The PBS documentary “Bringing Down a Dictator” shows us Serbia’s great possibilities. I watched this and was amazed that a group of politically minded citizens can band together to oust a brutal dictator like Slobodan Milosevic in an all but bloodless coup. The ‘Butcher of the Balkans’, who commanded armies and held almost supreme power in Serbia, was forced to abdicate simply because of the demands of Serbia’s civic minded population. Observers in the United States and Western Europe saw a very promising beginning to democracy in Serbia.
Somewhere along the line Serbia’s great promise turned into a terrible lie. In the years since Milosevic was forced from power the government of Serbia has seen one crisis after another. From the disintegration of the union between Serbia and Montenegro, to the collapse of the democratically elected government over membership in the EU, to the ongoing conflict with recently independent Kosovo, Serbia has struggled to find its place in Europe. Far from fulfilling the promise of creating a safe prosperous country Serbia still lives in close proximity with NATO peace keeping forces, and violent opposition to an independent Kosovo.
It is not unreasonable to assume that the popular movement to depose Milosevic would not have succeeded without support from the United States and Western Europe. These entities provided financial support and training to the anti-Milosevic groups operating in Serbia at the time. Many of the politicians currently in power in Serbia probably would not hold the positions of influence they currently do without outside support for the ant-Milosevic cause. And yet today these same politicians ally themselves not with the countries that helped them to seize power from a brutal dictator, but with a country ruled by a ‘strong man’. Russia has recently re-affirmed its support for Serbia on the issue of Kosovo independence.
All these issues serve to illustrate how complicated and difficult the political situation is not only in Serbia, but in the Balkans in general. Time and again Serbia has been given the opportunity to create for itself a society which cares for the interests of all its citizens. The Serbian government has failed to achieve this modest goal so consistently that Montenegro and Kosovo have both chosen to seek their own independence rather than wait for Serbia any longer.
It may be far easier to initiate a transition in government, even when forcibly transitioning away from a dictatorship, than it is to institute an effective replacement government. Historically this has been the case. After the long and hard fought American Revolution it was not British troops that nearly tore apart the new nation. Rather it was internal differences and civil unrest that posed the greatest threat to American independence. In the case of the United States the representatives of the new nation devised a subtle and elegant solution. One of the most influential political documents of all time, the Constitution of the United States is a rare example of a nation overcoming the most vulnerable time for any new nation. This is the first few years after transition to independence or a dramatic change in government.
It would be difficult to expect to see the same sort of profound political document coming out of Serbia in the post Milosevic years. Truly such things are rare indeed and only come along once in every several lifetimes. Still, the great promise showed by the democracy loving public in Serbia serves to contrast the disappointment many must feel in what Serbia has made of such an opportunity.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Tim Russert dead at 58
(link) CNN Report on the death of Tim Russert
Tim Russert, host of the longest running television show in the world, Meet the Press, is dead of an apparent heart attack at the age of 58. Mr. Russert will certainly be missed in my home. Watching Meet the Press was a particular pleasure of mine. His honesty and hard hitting questions, while at the same time being a likeable and charming man, impressed many. Coverage of this election year will certainly be less exciting without him.
Tim Russert, host of the longest running television show in the world, Meet the Press, is dead of an apparent heart attack at the age of 58. Mr. Russert will certainly be missed in my home. Watching Meet the Press was a particular pleasure of mine. His honesty and hard hitting questions, while at the same time being a likeable and charming man, impressed many. Coverage of this election year will certainly be less exciting without him.
