I heard a desperate mother calling in to a radio show, near tears about the need to stop war, afraid for her son who works in a daycare facility and sees children every day – she couldn’t imagine her boy or any of those children being asked to go to war and die.
The vast majority of the world wants peace. Most of us are non-aggressive. Look even locally, and you must be forced to admit that left to our own devices, we’re a peaceful race. When violent crime is measured in the “per 100,000 persons” category, it sounds much like “particles per million”. That is a very small percentage.
Unfortunately the very machines of war which limit our casualties (compare 2000 casualties in three years of Iraq with 91,000 casualties in the Pacific Theater of WW2) make it possible for those very small “particles per person” to cause very real damage amongst the rest of us.
I feel for the terrified mother. I am a father of three. I simply do not go down the road of emotion that would be called for should one of my children die – no matter what the circumstances. I would, however, try to soothe her fears by pointing out that we have an all volunteer military. While even amongst the volunteers there are those who feel they were pressured into it (though they usually feel strong enough to protest when faced with real danger) the overwhelming majority of our brave military want to be doing what they’re doing.
The only time a draft would be required, when the daycare specialist might be forced into the armed forces, would be if we did not act responsibly and proactively to limit the size and power of our enemies.
While this could ignite a conversation about the justification of projecting our will and power over others, that is not the thrust of this entry. This is merely to point out that the unreasoning, blank fear that is like a knee-jerk reaction for so many people can be met with calm reassurance.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Saturday, July 15, 2006
Archdukes and the Internet: Amateurs at War
As I sat here, like many people (knowing the names or not) making (hopefully unsuccessful) parallels between the Israeli soldier captured/kidnapped in Gaza and Archduke Ferdinand, I thought about stories and accounts of how captured sailors in the Napoleonic Wars (and immediately conjured more parallels between England and France, Israel and fill-in-the-neighbor) often became friends across the battlefield, how captains of ships entertained their enemies and treated them with an almost competitive respect.
Fear not, I shall attempt to keep my sentences shorter for the rest of this entry. Though, think of it spoken aloud in a musing sort of voice rather than typed into a rather persnickety keyboard.
I came to wonder about the brutality with which prisoners are treated in war today. Let us not fool ourselves. A clean cell, religious literature, three square meals a day, access to lawyers and human rights activists does not constitute brutal treatment of enemy combatants. Brutality is beheading, dismemberment, dragging of mutilated bodies through muddy streets.
I could go off on a tangent here and wonder what news stories would be reported about brutality and humane treatment if the war, instead of being fought in Iraq, were fought on the streets of the Eastern Seaboard. However, I shan’t sport with your intelligence.
It occurred to me (and here is where I introduce one last seemingly random thread before producing my organized braid) that there is another related parallel to the outcry that many feel about the onset of the Internet and the apparent anarchy and freedom to information it provides. The outcry comes from professionals who fear for their jobs, or at least for the influence and power that is being eroded away. I do not blame them, it is only natural to feel this way. However, I am not going to stop my freedoms and liberties so they may experience a feeling of control over my destiny. They claim that it is unlikely the average Joe (by whom I assume they mean me, and though I take that as a compliment, I doubt they intend to flatter) will be able to sift through the seemingly limitless information and recognize what is information and what is opinion.
The problem is that we do that all too well, and that’s why we are turning to the Internet now, dopes.
Does use of the word “dopes” brand me as an illiterate and dangerous, unprofessional blogger? Well, I certainly don’t get paid for this outlet.
How do I tie this all together? Archdukes and captured Israeli soldiers, the loss of dignity and decency in the way enemies are treated, and the almost anarchistic influence the Internet has on global society? With the sentence I wished to write all by itself, without this lengthy blog entry to support and explain it (though laying out ones thought process is somehow gratifying).
Terrorism is what one gets when amateurs are given the professional tools of war.
Fear not, I shall attempt to keep my sentences shorter for the rest of this entry. Though, think of it spoken aloud in a musing sort of voice rather than typed into a rather persnickety keyboard.
I came to wonder about the brutality with which prisoners are treated in war today. Let us not fool ourselves. A clean cell, religious literature, three square meals a day, access to lawyers and human rights activists does not constitute brutal treatment of enemy combatants. Brutality is beheading, dismemberment, dragging of mutilated bodies through muddy streets.
I could go off on a tangent here and wonder what news stories would be reported about brutality and humane treatment if the war, instead of being fought in Iraq, were fought on the streets of the Eastern Seaboard. However, I shan’t sport with your intelligence.
It occurred to me (and here is where I introduce one last seemingly random thread before producing my organized braid) that there is another related parallel to the outcry that many feel about the onset of the Internet and the apparent anarchy and freedom to information it provides. The outcry comes from professionals who fear for their jobs, or at least for the influence and power that is being eroded away. I do not blame them, it is only natural to feel this way. However, I am not going to stop my freedoms and liberties so they may experience a feeling of control over my destiny. They claim that it is unlikely the average Joe (by whom I assume they mean me, and though I take that as a compliment, I doubt they intend to flatter) will be able to sift through the seemingly limitless information and recognize what is information and what is opinion.
The problem is that we do that all too well, and that’s why we are turning to the Internet now, dopes.
Does use of the word “dopes” brand me as an illiterate and dangerous, unprofessional blogger? Well, I certainly don’t get paid for this outlet.
How do I tie this all together? Archdukes and captured Israeli soldiers, the loss of dignity and decency in the way enemies are treated, and the almost anarchistic influence the Internet has on global society? With the sentence I wished to write all by itself, without this lengthy blog entry to support and explain it (though laying out ones thought process is somehow gratifying).
Terrorism is what one gets when amateurs are given the professional tools of war.
Friday, July 14, 2006
The Ends and Means of our War for Oil
I will try to say this as succinctly as possible, rather than explaining every nuance. Hopefully it will come across very shortly:
Are the wars that we pay attention to today (and there are many we simply ignore, much to the frustration of some of our hottest Hollywood celebrities) in fact wars for oil?
I believe they are. Not in the traditional way that most critics of the current administration say President Bush and his oil cronies are trying to make a buck, but because we here in the United States have allowed ourselves to become less than self-sufficient. Wherever you are dependant on others, there is leverage to be used against you. When you are dependant on friends, your bonds become stronger and you work closer together. When enemies or hostiles supply your dependencies, what you need becomes leverage to make you do what they want.
The bitter fighting in the holy lands (middle east, if you can’t stomach the other term) demands the attention of the United States because we have blocked ourselves from providing the energy we need to drive our cars, watch our televisions, light and cool our buildings, cook our food.
This is a war fought not over the oil under the sands of Iraq or Iran, but over the oil here in our own country that we will not drill. Though it may be sad to say, if we were providing for our own energy consumption, we could ignore what is going on in and around the holy lands the same way we ignore what goes on in great stretches of Africa.
It’s not that I don’t believe “unalienable rights” really do belong to all people, but I don’t believe that most people in this country are up to the massive effort it would take in order to provide those rights to all people: namely, to actually take over the world and deliver those rights. The main argument that seems to be put forth every time a section of the world is freed is that it won’t work, that Arabs or Persians cannot handle freedom, that Islam is incompatible with it.
By that argument, not only would Japan and Germany be inexplicable, but the frighteningly parallel brand of Catholicism embraced only a few hundred years ago would have made our present circumstances impossible. After all, it is not the Republic of Heaven that is spoken of in Christianity’s Koran.
Understand me, and those who think like me, for a change. Our frustration comes not from our perception of your unwillingness to defend our nation or the oppressed around the world, nor from the desire to find alternative ways to fuel our economy. Our frustration comes from policies that cause the problem in the first place, then refuse to allow the mess to be cleaned up, and finally to tout a desire to defend the worst, most wild aspects of our culture – AND to presumably help the oppressed around the world – while in actuality putting up every possible block to achieve those very aims.
Yes. This is a war. This is a war for oil. This is a war for OUR oil, the oil that can be found under Colorado, Alaska, within or near our shores.
But for some this is a war for the ballot box, pure and simple. It is a war to recover power for power’s sake. It is an example of ends and means. We want the ends, such as actual, viable, lasting peace; or even just a handle on our own needs – a feeling of confidence that we can get from place to place, eat a hot meal, see the latest fad TV show; while others want the means: whatever it takes to make sure it is done THEIR way, or by THEIR leader, whether it works or not.
Are the wars that we pay attention to today (and there are many we simply ignore, much to the frustration of some of our hottest Hollywood celebrities) in fact wars for oil?
I believe they are. Not in the traditional way that most critics of the current administration say President Bush and his oil cronies are trying to make a buck, but because we here in the United States have allowed ourselves to become less than self-sufficient. Wherever you are dependant on others, there is leverage to be used against you. When you are dependant on friends, your bonds become stronger and you work closer together. When enemies or hostiles supply your dependencies, what you need becomes leverage to make you do what they want.
The bitter fighting in the holy lands (middle east, if you can’t stomach the other term) demands the attention of the United States because we have blocked ourselves from providing the energy we need to drive our cars, watch our televisions, light and cool our buildings, cook our food.
This is a war fought not over the oil under the sands of Iraq or Iran, but over the oil here in our own country that we will not drill. Though it may be sad to say, if we were providing for our own energy consumption, we could ignore what is going on in and around the holy lands the same way we ignore what goes on in great stretches of Africa.
It’s not that I don’t believe “unalienable rights” really do belong to all people, but I don’t believe that most people in this country are up to the massive effort it would take in order to provide those rights to all people: namely, to actually take over the world and deliver those rights. The main argument that seems to be put forth every time a section of the world is freed is that it won’t work, that Arabs or Persians cannot handle freedom, that Islam is incompatible with it.
By that argument, not only would Japan and Germany be inexplicable, but the frighteningly parallel brand of Catholicism embraced only a few hundred years ago would have made our present circumstances impossible. After all, it is not the Republic of Heaven that is spoken of in Christianity’s Koran.
Understand me, and those who think like me, for a change. Our frustration comes not from our perception of your unwillingness to defend our nation or the oppressed around the world, nor from the desire to find alternative ways to fuel our economy. Our frustration comes from policies that cause the problem in the first place, then refuse to allow the mess to be cleaned up, and finally to tout a desire to defend the worst, most wild aspects of our culture – AND to presumably help the oppressed around the world – while in actuality putting up every possible block to achieve those very aims.
Yes. This is a war. This is a war for oil. This is a war for OUR oil, the oil that can be found under Colorado, Alaska, within or near our shores.
But for some this is a war for the ballot box, pure and simple. It is a war to recover power for power’s sake. It is an example of ends and means. We want the ends, such as actual, viable, lasting peace; or even just a handle on our own needs – a feeling of confidence that we can get from place to place, eat a hot meal, see the latest fad TV show; while others want the means: whatever it takes to make sure it is done THEIR way, or by THEIR leader, whether it works or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)