tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20372724.post1522263384208769193..comments2023-09-01T09:38:54.262-04:00Comments on Dumb Looks Still Free: A look at the interview between Hugh Hewitt and Thomas P.M. BarnettA Jacksonianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07607888697879327120noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20372724.post-11931254511076771872007-08-31T08:46:00.000-04:002007-08-31T08:46:00.000-04:00Harrison - My best of wishes to you in the upcomin...Harrison - My best of wishes to you in the upcoming semester! Those days are long gone for me, but not forgotten... and I found I could *extract* an education which is something different than 'being educated' by the system. I think the concept was that 'you teach yourself how to learn' and that is a valuable life-long skill.<BR/><BR/>The Piracy articles I had not run across before Eagle01 had pointed them out to me, but I had read something similar back in the 1990's, though *where* is beyond my ability to recall. Unlike the 1:30,000 folks, that are still around and I remember, trying to remember one article out my studies of conflict and society is quite beyond me to do... and it was not from the legal side, either.<BR/><BR/>The law system we have in the US is interesting in its nature on how it supports the old common law, and also has variance from the forms of it. Those are cultural understandings that I extracted from the education system, not having it taught to me. Additionally, in my gaming time, I spent many, many games on inter-nation conflicts, how wars arise and *why*. Actually, with a few half-way decent players in a face-to-face setting you can learn more in playing something like 'Pax Brittanica' or 'Dune' about the affairs of Nations than weeks of reading in history books. Getting put in charge of the oversight of a Nation and having limited ability to control its underpinnings quickly disabuses one of any fanciful notions of 'quick and easy' warfare or even peace. Both are built and sustained and peace is not an absence of war, alone. They are both outcomes of hard work by societies and governments to give outlook within a framework of nation states.<BR/><BR/>The attitude of working with the physical reality, understanding cultural interplay, and that there is discrimination not only allowed but *mandatory* in the affairs of men and must be worked with on that basis, which is, I think, how your rational view and mine work (in their different ways) is something that has been forgotten by the post-WWII world. In attempting to form some non-written ideal of 'international law', those that push it (first thinkers, then politicians, then bureaucrats, then lawyers, then thinkers, etc.) as not brought any international accord, not limited warfare, not ended genocide, nor, indeed, sustained a concept of the nation state or given anything viable as its replacement. Indeed, they cannot as any such large system encompassing democratic and non-democratic peoples will, ultimately, hit to the 'lowest common denominator' of authoritarian rule. Humanity is unruly because of our differences, and attempting to pave them over and make all men and their societies exactly 'equal' makes saints and demons exactly 'equal'. Those that sustain life and those that commit genocide are seen as 'equal' and no differentiation between them is given and, even worse, those that have committed mass murder find those that would excuse it. The Left wishes to excuse their inability to criticize the USSR and the genocide in Laos and the Pol Pot regime, plus the ethnic and cultural cleansing of South Vietnam by saying that was *better* than the US fighting to preserve any form of democracy in the region. Today those in Darfur are put up as a rhetorical whipping boy for the Left to use, because they refuse to stop holding their lovely vigils and protests and actually do this thing known as 'take up arms' to go and defend the downtrodden of the Earth. Where *is* that lovely spirit they exercised during the Spanish Civil War? Or was fighting just too dirty and nasty for the ivory tower and best let the peons do that for you? The Right has its problems, particularly in this idea that 'trade' makes 'freedom', forgetting that it is 'freedom' that sustains 'trade' amongst free peoples. In those areas where outside views on trade to 'bring liberty' were given, they have not proven out: the Middle East and China. Both serve as demonstrations that 'trade' is an activity amongst Nations and that 'freedom' seems to have a separate vector that can coincide with 'trade' but is not necessarily led by it. The work of evangelicals, teachers, workers and others that went throughout the Middle East from the 18th century to the early 20th brought with them their view of America: freedom of worship, freedom of thought, and backing by a government that let them go to strange places and die for their beliefs. That America is still, dimly, remembered in the Universities and teaching hospitals erected by those from that robust era of the US.