Monday, June 9, 2008
An analysis of Eric Voegelin's book: “Science, Politics & Gnosticism”
(link) Click here to purchase "Science, Politics & Gnosticism"
In his essay “Science, Politics & Gnosticism” Eric Voegelin describes the Gnostic as someone who seeks deliverance from a world perceived as alien to the nature of their existence. Much the same as a Hindu ascetic, or a Buddhist monk, the Gnostic attempts to transcend the limitations of the world into which he has been flung by realizing the true nature of the human “self”. Unlike the Hindu ascetic or the Buddhist monk however, who seek self realization through processes and guidance by spiritual superiors, the Gnostic seeks “Self salvation through knowledge”. Voegelin points out the destructive possibilities in this manner of self realization. An analysis of the self, or the natural state of being of the self, or the natural political order of the self requires a transcendent knowledge of the essential order of the world in which that self exists. Or for the Gnostic, the essential order of the world in which that self aught to exist. A successful analysis assumes that there is a transcendent truth accessible by knowledge. Scientific analysis assumes that by following a specific set of guidelines and adhering to strict set protocols that access to that transcendent knowledge becomes possible, or at least more probable. Voegelin does not argue against such a transcendent truth, but rather raises questions about whether that transcendent truth is indeed accessible through self realization, which by its very nature may tend to be exclusive rather than inclusive.
What do we mean by “exclusive” and “inclusive”? Although realization of the transcendent necessarily involves every human being on the planet, it by no means involves each human being. The transcendent essentially transcends the realization of the self because it is a truth independent of verification, observation, or opinion. As philosophers like Plato and Aristotle might say, there was never a time when 1 plus 1 did not equal 2, whether there were human beings around to realize this mathematical fact or not. Therefore we can assume that realization of 1 plus 1 being two is a transcendent realization, and not a self realization. A self realization is perhaps more accurately described as a realization of that which is not independent of human perception and “opinionization”. Students of the philosopher Immanuel Kant might say that the limits of self realization or a candid perception of the rose colored glasses that all humans perceive the world through, and an acceptance of the inescapability of those perceptions.
So we struggle with many of the same questions that man has struggled with since antiquity according to Voegelin. One profound change confronts us that did not confront ancient man however. Voegelin describes this as “the prohibition of questioning”. Voegelin cautions that we must not mistake this for the prohibition of analysis, which has existed as long as man has asked philosophical questions, nor should we mistake it for those who hold to certain beliefs by way of tradition or emotion. Rather, Voegelin describes this new adjunct to philosophy as “person who know that, and why, their opinions cannot stand up under critical analysis and who therefore make the prohibition of the examination of their premises part of their dogma”.
One modern example of the point that Voegelin makes might be Communist China. In recent months much attention has been given to China and the state of its policy towards political opponents in Tibet. Freedoms that many Americans enjoy such as the right to protest are prohibited in China. To clarify, the Chinese government does not prohibit all forms of protest it simply prohibits protest against the Chinese government itself.
Voegelin explains that “Man is directly a being of nature”, however man has also constructed a special role for himself which stands against nature. All of human history is created by man through his own labor. In this way man removes himself from any sort of transcendent reality and allows that man can be the creator of himself. Karl Marx, Voegelin speculates, is just such a person who removes himself from any sort of transcendence, and in doing so makes himself a sort of Nietzschean master of his own fate. It is not then so difficult to include a doctrine of prohibition of questioning when one discards any notion of a transcendent rationale for what is and is not acceptable in human society. Marx argues that to question the order of nature and man is abstract, and that abstraction must not be questioned any further than to the point of realization that the individual man does exist in any meaningful sense of the word. When the Socialist man speaks, man is silent. In this way Marx indoctrinates the ideal of the impossibility of questioning the Marxist ideology, and the futility of the same.
To Voegelin disallowing a questioning of the nature of man, among other Marxist ideologies, is tantamount to atheism which to Voegelin is a dangerous denial of the transcendent nature of much of mankind’s endeavors. Voegelin sees this as a kind of intellectual cruelty as typified by Nietzsche and his concept of a will to power. Nietzsche’s will to power is described as state of being of the psyche that allows it to willfully accept deception as a delightful and cunning method to fulfill the spirit’s natural tendency toward the accumulation of power. Still this mask of deception is willfully accepted by the soul who wills itself to power. This deception is not long lived. As the soul realizes an inner honesty at its own deception it replaces that deception with another false mask. The truth of its own deception is replaced with a Marxist realization, and prohibition of questioning.
