[lit-ideas] Re: Song of Myself
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 08:51:57 -0700
Irene, I thought you fairly reasonable in your first two paragraphs but then
you had to write the penultimate paragraph. I've told you and told you and
told you that the things that you have written there (written in previous
"theres" many times before) are not true. Your statements are alarmist but
not true.
To begin with they imply that the U.S. & Israel created the hostility you
describe, and by fighting against it we made it worse. That is simply not
true. Israel has been attacked time and time again since it was legally
established as a nation. As to the U.S., we ignored, pacifist fashion, a
great number of Militant Islamic attacks until 9/11 became to big to ignore.
We didn't create the Militant Islamic attacks against us. They were not
inspired by anything the US had done. They were inspired by an Islamic
ideology which is aggressive and tyrannical.
Al Queada was powerful when it had a nation as its base. It could mount an
attack, return to base in Afghanistan and prepare for the next one. The
troops could return home, have some R&R while the leaders thought up their
next bit of deviltry. The US damaged Al Quaeda substantially when it ruined
its base of operation in Afghanistan. It no longer has a nation it is safe
in. It must hide. If you have read anything about Al Quaeda then you know
they don't let just anyone in. They are a small group that knows each other
-- They are mostly Saudis who fought together in Afghanistan against the
Soviets. Those in Iraq calling themselves Al Quaeda are not the real Al
Quaeda. Perhaps they went through an Al Quaeda training camp, but they are
cannon-fodder, not confidants of Osama. They are foot soldiers who aren't
privy to what the real Al Quaeda is doing. They are attempting to keep the
Iraqi pot stirred up so the US will cut and run and they can then help the
Sunnis perhaps regain Saddam Hussein-type power.
Prior to 9/11 Pakistan, Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq were nations that
provided substantial support to Militant Islam. That has been changed by
the Bush administration. None of those 4 nations is today an active
supporter of Militant Islam. In Afghanistan and Iraq there are Militant
Islamist forces stirring up trouble, but that is not the same as what
occurred prior to 9/11. Prior to 9/11 Afghanistan and Iraq as nations
provided support to Militant Islam and represented potent threats in the
region. That is no longer the case. Libya gave up its nuclear weapons
rather than risk a US invasion. Pakistan has been attempting to control the
Islamist forces in its nation, cleaning up the Deobandi madrasses, hunting
for Taliban holdouts and Al Qaeda reps. They now have control over their
nuclear weapons such that nuclear technology is no longer being exported.
Those are all good things. They all decrease the potency of Militant Islam.
I wish you would pay attention to what I'm saying and quit making those
ridiculous broad unsupportable statements. The best estimate, in fact the
only estimate, I have seen is that 30% of the Arabs (not all of Islam --
just the Arabs) are Militant Islamist. Since that estimate Militant Islam
has made some inroads in the Non-Arab portions of Islamic nations but it is
not clear that the numbers in those nations are substantial. There are
approximately 300,000,000 Arabs so 30% would comprise 90,000,000 Militant
Islamist. Furthermore there is a distinction between Militant Islamism as
an ideology and the actual Jihadists willing to engage in violent action.
The number of Jihadists represents a fraction of the 90,000,000. [Iran is a
unique situation. They are run by a government of Militant Islamists but
Vali Nasr says the percentage of Iranians who subscribe to Islamism is
extremely small. This fact complicates our decisions about Iran, by the
way.]
Olivier Roy in Globalized Islam notes that once a Militant Islamist
organization gains a little success it seeks national power rather than
ummah power. I am referring here to the Sayyid Qutb idea that there should
be no national boundaries, only one people, that is, one "ummah." In actual
fact, when an Islamist organization like Hamas achieves success it wants to
stop right there in a single nation and enjoy it rather than give it up for
the greater good of the ummah. This makes Militant Islam easier to deal
with in that Hamas can't hide from us in the way that Al Quaeda can. If
they were to single us out for attention (and they have not) we would be
dealing with a Hamas-led nation rather and an illusive hit-and-run terrorist
group.
