The Deep Roots of Ignorance
Hmmm, yes here's to acting at the fullest potential...or should I say acting efficiently, but then our old friend laziness is apt to rear his wise, seasoned cabeza.
Unsolicited opinion!!!
Ah well, for what its worth I'm still on this rusty track but then with three out of four classes focused at understanding the Ummah, well we'll just see if we can't be patient- Yes, Ojo del fantasma???
...It would be easy for any mindful observer trying to fathom the woes of the Muslim world, the Ummah, to briefly review historical facts and conclude that conflicts with the West dating back to the crusades have resulted in the widespread antipathy toward the western world. But do the roots of resentment not wind and become tangled by more recent events? Was it always a predestined inevitability that if the United States dared enter into any modern matters of the Muslim world that Americans would have to be labeled and hated as modern day crusaders? Given other factors, such as the poorly designed, British-born, imperially implemented national borders that divide the Ummah and inconsistent, uninspired policies of the U.S., are the principle regions of Islam doomed to eternal instability?
It is a sad fact that the history of U.S. foreign policy is mired in miscalculations, misinterpretations and a profound ignorance of the basic historic positions, prejudices and motivations which have conspired to construct the difficult realities of international affairs. The people of the United States are not the first to lay their path by a rather blindish form of ignorantly bumbling forth, reshaping their world to their advantage in a myopic mode with little regard for long-term ramifications. Since the earliest tribes were formed, leaders noticed that simply threatening and using violence when dealing with adversaries often paid off, at least in the short-term. The U.S. is unique though, in the immense amount of power that it wields when seeking to iron out the potentially uncomfortable, unruly creases of the world. Yet, U.S. policy makers have found that simple flexing of military muscle often solves little in the modern world. The fact is, that the United States took on the role of super power after many other powerful civilizations dating back thousands of years had already made mankind’s earth a very complex place indeed.
As Britain recognized that the empire had been completely exhausted by World War II, the government slowly began a withdrawal of the forces that assured its position as regional power in the Middle East. Mostly because of the perceived threat of Soviet expansion, President Truman felt that the United States was obliged to take up the reigns and fill the void wherever it could. This hand-off of British domination to the U.S. is somewhat comparable to an unhappy car owner faced with nickel and dime problems, deciding that riding the tube offers a whole lot less headaches in the grand scheme of things. Meanwhile the United States having little experience in international affairs is analogous to an anxious fool grabbing the keys forgetting that he doesn’t know how to drive, let alone work, on the hapless automobile when it breaks down.
Two key factors conspired to chasten the new driver as the U.S. became more settled in behind the shoddy wheel and further invested in at least shallow stability of the region. The first factor refers to the condition in which British imperialism had left the analogy’s vehicle. As a result of World War I, the Ottoman empire ceased to exist. This left European powers with the opportunity to imagine new borders for the Middle East. Very little consideration, if any, was given to actually drawing the lines along the vague, natural borders which already existed due to regional ethnic and religious differences of those who populated the area. In fact, borders which encompassed more than one group that could be identified as distinct peoples benefited European powers for ruling purposes.
Dividing and conquering was the form of rule most often employed by the British. What came to be known as indirect rule called for the placement of a desirable “native” ruler. The loyalty and compliance of the native ruler with imperial interests was insured by the fact that he could not retain power and would be quickly deposed without the support of the imperial power. The problems which likely arise when one attempts to maintain colonial boundaries in the absence of a blatantly brutal, overbearing, imperial power were quickly exposed as the U.S. implemented different methods to dominate the region.
After WWII, as the empires of the old European powers began to crumble under the financial strain of repressing the independence of colonies, it became clear that old-fashioned imperialism was not a viable option in the modern world. To propagate U.S. dominance and expand markets, the United States drastically broke from classic imperialism and even denounced stubborn European claims to remnants of rapidly disintegrating empires. In the face of rapid decolonization, partially due to the persistent wave of nationalism that had drenched the world by midway through the 20th century, the U.S. recognized that official control of a government was unnecessary. To maintain U.S. dominance over most nations and their resources, all that was required was the financial dependence of the nation. The tactics that the U.S. employed to insure its economic superiority over a wide range of decolonized nations across the world were soon emulated by other western powers and the practice eventually became known as neo-imperialism.