To Voegelin this must seem a wholly unnatural event. An opening of the soul to truth and understanding is meaningless if that truth and understanding is not a transcendent one. “Grace is granted or denied” says Voegelin. In such a small statement Voegelin describes his entire position in relation to Nietzsche. Where as Nietzsche praises the will to power, the willful deception of the soul, and the willingness to deceive others as a means to make man the master of god, Voegelin articulates that no matter what man may perceive that he is successful in grace ultimately is outside the control of humanity. What is grace? The Christian tradition from which Voegelin comes from would describe grace as perhaps a gift given to mankind such as forgiveness, or more importantly a transcendent realization of the purpose behind the existence of humanity. Grace may be thought of as an enlightenment of sorts. The Hindu tradition might call grace the end result of dharma, or service to the transcendental lord of all things. One thing remains common to these two traditions, and to Voegelin himself, grace is attained not by specific acts, or a will to achieve such a thing. It is attained through a spiritual surrender. A surrender of the soul to the transcendent and an abandoning of a personal will to power, a will to power being the ultimate manifestation of the self as the ultimate truth, and a denial of any truth beyond that which the soul perceives in itself.
It can be said that Voegelin is antithetical toward the pragmatic viewpoints of Marx and Nietzsche. Whereas the latter two are primarily concerned with man as he exists in his mundane state and his wellbeing in that condition, Voegelin asks if it is not better to assume that a transcendent truth exists and to seek it out. Whereas Marx and Nietzsche might think it a waste of time to pursue such and endeavor, Voegelin thinks that it is an essential part of being human. To deny that would be to deny an integral facet of being human. Furthermore the goals of Voegelin and the two philosophers that he calls Gnostics are markedly different. Marx and Nietzsche seek to become masters of their own domain. For Voegelin his domain would have meant very little to him.
Why Gnostics? Why does Voegelin use this word to describe Marx and Nietzsche? It would benefit us to understand that term. The word Gnostic comes from the Greek Gnostikos and means pertaining to wisdom, or to have a special or higher knowledge. Just as the word Agnostic means without special knowledge, it can be said that the Gnostic views himself as possessing a special knowledge that sets him apart from the rest. Where the Agnostic makes no judgment on spiritual matters, the Gnostic sees himself as imminently qualified to make any judgments necessary. For Voegelin, Marx and Nietzsche had no room for a transcendental god because they had already determined that they had, by their own force of will or special knowledge, achieved the answers necessary to create a better society, or a more fulfilled man. God has no place when man has solved all the mysteries of the universe.
In this way it is simple to see the traditions that Voegelin is inspired by, Saint Augustine, Immanuel Kant, and Saint Thomas Aquinas amongst many other. It is not then surprising that he is concerned not merely with the earthly political status of humanity. He is concerned with a spiritual polity which he sees severely lacking in the theories arising from the confusion of the Industrial Revolution.
In his essay “Science, Politics & Gnosticism” Eric Voegelin describes the Gnostic as someone who seeks deliverance from a world perceived as alien to the nature of their existence. Much the same as a Hindu ascetic, or a Buddhist monk, the Gnostic attempts to transcend the limitations of the world into which he has been flung by realizing the true nature of the human “self”. Unlike the Hindu ascetic or the Buddhist monk however, who seek self realization through processes and guidance by spiritual superiors, the Gnostic seeks “Self salvation through knowledge”. Voegelin points out the destructive possibilities in this manner of self realization. An analysis of the self, or the natural state of being of the self, or the natural political order of the self requires a transcendent knowledge of the essential order of the world in which that self exists. Or for the Gnostic, the essential order of the world in which that self aught to exist. A successful analysis assumes that there is a transcendent truth accessible by knowledge. Scientific analysis assumes that by following a specific set of guidelines and adhering to strict set protocols that access to that transcendent knowledge becomes possible, or at least more probable. Voegelin does not argue against such a transcendent truth, but rather raises questions about whether that transcendent truth is indeed accessible through self realization, which by its very nature may tend to be exclusive rather than inclusive.