<BR/><BR/>I do agree with you, heartily, that the 'romance' of terrorism is appealing to those that have grown used to beeing free. Whis is more free: living your life in a bureaucratically burdened Nation with many comforts, or living your life with those that believe as you do to oppose all Nations and living and dying by same? There is always a romance to the latter, and it has been glamorized to the point where the fiction of it is no longer realized. Pirates, in their prime, generally lived short, brutal lives and died soon after taking up the concept. They had been declared outlaws - outside the protection of any law. War was waged on them to protect the Nations of their era, so successfully that we have forgotten the outlook and words and meanings of those activities and those of the nation state. By driving out these elements and regularizing nation state warfare, we have forgotten about illegitimate war and personal war, of those that will oppose ALL law and ALL Nations to bring them into accord with their own beliefs. You are quite correct that this dull, humdrum life is sparked by the glamor of the concept... but the harsh reality of blood on the streets and being hunted by all Nations no longer arises: all Nations now have 'international law' which CANNOT NAME THEM AS OUTLAWS!<BR/><BR/>Somehow I really do like the old way of defining an activity, calling it for what it is and then setting about its remedy based on the activity. Attack without warrant upon any and all nations? You are an outlaw from the law of nations, and given no benefit of any law, save those which will classify you and give you the punishment of the societies that you attacked see fit to give you. That is, by the modern view, so extremely biased as to give indigestion to the Left and Right. It endangers them both, if nations actually acted like Sovereigns and not like grade school children looking to be led. Do that, however, and you are attacked from all sides as being: extremist, biased, and against 'free trade'. Damned straight I am! That is the BASIS for the nation state system and, believe it or not, it *works*. You do get wars, fighting, strife... and you also get industrial expansion, expansion of literacy, promulgation of ideas, intercourse between nations and peoples to see just how we do fit together by common agreement.<BR/><BR/>And you are damned correct that we cannot teach tribal societies how to turn into a modern, secular society overnight. Nor even in a few decades. The US has a remedy for that: Westphalian freedom of religion and federalism with a good dose of representative democracy by the means your society will support. The workings inside Iraq are blood lineage driven, and sectarian violence can only overlay that when it does not threaten the tribal structure. That tribal structure, however, crosses sectarian bounds and accommodates *that*. Yes, members of the same tribe and clan will hold to DIFFERENT parts of Islam: often in the same HOUSEHOLD. That, to me, does not speak of a Nation divided by sect. We can examine the basis of tribalism all the way up to the founding of the Nation of Germany, by seeing the Principalities (literally hundreds of princes) each with their own little territory working together or *not* as their outlook and affiliation drove them to do. The Balkans has this in *spades*: where sectarian strife is only one overlay on a complex system of families, clans, religions (in main) and politics. Yet the concept of actually *dealing* with that emergent complexity gives the great thinkers in foreign policy hives! Have to get your hands dirty and actually *understand* what it is you are dealing with... far better to make grand abstractions and never have to deal with *people*. Our Armed Froces from the Coalition, however, are doing JUST THAT and proving to have a better understanding of anthropology, sociology, societal infrastructure, religious/ethnic/cultural inter-divisions, and government than, literally, any foreign policy *great* of the 1946-2001 timeframe. They all *failed*: Acheson, Kissinger, Bryzynski, Scowcroft, Baker, Albright. They caused this mess by not wishing to get their hands dirty, and now we hear wails of complaint that decades of our refusal to understand complex society needs to be tidied up overnight?