(Can we now hope for an end to the arguments that this is about "freeing the people from oppression" and concentrate on this clash of cultures? :)
No. It's part and parcel. They go together. The gulags and oppression are the product of having rulers instead of democracy. Attack the oppression and democracy is made possible, not that it necessarily follows.
Right now for instance I argue that its a good thing in itself to unseat Saddam because of his oppression. There is a normative element to that but it also promotes democracy.
This is also why the Israelis are so uncomfortable in their relation with the palestinians. That situation possibly would never have happened after the war if Israel were not saddled with some arcahaic elements and the palestinisns also. (although much of theirs are imported from outside).
I wrote a note to Carl on the BS B&G partly about this. You might find it interesting.
Message 18279239
The second part deals with some miltary and non military aspects of this. I think 'war' is not the right term. It definitely is an existential struggle though.
In any case I don't like the term 'clash of cultures' better is 'clash of ideologies.' Islamist belief is ideologizing of certain religious beliefs, has a particular pyschology and structure similar to fascism, communism, etc. It may be described as attachment to a perfectly stupid idea.
However, I fear this redivision of the planet into "us and them" might lead to another era of cold war. After all, what you are talking about is not just Iraq anymore. Your argument is for regime change in most of Middle East, Africa, and some of Asia. This could very well be WWIII.
Actually we have a low grade WW3 right now. Yes of course the argument is for regime change in those places but it doesn't ahve to a cold war like it was with the Soviets. The actual attacks are by a minority of people who are not that popular within their host populations. Their activities can be circumscribed mostly with activity not at all military.
The rest of the world often talks about "American arrogance". My experience in America and with Americans showed me that it is naivete more than arrogance - a naif belief in the American pie, that Americans are good and their enemies are evil, that wars are easy, etc. I think this is what leads to most of the conflicts with America and Europe.
Americans are sometimes both naive and arrogant as are English, French, and many other folk but the differnce
of opinion between Europe and US right now has to do with their relative powers and concerns.
There's a common analysis which I think is essentially right that Europe is dealing in its local endgame of putting to rest its history of war and replacing it instead with a new history of negotiated integration. This is the result of the cold war when the circumstances allowed Europeans not to concern themselves with security vis a vis each other and could rest under the NATO security apparatus. In the process Europe has come to emphasize negotiation, diplomacy but this is not applicable to much of the world beyond Europe.
The US has had to continue with a concern for military power because it was the prime armourer behind the cold war, it encouraged the European integration after WW2 for obvious reasons, and guaranteed its safety. So as Europe turned inward with its concerns the US remained looking outward with a militant stance and for good reason: the utopian soviet ideology was expansive and had to be resisted, not negotiated with.
What has happened is that Europe has become diminished miliarily while the US has become more powerful. The europeans are nervous of the US power and the US is doubtful of the efficacy of European negotiating. They are both right.
This is a bit of a charicature but close enought to reality. The chauvinists both sides of the Atlantic play it to the hilt.
The expansive islamist ideology can not be negotiated with either. The different experience the two sides have had the last fifty years is the real reason for the differences. There was an article posted on this board about this yesterday I think, from Policy Analysis [?], I think the author was Kagan. Also posted with it was another article by Pollach and A.?.. on the same subject. They went together rather well. |