What do we mean by “exclusive” and “inclusive”? Although realization of the transcendent necessarily involves every human being on the planet, it by no means involves each human being. The transcendent essentially transcends the realization of the self because it is a truth independent of verification, observation, or opinion. As philosophers like Plato and Aristotle might say, there was never a time when 1 plus 1 did not equal 2, whether there were human beings around to realize this mathematical fact or not. Therefore we can assume that realization of 1 plus 1 being two is a transcendent realization, and not a self realization. A self realization is perhaps more accurately described as a realization of that which is not independent of human perception and “opinionization”. Students of the philosopher Immanuel Kant might say that the limits of self realization or a candid perception of the rose colored glasses that all humans perceive the world through, and an acceptance of the inescapability of those perceptions.
So we struggle with many of the same questions that man has struggled with since antiquity according to Voegelin. One profound change confronts us that did not confront ancient man however. Voegelin describes this as “the prohibition of questioning”. Voegelin cautions that we must not mistake this for the prohibition of analysis, which has existed as long as man has asked philosophical questions, nor should we mistake it for those who hold to certain beliefs by way of tradition or emotion. Rather, Voegelin describes this new adjunct to philosophy as “person who know that, and why, their opinions cannot stand up under critical analysis and who therefore make the prohibition of the examination of their premises part of their dogma”.
One modern example of the point that Voegelin makes might be Communist China. In recent months much attention has been given to China and the state of its policy towards political opponents in Tibet. Freedoms that many Americans enjoy such as the right to protest are prohibited in China. To clarify, the Chinese government does not prohibit all forms of protest it simply prohibits protest against the Chinese government itself.
Voegelin explains that “Man is directly a being of nature”, however man has also constructed a special role for himself which stands against nature. All of human history is created by man through his own labor. In this way man removes himself from any sort of transcendent reality and allows that man can be the creator of himself. Karl Marx, Voegelin speculates, is just such a person who removes himself from any sort of transcendence, and in doing so makes himself a sort of Nietzschean master of his own fate. It is not then so difficult to include a doctrine of prohibition of questioning when one discards any notion of a transcendent rationale for what is and is not acceptable in human society. Marx argues that to question the order of nature and man is abstract, and that abstraction must not be questioned any further than to the point of realization that the individual man does exist in any meaningful sense of the word. When the Socialist man speaks, man is silent. In this way Marx indoctrinates the ideal of the impossibility of questioning the Marxist ideology, and the futility of the same.
To Voegelin disallowing a questioning of the nature of man, among other Marxist ideologies, is tantamount to atheism which to Voegelin is a dangerous denial of the transcendent nature of much of mankind’s endeavors. Voegelin sees this as a kind of intellectual cruelty as typified by Nietzsche and his concept of a will to power. Nietzsche’s will to power is described as state of being of the psyche that allows it to willfully accept deception as a delightful and cunning method to fulfill the spirit’s natural tendency toward the accumulation of power. Still this mask of deception is willfully accepted by the soul who wills itself to power. This deception is not long lived. As the soul realizes an inner honesty at its own deception it replaces that deception with another false mask. The truth of its own deception is replaced with a Marxist realization, and prohibition of questioning.
To Voegelin this must seem a wholly unnatural event. An opening of the soul to truth and understanding is meaningless if that truth and understanding is not a transcendent one. “Grace is granted or denied” says Voegelin. In such a small statement Voegelin describes his entire position in relation to Nietzsche. Where as Nietzsche praises the will to power, the willful deception of the soul, and the willingness to deceive others as a means to make man the master of god, Voegelin articulates that no matter what man may perceive that he is successful in grace ultimately is outside the control of humanity. What is grace? The Christian tradition from which Voegelin comes from would describe grace as perhaps a gift given to mankind such as forgiveness, or more importantly a transcendent realization of the purpose behind the existence of humanity. Grace may be thought of as an enlightenment of sorts. The Hindu tradition might call grace the end result of dharma, or service to the transcendental lord of all things. One thing remains common to these two traditions, and to Voegelin himself, grace is attained not by specific acts, or a will to achieve such a thing. It is attained through a spiritual surrender. A surrender of the soul to the transcendent and an abandoning of a personal will to power, a will to power being the ultimate manifestation of the self as the ultimate truth, and a denial of any truth beyond that which the soul perceives in itself.