The attraction of neo-imperialism for the U.S. was the more hands-off approach that it allowed. Yet, although the U.S. had mostly avoided overt occupations of Muslim countries before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the rarely subtle economic pressures, as well as the small scale interventions and humiliating covert actions that the United States readily implemented in order to influence policies, were easily interpreted by the peoples of the Muslim world and often culminated in resentment of Western power. Even the often generous financial and military aid that western powers offered pro-western regimes of the Middle East could not be interpreted as simply altruistic gestures. Aid has often been openly withheld as a form of punishment for disappointing positions of regimes. It is not difficult to see the correlations between the levels of foreign aid regimes receive and the relative approval western powers feel toward their foreign policies. The repeated meddling in the internal affairs of sovereign Muslim nations, along with the incentive-driven system of delving out aid, combine with economically devastating embargos easily levied by those who hold all the cards, evoke a profound ire in the Muslim world that is easily directed at the “Great Satin”.
The second factor that seemed to have bungled U.S. policy in the Middle East from the days immediately following WWII was the Cold War. From involvement in Vietnam to its support of Latin-American right-wing dictators, viewing the world in the context of cold war politics led the United States to forty-some years of irrationally hypocritical and dangerously contradictory policies. The misconceptions of policy makers that seemed welded to U.S. involvement in the Cold War may stem from the measures which had to be taken to cajole the American populous into willingly participating in Cold War antics.
Europeans were not the only ones worn out by WWII. Americans were quite ready to call their boys back home, leaving dirty power politics once again to the European powers. Knowing that Western Europe was not up to facing the Soviet Union’s expansionist ideals alone, President Truman felt that he must somehow persuade the American public to support continued U.S. involvement in international intrigue. The only way to do this was to literally scare the hell out of the public. The moralistic Americans’ fear of evil had always been any president’s most potent weapon in rousing the public. So, it was not long before not only communism but any who even appeared to support communism at home or abroad became evil enemies. With Cold War fears acting as shades blinding policymakers to many crucial realities, the United States was easily manipulated by savvy, unsavory proxy states. National security objectives repeatedly blurred the fact that many of the regimes being dealt with were remnants of the age of imperialism that had lost their imperial benefactors. That is to say, a minority segment of the ‘native’ populous hoping to hold onto the powerful positions imperialists had bestowed upon them had to quickly learn to play the two superpowers off each other, or face losing everything. Many regimes were fast to realize that U.S. support could be won easily by simply warning that their nation was in danger of becoming the first domino to fall. It is difficult to divine whether those who contrived policies with an eye on containment ever stopped to ponder the awful side effects that their cure for communism would cause. Unfortunately, the containment policy was not simply a prescription pill with a warning on the side of the bottle for the American public to read: Warning: containment may cause regional instability, Islamic fundamentalism and extreme anti-Americanism. If terrorism occurs consult a physician immediately…
The West must now face the warranted agitation that much of the Muslim world feels toward their “immoral oppressors”. But since the United States is still for the moment in the driver’s seat of the rickety contraption, what of the two factors which have so deftly conspired to create the woeful dilemma? Well, the problem of outdated colonial borders and the despots that cling to them is not likely to soon be resolved. Luckily because of the moralistic American reaction to Hitler’s Nazi Germany, and the magnification that the region is under due to huge oil and natural gas deposits, simply turning a blind eye to attempts of former colonial states at ethnic purification through genocide or expulsions has not been an option. Mass media has also gone far to help limit the prospects of even the most despotic of regimes simply purging the societies they rule of any “undesirables”. With a mass movement of peoples unlikely, what about making up new countries with borders that more readily align with ethnic and religious divisions to quell instability? The prospects of redrawing the borders of the region are dim. Presumably, an international coalition could never agree to simply redraw the borders of the Middle East, despite any benefits that one would argue that such an action would incur. It is quite likely that even with the strongest military amassed in the history of the world at its disposal, the United States would face insurmountable resistance if it were to attempt such an immense mission. It would take a tremendous amount of wherewithal, and perhaps blind moxy on the part of any administration that might dare to tackle such a massive undertaking. The predictable domestic uproar alone that would ensue from the mere suggestion is reason enough to be sure that no major American politician is likely to ever suggest such a strategy.
