I was pre-disposed to disagree with Pipes, (since he is a Bush appointee), but, after reading a couple of articles by him, I find myself agreeing with much, and taking seriously all, of what he says. Even when he doesn't have the right answers, he asks the right questions.
Good for you. Pipes is worth reading, even when you disagree.
1. How do you deal with a shame-based culture armed with nuclear weapons?
2. How do you defeat the guerrilla war that Muslim shame-based nations will wage, whenever they suffer a defeat/occupation in conventional war?
Good questions. I will add a third,
3. How do you negotiate disputes with a shame-based culture when they read any approach to compromise as weakness?
I don't think any of these questions have good answers, except a long-range one - get the shame-based culture to become a guilt-based culture. We have historical examples of this happening. The Germans changed quite a bit in the last 80 years. Going further back, you could argue that the influence of Socrates and his disciples tipped Athenian culture from shame- to guilt-based. I think that introducing democracy into the region, so that people have more of a stake in their own lives and governments, is a big part of the answer too.
Short term, the only working answer that the guilt-based cultures have found is to match ferocity with even greater ferocity. As the article pointed out, even shame based cultures give up on guerilla struggles if they conceive that they are up against an overpowering and implacable enemy. It's not so shameful to yield to such an enemy as that.
That's why my biggest worry about the US troops in Iraq is that they will be too restrained, and leave the whole conflict to stretch out and fester. Another reason for training the Shia and the Kurds; if someone has to crush the insurgents, better it be the new Iraqi army. |
