best when viewed in low light

3.23.2007

On The Road To WWIII

Now things are really getting exciting!

It is clear that the Iranians are feeling like they have to assert themselves. What with US/European attempts to curb their nuclear ambitions through the UN, and accusations/explorations into their support of Iraqi militias, it's understandable that they might be feeling defensive.

The problem is, the West is looking for opporunities to expand this culture war (even though the fundamental beliefs of both Christianity and Islam, translated through their respective organizations, are about centralized absolute power, submission through hierarchy, and male dominance). The only thing this action is going to do is precipitate further political tension and military hostility. This guy, Thomas Barnett, has written an astonishingly convincing argument for this new-age Manifest Destiny.

Ultimately, the justifications for war do not matter. Death is a part of the cycle, and the use of force is an outgrowth of our predatory instincts. OK, fine. I take issue with the self-congratulatory aggrandizement, the cultural arrogance, and the lies. Just stop with the lies.

I think I could actually respect a President who got behind that podium and said: People, in order to continue to supply you with endless energy and consumer products, we have to make sure our access to the necessary resources are not cut off by rogue elements. Often, these rogue elements take the form of independently-minded (read: anti-US, anti-Western) national leaders and private organizations who want to prevent us from using the entire planet as our proverbial oyster.

There are two ways to protect ourselves: we can buy them off, or we can kill them off.

Given the difficult, uncooperative mindset of these nations and organizations, they rarely respond to an overt buy-off, which could be viewed as a sacrifice of their cause for some else's interpretation of the collective good. So, when we choose this option, it usually takes a long time and a lot of subtlety - both extremely unpopular political tactics.

The other option is the kill-off. We prefer this route because it makes money for the vested interests in our country, it clears a large number of high school dropouts and unemployed citizens off the dole, and when it works, it's a lot faster. Plus, this way our country looks strong (grrr) and our ideology looks righteous.

It's the storm of bullshit that I object to most.
at 10:24

3 comments:

  1. Anonymous4/04/2007

    I can see where there are similarities between Barnett's ideas and Manifest Destiny, but there are a few differences too. Three of them come readily to mind:
    1. We're already a lot more connected to the gap than we were to the Native Americans we killed and displaced. There wasn't a huge risk of the Sioux or Apache launching sneak attacks on 19th century New York City, was there?
    2. He isn't talking about annihilating the peoples of the gap or shoving them onto reservations.
    3. While he talks about an important American role in gap-shrinking, he knows we can't do it alone and talks about working with other countries to do this, including countries like China and Russia we don't always get along with.

    Keep reading his stuff, he might surprise you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous4/05/2007

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous4/05/2007

    This is a re-post (I hate incorrect spellings).

    Thanks for your comment. I agree with what you say, and I will certainly continue to follow Mr Barnett's work.

    There are distinctions in the circumstances and execution methods proposed.

    However, Mr Barnett espouses a pro-Western cultural entitlement that sounds undeniably similar to the divine colonialism supported by the Manifest Destiny proselytizing of the 1800s (but no more so than any other Western philosophy that justifies...sanctifies the domination of other people, and the subjugation of socio-political beliefs and institutions).

    That said, I support much of the gap-closing that Mr Barnett proposes when it is focused on parity in economic and educational opportunity, cultural freedoms, and access to communication. But, it is not our duty/responsibility/destiny to bring about the development of other nations through military or economic force, political coercion, or even international cooperation.

    Often, the ways in which the US attempts to "encourage" other countries to join us in the "First World" are self-centered, ill-conceived and incredibly destructive to the existing social, political and/or economic structures (Iraq?). So much so, in any number of cases, that we create an enemy more readily than an ally.

    In addition, politics is an ever-changing game of projection and deception, and the sides are always changing. I question any philosophy, any methodology that claims to solve a problem from the outside.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

In the past...