It can be said that Voegelin is antithetical toward the pragmatic viewpoints of Marx and Nietzsche. Whereas the latter two are primarily concerned with man as he exists in his mundane state and his wellbeing in that condition, Voegelin asks if it is not better to assume that a transcendent truth exists and to seek it out. Whereas Marx and Nietzsche might think it a waste of time to pursue such and endeavor, Voegelin thinks that it is an essential part of being human. To deny that would be to deny an integral facet of being human. Furthermore the goals of Voegelin and the two philosophers that he calls Gnostics are markedly different. Marx and Nietzsche seek to become masters of their own domain. For Voegelin his domain would have meant very little to him.
Why Gnostics? Why does Voegelin use this word to describe Marx and Nietzsche? It would benefit us to understand that term. The word Gnostic comes from the Greek Gnostikos and means pertaining to wisdom, or to have a special or higher knowledge. Just as the word Agnostic means without special knowledge, it can be said that the Gnostic views himself as possessing a special knowledge that sets him apart from the rest. Where the Agnostic makes no judgment on spiritual matters, the Gnostic sees himself as imminently qualified to make any judgments necessary. For Voegelin, Marx and Nietzsche had no room for a transcendental god because they had already determined that they had, by their own force of will or special knowledge, achieved the answers necessary to create a better society, or a more fulfilled man. God has no place when man has solved all the mysteries of the universe.
In this way it is simple to see the traditions that Voegelin is inspired by, Saint Augustine, Immanuel Kant, and Saint Thomas Aquinas amongst many other. It is not then surprising that he is concerned not merely with the earthly political status of humanity. He is concerned with a spiritual polity which he sees severely lacking in the theories arising from the confusion of the Industrial Revolution.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Democrats give Michigan and Florida Delegates "half a vote each"
(link) Original Article
So the Michigan and Florida issue has been decided. These two states broke Democratic Party rules by holding their primary elections before the Democratic party wanted them to. Their punishment? Their delegates were to be barred from the Democratic National Convention and not allowed to cast their votes for the Democratic candidate for President of the United States. Why did these two states break from party rules? It was done in an attempt to increase the importance of their state's primary elections. Everyone in politics knows the importance of the New Hampshire primaries. Why is New Hampshire so important? Because they vote first. Supposedly New Hampshire sets the tone for the entire series of primary elections that take place in the Unites States. Therefore every candidate that has a real shot at winning a major party's nomination for President pays close attention to New Hampshire voters.
The common belief is that the earlier a state's primary election the more importance it is given and the more it's votes count. There is certainly some truth to this. Would you feel like your vote is really counting if your state's primary was one of the last to be held and a nominee had all but been chosen? Look at the Republican party. John McCain has essentially locked up the nomination and yet states are still having Republican primary elections. No one is paying attention to that of course because the issue has already been decided. This being the case (and the Democrats assumed it would be the case for their party as well as opposed to the longest primary campaign anyone can remember) is it surprising that Michigan and Florida wanted to grab a piece of the pie and hold their elections sooner?
Regardless, the issue has been decided and Michigan and Florida will indeed have their delegates seated at the Democratic party convention. They will indeed be allowed to vote. Whats the catch? They only get a half a vote each. It is my belief that the leaders in the Democratic party, to include Howard Dean, already know who they want as a candidate for President of the United States and they are going to do what they need to do in order to have him win this primary election. The sticking point? Both Michigan and Florida decidedly went to Hillary Clinton. True, Barak Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan but that was his own choice. Let us not forget why the Democratic party uses super delegates. The Democratic party had a string of lousy candidates in the 70s and 80s. Who chose them? The people did. As a fail safe they adopted the policy that senior members of their party would be given super delegate status. That means they could vote for whatever candidate they wanted at the Democratic convention instead of voting for the candidate that the people wanted like regular delegates do. The democrats hoped that this would allow the party more control over who was chosen as a candidate as opposed to allowing the people to be the sole deciders of such things.
Want more proof that the Democratic party is designing things so that Obama is even more assured of winning the primary? All those people who voted "uncommitted" instead of voting for Clinton in Michigan have magically been transformed into Obama supporters. That's right, the Democratic party is ASSUMING that people who voted uncommitted in Michigan would have voted for Obama if they had the chance and are giving those delegates to him. I'm no Clinton supporter but what in the world is going on here? Are the leaders of the Democratic party really that convoluted?
