<Try addressing the next question; what are the limits of using OUR WILL and OUR MILITARY POWER to transform cultures, and to overcome hatreds and passions that are fueled by big ideas and that have been building for years, decades and generations?
I think it's clear that you don't want to discuss this question because it's the brick wall that you can't run through. It's the place where abstract, idealistic and unrealistic dogma meets pragmatic reality and drops lifeless to the ground. It's the Waterloo of the neoconservative and the end of their march into a vast intellectual wilderness.>
I'm happy to have a go at answering that.
As Osama bin Laden says, if people see a weak horse and a strong horse, they'll choose the strong horse every time.
Stockholm syndrome, alpha male syndrome, primate dominant hierarchy, women like a strong man, young people adopt the culture of the day, each new child and generation takes a completely new look at the world and what they become defines the world and let's not forget good old-fashioned cash flow as an incentive.
Big ideas unfounded in objective reality can seem very robust while they hold sway, but they are gone with the wind when reality bumps up against them. Just as Islam spread across much of the world, from Morocco to Indonesia and up through China and north towards Russia, so can an overlay of democratic and civilized ideas, as is shown in Turkey, which used to be the centre of quite a large empire based on Ottoman ideas.
When the new idea has the strength of the strong horse and attraction for the new generation, the comforts of Saddam are easily overthrown.
Military power has limited transformative ability. What the military does is suppress contenders for the throne while civilization based on money and voluntary, free exchange of value is established.
New Zealand is an example of the process. Military power was established in New Zealand to defend British interests and money and trade was used to attract adoption by Maoris, who were generally happy to adopt the new ways. Cannibalism, stone age culture and tribal warfare is a lot of fun, but Maoris, unsurprisingly, are actually human like the rest of us, and prefer a more pleasant way of life, such as beds, heating, supermarkets, an SUV, a game of rugby, a vote, a government job and political action.
By 1840, with Maoris still in the majority [I think], they could see the winds of change and accepted British sovereignty.
Where there is inequitable government action, resentment is fed, such as the confiscation by the NZ government of Maori land at Raglan for World War II purposes, which was not returned but was converted to a golf course, since returned after an occupation of it by resentful Maoris.
Another example was the occupation of Germany and Japan, whose societies were reamed out and renewed after WWII. For a long time, those countries have run their own places and haven't wanted to go back to the bad old ways. East Germany was subsumed by West Germany and that society re-made.
Stockholm syndrome is fully a force-based adoption of the ruler's ideas. People generally like the ruler of the day, whatever they do. It seems to be human nature. Even Saddam had plenty of adherents. Hitler had swarms of people shouting Sieg Heil.
Money talks and people will do what it takes to dip into the money river. They'll learn language, figure out what those with the money want and figure out how to supply them with it.
There are lots of processes which lead to adoption of the strong horse. Cultures are all only as old as the oldest person alive and variable with each child born.
Force of arms opens the way to change, but can't effect the change. That has to be done by cultural integration.
Mqurice |
