I will not take the incidences of recent American attacks on Syrian and Pakistani territory to prattle fruitlessly about sovereignty. That ship sailed long ago. Condemning America for failing to respect the territorial sanctity of other states is like accusing the rain of being wet.
Still, one notes the preponderance of militant groups hostile to America and its interests, and though the issue has faded from the fore as the world economy huffs through the final, schizoid moments of its decades-long meth binge, it's worth noting that transnational insurgent groups continue to proliferate. Individually, none of these is the "existential threat" so popular among post-Soviet know-nothings. Nor, for the most part, are they actually fixated on the United States. One of our great, egomaniacal national myths is that the central motivation of Islamic radicals is Death to America. More accurately, their principle motivations are things like: Death to the corrupt, apostate, America-backed government in Islamabad. The September 11, 2001 attacks were an aberration. Insurgent and rebel groups from North Africa through the Middle East, subcontinent, and Pacific archipelagos engage American troops and assets where proximity dictates.
Paradoxically, while some fighters are rootless, semi-religious mercenaries, bopping across borders to get to where the action is, the goals of the various movements and insurgencies tend to be on the local-to-national scale. The Taliban aren't interested in Kansas. Rebels in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas don't care about moral degeneracy in Las Vegas. These people are not seeking to establish some vast caliphate and gobble up the world. The United States, in the principle symptom of our special brand of flailing imperialism, has gotten itself embroiled in a gaggle of civil wars. Most of the nations in question have been modern nation-states for somewhere between fifty and one hundred years. We might recall what happened in America when it was around that age.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
The Birth Pangs of the Growing Pains of Something or Other
Labels:
The Wages of Empire
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
Monsieur, I hate to quibble, but apparently not enough to stop me from quibbling. It's their principal motivations and our principal symptom, not "principle." Principle is always a noun, while principal can be either a noun (the administrative head of a school) or an adjective ("main" or "most important," more or less).
Thank you for your patience. I will now return to my principal pastime, which is fawning at Lynne Truss's feet.
Take Kansas....please.
Agreed, for the most part, but I think you're misrepresenting somewhat. The Islamic world may not be that interested in Kansas, per se, but it is certainly interested in the West.
It is not some weird, fringe, notion among Muslim believers, or even non-believers, that Islam is and must remain locked in conflict with the West. This conviction is rooted in a history extending back at least to the Crusades, and is cited by Muslims of no particularly radical bent.
I don't believe that a reconstitution of the caliphate is even remotely likely, but battling the enemies of Mohammad and "gobbling up the world" are to some degree the point of the religion. That and getting your ass into Paradise.
What I find somewhat interesting is the USG's on-again off-again need to shoehorn their aggression to fit within the international legal framework for aggression.
To "Black Sea": I'll see your Muslim "gobbling up the world" with a Christianist "save the world" and raise you one "accelerate the apocalypse."
blakenator,
Go to hell . . . oh wait, we'll all go together when we go.
The USG always tries to justify their aggression as within the framework of article 2(4) or article 51 of the UN Charter. They do so for the same reason as every other country that regularly violates those provisions: doing so takes what would otherwise be a naked act of aggression ripe for condemnation by the SC or GA and transforms it into a legal argument. The beauty of this strategy is that, for the most part, there is no authority to decide the issue. Voila!, no violation of international law.
This is perhaps the fatal flaw in the concept, but the only alternative I can conjure is to permit more aggression, couple it with some non-toothless enforcement regime, and hope that the net effect is to discourage aggression. That or abolish the whole fucking enterprise.
Blacksea, religions don’t have a point, and can’t fire a gun. Re-run your analysis, this time from the bottom up.
la rana,
Religions do seem to have a point to a great many people who believe in them, and since there's a very real chance that those religions don't actually exist outside of their minds . . .er, ever heard of a thing called teleology?
". . . religions can't fire a gun . . "
Hey, that'd make a nice bumper sticker.
let's try by analogy.
The rule of law is the point of the United States.
I'm not sure that the United States posits a creator of the universe for whom it purports to speak (George W. might differ with me here) but anyhow, keep trying . . .
Stop looking at institutions first and then trying to fit the people who created those institutions into the analytical framework. Look first at what people say, what they do, and where they live. Then look at incentives related to those factors. Then look at institutions, and last the motivations those institutions supposedly profess on behalf of the people that create them.
You keep doing it backward, which is why your analysis of Islamic radicals is faulty.
I dunno, la rana. Are we (attention Christopher M) gonna split hairs here?
I mean, I see what you're getting at with that observation, but I'm not sure that it's germane at this point.
Islam may be (OK, is) a arbitrary, meaningless mash-up of yech out of which certain groups of people have divined a rationale for doing what they were probably gonna do anyway, but, well...
It's not like they weren't probably gonna do that shit anyway.
Or (attention Christopher M),
The chinaman is not the issue here, dude.
Uh, thanks for the advice. Would you like fries with that?
Dude, Chinaman is not the preferred nomeclature.
la rana,
"The USG always tries to justify their aggression as within the framework of article 2(4) or article 51 of the UN Charter."
Sometimes they do, other times they claim claim that international law is irrelevant and then prove it via their actions - i.e. India-U.S.-Iran nuclear proliferation.
More germane to the issue of aggression, the Bush Doctrine.
I agree with you on almost everything Justin, but no, they always do. They may not get it printed in the NYT, but look at submissions to the UNSC. The "bush doctrine," to the extent it is relevant to article 51 (self defense), is regularly justified as a manifestation of "customary international law" (ask more only if you really want to know ).
Wow.
A senior American official said and that women and children living with the militants had not been harmed.
That's some fine shootin' soldier! It reminds me of a semi-funny Dennis Leary bit about building a bomb shaped like the whole world with a hole cut out for the USA. But now (thanks NYT!) I imagine that same bomb enhanced with little paper-doll cut-outs for the women and children.
I hope they're agile!
"This conviction is rooted in a history extending back at least to the Crusades, and is cited by Muslims of no particularly radical bent."
No, I find that white Christians tend to do that. And then they either shuffle back to their dean's offices looking sheepish, or holler "oorah" at people, all smug because they've hit upon a way to justify themselves.
And, I know you're being the Slate-reading contrarian we know and love, IOZ, but it's death pangs. Death fucking pangs.
"No, I find that white Christians tend to do that . . "
What is your basis for this opinion? More specifically, to what extent do you have knowledge of or exposure to Islamic culture and history?
From a review of "The Crusades -- Islamic Perspectives" by Carole Hillenbrand, University of Edinburgh, published in Al-Ahram:
"Of special interest, too, is the book's final chapter entitled "The Heritage of the Crusades", where it is shown how deeply the experiences of two centuries of Western attempts at interference in their lives have etched themselves on the hearts and minds of present-day Muslims. While the Muslims had the satisfaction of eventually driving out the foreign invaders, during which time they had convincingly shown that they enjoyed a culture and way of life immeasurably superior to that of their enemies, their prestige in most fields seriously waned, while that of the West steadily increased until it virtually attained mastery of the world's affairs. While this decline of the great mediaeval Islamic civilisation, the writer points out, cannot be attributed directly to the negative effect of the Crusades, Muslim opinion was profoundly influenced by attitudes first moulded in that period of confrontation and Christian invasion. She suggests that many useful lessons can be learnt from an analysis of Islamic perspectives on the Crusades and that this would lead to a better understanding between the West and Islam."
"What is your basis for this opinion? More specifically, to what extent do you have knowledge of or exposure to Islamic culture and history?"
You mean, do I have a liberal arts degree awarded from an American or British university? Are those the sort of credentials you're after? 'Cos... I can cite a couple'a books meself. Some are even written by darkies and in other languages. Pretty groovy, eh?
Outstanding job. Reading is fundamental . . and perhaps groovy.
So sayeth the dude who apparently never read the Hillenbrand book in question, 'cos it doesn't support his argument about contemporary Muslim perspectives of the Crusades at all. Huzzah to a close reading, I suppose.
He did, however, read a review of the book. So, you know, he feels comfortable using the book itself as a source. Brilliant.
"Dude . . groovy . . 'cos .. huzzah."
Still don't know what you're basing your opinion on, though. Perhaps not much.
I'm basing my opinion on anecdote and experience (which is why I wrote: "I find..."). You're basing yours on... browsing Jstor until you can find a review of a not very good book that might, maybe, possibly could back up your fantasies? Swell. The number of colloquialisms I use, incidentally, since you seem to be interested, corresponds to how much of a childish prick I think you are. Diddums.
So you've read the book, then. And you can explain how the paragraph I quoted from the review contradicts Hillenbrand's views on the subject. In what way did the reviewer misrepresent her?
Back to your Bay Area coffee house, or was it Chicago?
You read the review, soldier. Her discussion of contemporary views are in the last chapter, and form more of an epilogue. This is medieval and early modern history, my friend.
Also, I'm campaigning for a new law to rival Godwin's. Whenever someone from their armchair accuses someone else of writing from their armchair, the world, like, IMPLODES or something. The height of hypocrisy, I say. You still haven't admitted that you haven't read the book, pally.
I haven't read the book. I've never heard of the book before. I've never even heard of Carol Hillenbrand.
But this has been amusing.
Quite.
Borons without borders----cool!
I think you means Morans.
Post a Comment