In another display of mistrust of their constituents the Democratic party has decided to give Michigan and Florida delegate half a vote each. Is not counting half of all the people's votes the same as counting none of half the people's votes? Democracy is indeed in trouble in the Democratic party...
The sad part is the Democratic party could have had it all. Obama most likely will win the nomination wether you give Michigan and Florida full votes or not. If they had decided to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates with a full vote they could have had their candidate, they could have had party reconciliation, and they could have gone into the Presidential elections stronger than ever. However they did not. The party elite wanted to assure their candidate of choice got the nod. Tsk tsk Democrats...
So the Michigan and Florida issue has been decided. These two states broke Democratic Party rules by holding their primary elections before the Democratic party wanted them to. Their punishment? Their delegates were to be barred from the Democratic National Convention and not allowed to cast their votes for the Democratic candidate for President of the United States. Why did these two states break from party rules? It was done in an attempt to increase the importance of their state's primary elections. Everyone in politics knows the importance of the New Hampshire primaries. Why is New Hampshire so important? Because they vote first. Supposedly New Hampshire sets the tone for the entire series of primary elections that take place in the Unites States. Therefore every candidate that has a real shot at winning a major party's nomination for President pays close attention to New Hampshire voters.
The common belief is that the earlier a state's primary election the more importance it is given and the more it's votes count. There is certainly some truth to this. Would you feel like your vote is really counting if your state's primary was one of the last to be held and a nominee had all but been chosen? Look at the Republican party. John McCain has essentially locked up the nomination and yet states are still having Republican primary elections. No one is paying attention to that of course because the issue has already been decided. This being the case (and the Democrats assumed it would be the case for their party as well as opposed to the longest primary campaign anyone can remember) is it surprising that Michigan and Florida wanted to grab a piece of the pie and hold their elections sooner?
Regardless, the issue has been decided and Michigan and Florida will indeed have their delegates seated at the Democratic party convention. They will indeed be allowed to vote. Whats the catch? They only get a half a vote each. It is my belief that the leaders in the Democratic party, to include Howard Dean, already know who they want as a candidate for President of the United States and they are going to do what they need to do in order to have him win this primary election. The sticking point? Both Michigan and Florida decidedly went to Hillary Clinton. True, Barak Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan but that was his own choice. Let us not forget why the Democratic party uses super delegates. The Democratic party had a string of lousy candidates in the 70s and 80s. Who chose them? The people did. As a fail safe they adopted the policy that senior members of their party would be given super delegate status. That means they could vote for whatever candidate they wanted at the Democratic convention instead of voting for the candidate that the people wanted like regular delegates do. The democrats hoped that this would allow the party more control over who was chosen as a candidate as opposed to allowing the people to be the sole deciders of such things.
Want more proof that the Democratic party is designing things so that Obama is even more assured of winning the primary? All those people who voted "uncommitted" instead of voting for Clinton in Michigan have magically been transformed into Obama supporters. That's right, the Democratic party is ASSUMING that people who voted uncommitted in Michigan would have voted for Obama if they had the chance and are giving those delegates to him. I'm no Clinton supporter but what in the world is going on here? Are the leaders of the Democratic party really that convoluted?
In another display of mistrust of their constituents the Democratic party has decided to give Michigan and Florida delegate half a vote each. Is not counting half of all the people's votes the same as counting none of half the people's votes? Democracy is indeed in trouble in the Democratic party...
The sad part is the Democratic party could have had it all. Obama most likely will win the nomination wether you give Michigan and Florida full votes or not. If they had decided to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates with a full vote they could have had their candidate, they could have had party reconciliation, and they could have gone into the Presidential elections stronger than ever. However they did not. The party elite wanted to assure their candidate of choice got the nod. Tsk tsk Democrats...
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Deaths in Iraq plunge, but will it last?
(link) Original Article
The Associated Press reported today that deaths in Iraq of U.S. military personnel and Iraqi civilians has dropped to it's lowest level in 4 years. Many military experts attribute this drop in violence to the much publicized "surge" in 2006, and a shift in military strategy that puts a premium on maintaining security rather than clearing an area of insurgents only to leave that area and allow the insurgents to move back in and reestablish control.
I can personally attest to the futility of clearing an area of insurgents and then leaving that area to it's own devices. When I was in Baghdad we cleared an area of the city that was known to harbor insurgent weapons caches and safe houses. During this week long operation we found barely a sign that any insurgent had been there. No weapons, no fighters, no bomb making materials. This was perhaps partly due to insurgent spies within the ranks of the Iraqi Army which we were operating with, however the point is that the insurgents had no qualms about abandoning this area until we left. Simply put, they KNEW we would not stay and they waited us out.
The new strategy however is continuing to pay dividends in preserving the force and maintaining security. In other words less Soldiers are dying. Iraqis also are reaping the benifits although some seem to doubt it will last for very long. The most important thing U.S. commander have to contend with however is the political situation in Iraq. Although violence has dropped Iraq is no closer to political reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites. This trend is most distressing simply because it is out of our direct control. We must depend on the Iraqis to make progress on these issues with our help. Compounding the problems are serious issues concerning the role of Iran in the region. Many Shiites within Iraq desire to pursue political ties with Iran which is also a majority Shiite nation. The result of Iran having influence over a central springboard in the middle east like Iraq could be disastrous for U.S. foreign policy in the area.
We must continue the strategy of the surge in order to curb violence. We must take a more active role in Iraqi internal politics insofar as bringing the factions at work within the country together at the bargaining table and brokering a solution acceptable to all. Most of all we must not allow Iran to exert influence over the middle east beyond it's borders. Although Iran has continually denied developing nuclear weapons current intelligence has Tehran on the defensive attepmting to make excuses to explain reports of the cultivation of weapons grade nuclear substances (don't believe it? Read this AP article from yesterday... (link) U.N. Report puts Iran on defensive). This alone should be alarming to all Americans.
You think you are paying too much for gas now? Wait til you see Iran flexing it's muscles across the middle east...
The Associated Press reported today that deaths in Iraq of U.S. military personnel and Iraqi civilians has dropped to it's lowest level in 4 years. Many military experts attribute this drop in violence to the much publicized "surge" in 2006, and a shift in military strategy that puts a premium on maintaining security rather than clearing an area of insurgents only to leave that area and allow the insurgents to move back in and reestablish control.
I can personally attest to the futility of clearing an area of insurgents and then leaving that area to it's own devices. When I was in Baghdad we cleared an area of the city that was known to harbor insurgent weapons caches and safe houses. During this week long operation we found barely a sign that any insurgent had been there. No weapons, no fighters, no bomb making materials. This was perhaps partly due to insurgent spies within the ranks of the Iraqi Army which we were operating with, however the point is that the insurgents had no qualms about abandoning this area until we left. Simply put, they KNEW we would not stay and they waited us out.
The new strategy however is continuing to pay dividends in preserving the force and maintaining security. In other words less Soldiers are dying. Iraqis also are reaping the benifits although some seem to doubt it will last for very long. The most important thing U.S. commander have to contend with however is the political situation in Iraq. Although violence has dropped Iraq is no closer to political reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites. This trend is most distressing simply because it is out of our direct control. We must depend on the Iraqis to make progress on these issues with our help. Compounding the problems are serious issues concerning the role of Iran in the region. Many Shiites within Iraq desire to pursue political ties with Iran which is also a majority Shiite nation. The result of Iran having influence over a central springboard in the middle east like Iraq could be disastrous for U.S. foreign policy in the area.
We must continue the strategy of the surge in order to curb violence. We must take a more active role in Iraqi internal politics insofar as bringing the factions at work within the country together at the bargaining table and brokering a solution acceptable to all. Most of all we must not allow Iran to exert influence over the middle east beyond it's borders. Although Iran has continually denied developing nuclear weapons current intelligence has Tehran on the defensive attepmting to make excuses to explain reports of the cultivation of weapons grade nuclear substances (don't believe it? Read this AP article from yesterday... (link) U.N. Report puts Iran on defensive). This alone should be alarming to all Americans.