So things are not as bleak as you described. Nor are we in any danger of
running out of money. In the current issue of The American Interest is an
article by Martin Wolf (chief economics commentator of the London Financial
Times), entitled "Debt Becomes Us?" The U.S. represents 1/3 of the world
economy. That is enormous. Wolf complains that things cannot continue as
they are because the poorer nations are all saving their money in the US; so
our debt is 800 Billion Dollars. This doesn't mean we can't afford an 800
Billion dollar debt. With an economy that represents 1/3 of the world's
economy we can easily afford it, but the poorer nations need to start saving
money in their own nations. It isn't good for them to continue on as they
are. As for us, with all the money being pumped into the U.S. we are far
and away the most vibrant as well as the largest economy. And, it should go
without saying that we can easily afford several wars the size of Iraq.
In regard to Carnegie, he wasn't a "Leftist" as far as I know. Leftism
isn't normally associated with Pacifism. It is just that a great number of
Leftists and Pacifists seem to be saying the same things in America. The
paragraph about Carnegie describes him as a Pacifist not a Leftist.
By the way, I am not generating Leftist concerns. I am responding to them.
I have over the years spent an enormous amount of time in and around Leftism
so I am very familiar with its tenets. I am not inventing anything if I
notice someone voicing a Leftist argument. I wish it were wearing thin. I
am quite tired of it myself.
Lawrence
_____
From: Andy Amago
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 7:45 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Song of Myself
Thank you Lawrence. The point of this list is to discuss ideas. Ideas are
by definition disembodied. When they take the next step and become
embodied, they into personalities of cult, such as the 20th century was
replete with. Also, to think that any one of us is loved in real life just
because of who we are is ludicrous. We're all just a bunch of walking
images; to our employers, to our landlords, often even to our spouses ("I
had no idea he was unhappy, etc."). Even regarding children, most people
"love" their children for who they think they are instead of who they really
are; it's the basis behind spanking. Who's interested in the point of view
of the person they're hitting? Children are mommy's little brain surgeon,
daddy's little [fill in the blank].
So if cute little children are unknown to their own parents, who at best
look at them through and around the stars in their eyes, who is known to
anybody? Bush himself went through several different 'reasons' for one
action. We knew Bush had been an alcoholic. Did anyone care, or did they
vote for the image behind the alcoholic? How many people knew FDR had
polio, and if they did, the devastating quality of it? Why are there spin
doctors and image makers if people are accepted for who they are? Why
affected accents and token blondes and boy toys? Does anyone in public life
display their 'real' self, and if they do, does anybody care about it? Life
is nothing but an image. Here in cyberspace we have the luxury of being
closer to our real selves. I've said many times that I could never discuss
the issues with "real people" the subjects I discuss here. My ideas are
poorly enough recei ved here. Can you imagine in real life talking about
atheism and Iraq and spanking and all the other stuff?
As far as Pacifism, Lawrence, there's pacifist and there's realist. War is
the breeding ground of terror. The War on Terror has become the War For
Terror. Al Qaeda is bigger and stronger than ever; Hezbollah has more
support than ever; little groups are springing up like mushrooms; they've
uncovered two plots in two months and who knows how many plots are being
hatched. If war worked to create peace, then there would be a lot of peace
in the world. Instead, you yourself said that peace is an interlude between
war. Therefore, war is its own end. The 21st century, however, is bringing
with it a very different type of war, an asymmetrical war in which
half-trillion dollar militaries are all but useless. Today when we take our
half trillion dollar military and fight a war with it, we are truly Gulliver
attacking the Lilliputians. Do you really think we stand a chance against
potentially a billion, or even a mill ion, suicide bombers? One might argue
that, like the printing press, asymmetrical warfare revolutionized the world
in such a way as to potentially change the face of the world forever.
Also, this label of Leftist is wearing thin, especially if Andrew Carnegie
not only held the same views as Leftist Amago, but Carnegie also believed in
the barbarity of war enough to put his money behind his Leftist views.
Other related posts:
