as "grateful Muslims" (in the case of the Kurds) is ridiculous. It is equally mistaken, in my opinion, to put all Kurds together in one basket, particularly given their radically different post-Ottoman histories. Bear in mind that it is only very recently that the two main Kurdish factions stopped fighting each other long enough to unify; and there is no love lost between them and the Turkish Kurdish parties. The world is complicated that way. You've probably guessed by now that I don't think the 10 points are very useful at all, but I'm willing to debate them. Petrit :claunchs: I think you miss an important difference; if our enemy simply stopped blowing people up in markets and participated in democracy, we'd stop fighting and leave. Would we really? I must have blinked and missed something, because we still seem to be in Bosnia. And Kosovo. And Cyprus. And Liberia. The fighting stopped in all of those places a long time ago, but we stay there to ensure that the peace is sustained, and I hope that we would do the same in Iraq. If there was any prospect for peace, which is doubtful. On your main point about the difference between us and them: How is that an important difference in the context of my original point? I was suggesting that the subtext of Tom Wall's original post was that we shouldn't worry about civilians getting killed in wars, because hey! that's what happens in wars. I agree with him that that is what happens in wars, but I think that it is worth worrying about. If you disagree with me, fine; if you disagree with him, please take it up with him. Tom W :(1) We will pump oil at $3 and must sell it over $50— and still blame you for stealing our natural treasure Fair complaint given that the people often see very little of the revenue which is often shared between the non-democratic heads of state and US (and other western) oil majors, while the US government takes a 'business as usual' approach. (No I'm not advocating another invasion - there there is more to life than passivity or war). In Iraq 10 billion in oil revenues went missing under the Occupation Authority. Or how about Nigeria, a leading oil exporter? Their per capita GDP is 600$, they are in debt but the oil majors and the leadership are making out like bandits. Same is true in Indonesia. (2) We will damn your culture and politics, but expect our own to immigrate in the thousands to your shores; upon arrival any attempt to integrate Muslim immigrants into Western pluralistic society will be seen as Islamaphobic Silly stereotype based on the notion that Muslims all think alike. Let me help Hansen out - some Muslim hate western culture and some don't. Even if the latter category was only 10 percent there would be plenty of sympathetic Muslims to explain immigration numbers. In fact there is a good argument to be made that second generation Muslims in Europe are less Muslim and more disaffected. (3) Send us your material goods, whether machine tools, I-pods, or antibiotics. We desperately want them, but will neither make the necessary changes in our own statist, authoritarian, religiously intolerant, tribal, and patriarchal culture to allow us to produce them ourselves, nor will show any appreciation for the genius of others who can do what we cannot More stereotyping. See response to (2). (4) We ostensibly wish you to stop the killing of Muslims by ourselves and others—Milosevic murdering Kosovars, Saddam destroying Kuwaitis, Kurds, and Shiites, Russians killing Afghans and Chechnyans—but should you concretely attempt to do so, we will immediately consider your intervention far worse than the mayhem caused by others or ourselves. Silly myth. Most Muslim merely want the US to stop interfering. Polls before the Iraq war indicated that the Muslim world was nearly unanimous in its opposition to the US invasion. (5) Any indigenous failure in the Arab Middle East will eventually be blamed on the United States or Israel Wrong again/ Evidently Hansen hasn't read what Bin Laden has to say about the Saudi Royal Family or Mubarak or the heads of other ME states. Or what the Sunnis have to say about the Shia and vice versa. I'd go on but it's lunch time. Kiril, The Mad Macedonian :My God, that was Glorious! As I read every paragraph I was nodding my head, and uttering a heartfelt "YES!", regarding many of them! To my way of thinking Americans should not just have to go buy a book, or search out columns, or opinions, on Blogs in order to read truths such as these. It is important that our Leaders go before the public as much as possible, unafraid to openly say, and do, what needs to be said, and done, in the face of the conflict over the fate of civilization that we, in the West, find ourselves confronted with. It is important that debates, and discussions, about the merits of all that is brought up by Mr. Hansen, and the rebuttals, in the comments, be out in the open. Nothing less is required, and anyone with an ounce of sense would demand it with their votes, and in letters, and blogs. Think about the great speeches, and important actions, of wars in our past, said, and done, by leaders from Washington, and Lincoln, to Churchill, and Truman, not to mention Kennedy, Nixon, and Reagan in the Cold War. There is a movie in our theatres at the moment that shows how one instant in time, on an extremely bloody battlefield ( Whiners about our tragic losses in Iraq should check out the numbers for 2 months of US casualties on that tiny island, fighting another ruthless enemy of the West. ) , was used as a motivating tool to rally the American public in a way that was unprecedented, and is to this day unmatched. What would our current world be like if even one thing in that list had not occurred? We are in the midst of a long, ongoing battle, folks, one that has its origins 30, or more, years in the past. It won't go away just because we wish it so. John McDermott :Is there a country in the world where the U.S. has a presence, that the duly elected, or even un-elected government, tells us to hightail it the hell out of there? There are probably many that have that particular manuever high on their wish list. But many factors with security concerns and financial considerations atop the list, make the point moot. We will maintain middle eastern bases in basically the same manner, and for the same reasons we hang on in Germany, Japan and Korea. Projecting power forward, is far superior to allowing your enemy that advantage. When the Phillipines said go, we went. The same would be true of any non-threating nation. But like Linus, most like the fuzzy feeling of the American security blanket, so they swallow their pride and take our money without batting an eye. We have bases in several Arabic countries already, and looking to add a few more. Actually, it's all quite simple. Mik :However, you and I both know the real problem with the Middle East. They haven't ever tasted defeat, not in a way that European powers have. Tell the Palestinians that. M.A. :Mr. Hanson -- and many of the people here -- fail to look inward and note the obvious: after 9/11 there was a chance to go after the Islamists and reform the Middle East. Instead they focused on removing the Islamists' enemy, Saddam Hussein. Why? Because the Bush administration and its followers could not adjust to post-9/11 realities; they were obsessed with Saddam before 9/11 and could not understand that Saddam was irrelevant in a post-9/11 world. Hopefully, the Democrats will return to power and finally give us a government that adjusts to post-9/11 realities; the Democrats are imperfect but most of the people who are serious on national security and understand the threat we face are Democrats. (If you supported the removal of Saddam, you by definition do not understand the threats we face, since Saddam was no threat to us.) Papa Ray :Regardless of what we think or the Muslims think, The U.S. Military is in Iraq to stay. They will be there longer than they have been in Germany. Anyone who thinks otherwise should think it out first before saying that we will withdraw in the forseeable future. We got our toe under the door and we are not leaving until we are all the way in, and using that advantage for all it's worth, in the coming battles in this "long war". Iran and Syria and others know that and will do anything they can to stop it. Papa Ray Jon R :Many of your points contain false either-or arguments based on your belief that you can 'sum up the collective mentality of the current Arab Middle East' and present the situation as us-vs-them. As if all Middle Easterners agree and speak with one, very demanding voice. You mix Arabs with Kurds with Iranians and Afghanis, etc. Just in the Arab world, consider the differences between Morocco, Egypt, the Gulf States, etc. Only by considering the complexities of the situation, rather than reducing it to 10 neat us-vs-them points, can we understand the relationship between Arab nationalism and Islamism, for example, or the legacy of colonialism in the region. Discussion of these complexities in academia is what appears to people like M. Perry as 'sympathy'. Apparently we should just kill the bastards, or give them a good beating like some apparently do to ungrateful children. Infantilizing them is a form of orientalism, which is part of the whole problem in the first place. And finally, to Mandel: wouldn't the US be in that list of 'those who have never faced the wages of their defeat'? If we had, would we be involved in Iraq, considering all the parallels with Vietnam, another war where we attempted to liberate 'ungrateful children'. d :They haven't ever tasted defeat, not in a way that European powers have. For a millenium, they have been beaten by the West, but have never faced the wages of their defeats. They have never (save for the Mongols in 1258) had a Dresden, Tenchtitlan, or Hiroshima. Funny. This is more or less how I feel about the Confederacy. Nancy Reyes :You forgot to add: Larry :Shame on you, Papa Ray. How dare you mention the elephant in the room. Move along. Nothing to see here. cleek :They cry: We want all foreigners to leave our country. not like us. we hire Mexicans, Nicaraguans and Colombians as cooks, custodians and carpenters - and then scream about the horrible foreigners invading our country. that's competely different. and, when Muslims cry about the "foreigners", they're probably talking about the ones they didn't invite. Comments have been archived for this page. |
Pajamas MediaAn American Senator in Paris Warning: Opposing Putin Hazardous to Your Health Anti-Patriot Act Poster Boy Kidnaps Own Kids AP’s New ‘Accountability Journalism’ Is a Sham Obama Wows Germans — But Will It Play in Streator, IL? Homeland Security Meets The Sopranos Obama Does Offer Hope — to America’s Foes Yahoo-Icahn-Microsoft Aftermath: Who Really Won?
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
RSS FeedsADVERTISEMENT
|
digg this
del.icio.us
Spot on again! The truth plainly, beautifully, clearly expressed. Thank you.
Oct 22, 2006 08:32 PM