You think you are paying too much for gas now? Wait til you see Iran flexing it's muscles across the middle east...
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Marines Try to Convert Muslims
(link) Original Article
Sometimes the foolishness of some people amazes me. You don't have to know everything about foreign affairs or be a news junky to realize that it might send the wrong message to Muslims if military personnel deployed to Iraq hand out materiels designed to promote Christianity. How short sighted does one have to be not to realize that handing out a coin with a passage from the Bible on it isn't going to convert anyone? To what depths of ignorance must someone descend to be blind to the fact that something like that might piss Mulsims off?
Now I have no love of the Quran, nor am I a Muslim. As a matter of fact I'm an atheist. This doesn't upset me for religious reasons. It doesn't even upset me for issues of freedom of religion or civil rights. I'm not so enlightened. The reason this angers me so much is the same reason I was angered over the Abu Ghraib incident. It is the same reason I was angered over Mahmoudiya and every other incident of inappropriate behaviour by U.S. military personel. Because it puts American lives at risk. Everytime something like this happens a few dozen jokers get it in their heads that they need to avenge the honor of this or that. I can't say how many Americans had been put at risk by those previous events but knowing Iraqis as I do I know that they don't take these things lightly. Nor do they forget quickly.
Somebody needs to take a long hard look at how the military is preparing it's people to deal with the Iraqi culture. In my own battalion we had a Mormon who thought it was his duty to spread the word about the Latter Day Saints while he was in Iraq. Thankfully, due to the efforts of my comrades and myself, we convinced him that he was going to get his damn head cut off if he tried to do that kinda thing. Oi vey...
Sometimes the foolishness of some people amazes me. You don't have to know everything about foreign affairs or be a news junky to realize that it might send the wrong message to Muslims if military personnel deployed to Iraq hand out materiels designed to promote Christianity. How short sighted does one have to be not to realize that handing out a coin with a passage from the Bible on it isn't going to convert anyone? To what depths of ignorance must someone descend to be blind to the fact that something like that might piss Mulsims off?
Now I have no love of the Quran, nor am I a Muslim. As a matter of fact I'm an atheist. This doesn't upset me for religious reasons. It doesn't even upset me for issues of freedom of religion or civil rights. I'm not so enlightened. The reason this angers me so much is the same reason I was angered over the Abu Ghraib incident. It is the same reason I was angered over Mahmoudiya and every other incident of inappropriate behaviour by U.S. military personel. Because it puts American lives at risk. Everytime something like this happens a few dozen jokers get it in their heads that they need to avenge the honor of this or that. I can't say how many Americans had been put at risk by those previous events but knowing Iraqis as I do I know that they don't take these things lightly. Nor do they forget quickly.
Somebody needs to take a long hard look at how the military is preparing it's people to deal with the Iraqi culture. In my own battalion we had a Mormon who thought it was his duty to spread the word about the Latter Day Saints while he was in Iraq. Thankfully, due to the efforts of my comrades and myself, we convinced him that he was going to get his damn head cut off if he tried to do that kinda thing. Oi vey...
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Memorial Day
Memorial Day is May 26th this year. Many Americans will travel out of town seeing as Memorial Day is a three day weekend for most. Many Americans will stay home and contemplate the price of gasoline. Some might barbeque, or get together with friends and family. Some might not do anything at all. Americans may take a moment to remember the service and sacrifices of those who have died in military service.
For a very small percentage of Americans Memorial Day is a very personal occassion. It is a day we publicly remember those we have served with who made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of the friends they faced war with. One such Soldier was Master Sergeant Anthony "Big Tony" Yost of the 3rd Special Forces group.
If you have a moment this memorial weekend take a look into the remarkable life of this Soldier whom I had the distinct honor to have served with on occassion.
http://www.andyyost.com/
For a very small percentage of Americans Memorial Day is a very personal occassion. It is a day we publicly remember those we have served with who made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of the friends they faced war with. One such Soldier was Master Sergeant Anthony "Big Tony" Yost of the 3rd Special Forces group.
If you have a moment this memorial weekend take a look into the remarkable life of this Soldier whom I had the distinct honor to have served with on occassion.
http://www.andyyost.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