<BR/><BR/>The trick of the Coalition forces, mainly America, but Poland, Romania, Australia and others, is that working *with* the local strucutres and society to make it more *open* creates local democracy. That is grassroots, bottom-up democracy upon which the US concept of federalism RESTS. It will NOT look like the US system, because Iraq is a tribal culture, and it looks damned strange at times. But it has the great and good benefit of getting common acceptance within tribes and amongst them, sustains their power position and internal views, requires inter-tribal working for self-protection, and rewards good work with steady jobs and income and the lowering of the casualty rate. This is what the US should understand from its HEART and SOUL - you do not foist democracy as a 'set piece' from the top, but grow it up from the bottom so that it is sustained by the people. Those three words have been absent from US Foreign and Domestic policy for far, far too long: Liberty, Freedom, Democracy. Throw in the Westphalian concept of freedom of religion, although the Nation may have religious identity, and you get something that starts to look accountable internally and externally as a governing system. It will look different in each Nation... so what? If it works for their society, then so be it. Even if that decays, the external accountability should keep that decay from spreading... unless, of course, all societies are 'equal', then authoritarianism is just the same as democracy.<BR/><BR/>I wish you well in your studies this semester!! Beyond just 'learning' is that harder thing of learning how to learn on your own. That is a series of mis-steps, corrections and self-guidance, and teaches one huimility but also gives an understanding of one's own capabilities and capacities. From there you learn strengths and weaknesses for yourself, although others may place different valuations on them, it is how you view them and coming into accord with society that counts. And while that may not lead to 'revolutionary change' it can lead to the sustainment of the revolution of recognizing that which is self-evident in man: being created equal and searching for happiness by your definition and no one else's. That, strangely, can and does change the world for yourself and, far more rarely, for others. Only by continuing to learn and accept one's limitations can anything good be achieved. And those wishing to destroy be opposed.A Jacksonianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07607888697879327120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20372724.post-19316708259112981302007-08-31T03:56:00.000-04:002007-08-31T03:56:00.000-04:00kurt,the past month has been pretty hectic for me ...<B>kurt</B>,<BR/><BR/>the past month has been pretty hectic for me as I'm easing into the current semester, thus leaving little time for blogging - but I do make a genuine effort to visit blogs and keep myself updated. Yours has been an invaluable part of my daily reads, and I thank you for that.<BR/><BR/>Actually, I came across that Legal Affairs article on Bin Laden a few days before you posted on it, and I do have some musings about it, so hopefully I can get one or two postings done by this weekend to share my thoughts on the pirate-terrorist parallel. Fascinating, isn't it? The paradigm that I put forth in response to your post the other day can be viewed as a device to counter those who believe that transnational identities such as aQ should not be viewed as the enemy of the international system because prosecuting them in the name of international law and justice on the grounds that they do not agree with the Western-imposed concept of sovereignty laid down at Westphalia is Euro- and ethno-centric, and therefore proof of our narrow-minded intolerance of competing world views (all of which, in their opinion, should be given equal importance and legitimacy - moral equivalence?).<BR/><BR/>I had attempted, with every intention, of appealing to the solely rational, perhaps realist in that sense, nature and judge for themselves the disruptiveness and corruptibility of such transnational entities that fundamentally threaten order in international society. For once, they should recognise the lowest common denominator in terms of the 'interest of humanity': to preserve life, liberty and property. For once, they should struggle within themselves to resist from resorting to arguments claiming that the indiscriminate execution of force, of bloodshed and murder, can be justified by the humiliating legacy of colonialism/imperialism. Blame the individuals, the pirates that are hijacking the concept of sovereignty, attempting to usurp the Nation-state as representative of the peoples without accountability or legitimacy. These terrorists embrace the new, unorthodox global paradigm, riding on the wave of popularity of revivified memes of decades-past such as imperialism (as posited by the dependency theorists) and new-age colonialism. All of a sudden, it has become so much easier to attribute blame for the mediocrity and retardation of the Middle East regimes to the unseen forces of Empire - the narrative so seductively simple, couched in the familiar language of the past. This knee-jerk response as a form of argument indeed betrays the absence of a contemporary, relevant awareness of the current realities on the ground, and it exposes their fallacious, disingenuous and insidious attempts to escape responsibility for their actions.<BR/><BR/>If the purely rational theory - that aQ is an invalid and therefore should be terminated rather than tolerated as merely an outcast, when the cost of tolerating its existence may be as serious as the collapse of international order - does not even resonate a certain degree with those adamant about gifting equal treatment to non-state actors without discretion and thus solely due to principle, then we can probably resign ourselves to the fact that these advocates have no inkling as to what has contributed so essentially to the survival of the international system.<BR/><BR/>Instead of blaming the Sunnis for their ingrained aversion towards accommodation with the Shi'ites, critics blame the Shi'ites for attempting to establish a sectarian arm in the military so as to more efficiently carry out genocide.<BR/><BR/>Instead of considering the possibility that non-American oversight may just be as problematic and flimsy as its American counterpart, and that the consistencies of an inherently anarchical society remain unchanged in parts of Iraq, critics are more fixated on apparent change. Change excites them: the US intervention disrupted the 'peaceful' lifelihoods of the Iraqis; the imposition of a parliamentary democracy that turned traditions of dictatorship and despotism on their heads and resulted in this political gridlock. <BR/><BR/>Consistency, however, is less exciting and therefore not worthy of attention or respect: the fact that the idea of the Nation-state as the fundamental actor in the international system does not register with most Iraqis as they identified with tribes, sects and clans first and foremost; the psychological barriers and habit of self-censorship institutionalised during Saddam's reign that prevents many Iraqis from envisioning that life can be different, that freedom and emancipation is possible without reprisal; the geopolitical reality that the Middle East has always been and will continue to be inherently hostile to the American presence, and helping Iraq rebuild itself is not going to alter that mindset in the space of four years; more disturbingly and introspectively, the consistency with which the US has been less than capable in terms of reconstruction and focusing on the achievement of political objectives in tandem with the use of military force - a discrepancy that is being remedied conscientiously by Patraeus, among others.<BR/><BR/>And as you so eloquently put it, the greatest consistency that has plagued the foreign policy of the US is this dominating realist doctrine that has forsaken the will to fight for the ideals that form the foundations of the US itself as a Nation-state.Harrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17688001023588334672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20372724.post-23498479024016966502007-08-29T20:44:00.000-04:002007-08-29T20:44:00.000-04:00Ikez - My thanks!Those that wish to run from such ...Ikez - My thanks!<BR/><BR/>Those that wish to run from such things and offer fanciful dreams of 'what if Iran was more normal?' have a problem in dealing with the actual, physical reality we have today. A connected Iran/Syria will mean the direct shipment of yellowcake to multiple sites that will quickly proliferate in the newly conquered territory. Turkey will be pressed internally and the Saudis will be facing their own zealots. That isn't much of a 'face off between Nations' so much as it is a dissolving of Nations into chaos. I have had it with the 'realists' of all stripe: they have failed this Nation and the world for 90 years. Time to go back to what *worked*: pressing liberty, freedom and democracy whenever we are called to fight. Because that is what we are founded on when we say that all men are created equal.<BR/><BR/>We have run from our revolutionary heritage for too long. It is time to admit mistakes and step forward with our forefathers into the future, not run from it so it will kill us all. That is where the lovely 'geostrategic thinking' has gotten us: no longer willing to support anything the Nation is founded upon.<BR/><BR/>To hell with that.<BR/><BR/>It is 'put up or shut up' time for America, for we cannot walk nor run from this fight. The last 90 years has now handed us this one, single decision to make. Best we make the right choice this time, for there is no recovery from a mis-step, unless we like nuclear glass in place of some number of cities across the globe. Including a few of our own gone missing...<BR/><BR/>I don't like that outcome, so let us do the right thing and avoid it. Teach folks to take care of themselves so they learn that actions have consequences. That is the path to safety, but only if we dare to take it.A Jacksonianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07607888697879327120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20372724.post-15579673431170172172007-08-29T20:09:00.000-04:002007-08-29T20:09:00.000-04:00Kurt,Excellent post. Wow!Kurt,<BR/>Excellent post. Wow!Coach Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12700125084775514984noreply@blogger.com