The second factor, the U.S. propensity to view national security and therefore foreign policy in the context of the Cold War, came to its fortuitous end in 1991. Yet, the damage done to the image the Muslim world has of the United States cannot be erased by simply changing detrimental policies instigated by the Cold War. Just as fear of communism often blinded the public and policymakers alike to the long term consequences of erratic, ill-conceived strategies in the Middle East, fear of terrorism could easily have the same effect. Along with a fear-fueled foreign policy, features within the U.S. political system itself make intelligent insightful policies all the more difficult to come by. Powerful lobby groups with tremendous influence over U.S. policies that effect the Ummah rarely have good relations between the West and the Muslim world at the top of their list of concerns. Inconsistency due to the U.S. electoral cycle also often aggravates the coherence of U.S. policy. Moderate and secular leaders of the Muslim world have a difficult time relying on U.S. policy due to the unpredictability of U.S. stratagem resulting from drastic breaks in policy that often come with new administrations.
Despite all the evident difficulties in forming better relations between the Muslim world and the West, steps can be taken by both sides to begin bridging the fissures. First, if those within the Muslim world who disapprove of terrorist tactics were to vocally condemn atrocities committed by terrorists views held by many in the west that all Muslims are Islamic fundamentalists could quickly evaporate. Secondly, Americans in particular must drop their illusions that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were the beginning of some new chapter in history with no links or roots in past chapters. The horrific terror attacks of that fateful September day were not the first action of some new war to be fought. They were, in fact, the most dramatic and awful reaction in a series of reactions dating back decades. That is not to say that U.S. citizens ought to feel that they brought it on themselves and ask for forgiveness. They should, however, attempt to better understand both the roots of terrorism and the nature of the conflict they have entered into. The moralistic expectations of Americans do not allow U.S. leaders to simply butcher millions of Muslims until survivors either comply with their will or do not exist. Therefore, long-term strategies must be well thought out. If the United States continues to haphazardly rely on short-term solutions, at best, in forty-some years, Americans will be confronted with the next great ism that they will have to fear as a result of policies put in place today to win the war against terror.
Chivo
Unsolicited opinion!!!
Ah well, for what its worth I'm still on this rusty track but then with three out of four classes focused at understanding the Ummah, well we'll just see if we can't be patient- Yes, Ojo del fantasma???
...It would be easy for any mindful observer trying to fathom the woes of the Muslim world, the Ummah, to briefly review historical facts and conclude that conflicts with the West dating back to the crusades have resulted in the widespread antipathy toward the western world. But do the roots of resentment not wind and become tangled by more recent events? Was it always a predestined inevitability that if the United States dared enter into any modern matters of the Muslim world that Americans would have to be labeled and hated as modern day crusaders? Given other factors, such as the poorly designed, British-born, imperially implemented national borders that divide the Ummah and inconsistent, uninspired policies of the U.S., are the principle regions of Islam doomed to eternal instability?
It is a sad fact that the history of U.S. foreign policy is mired in miscalculations, misinterpretations and a profound ignorance of the basic historic positions, prejudices and motivations which have conspired to construct the difficult realities of international affairs. The people of the United States are not the first to lay their path by a rather blindish form of ignorantly bumbling forth, reshaping their world to their advantage in a myopic mode with little regard for long-term ramifications. Since the earliest tribes were formed, leaders noticed that simply threatening and using violence when dealing with adversaries often paid off, at least in the short-term. The U.S. is unique though, in the immense amount of power that it wields when seeking to iron out the potentially uncomfortable, unruly creases of the world. Yet, U.S. policy makers have found that simple flexing of military muscle often solves little in the modern world. The fact is, that the United States took on the role of super power after many other powerful civilizations dating back thousands of years had already made mankind’s earth a very complex place indeed.
As Britain recognized that the empire had been completely exhausted by World War II, the government slowly began a withdrawal of the forces that assured its position as regional power in the Middle East. Mostly because of the perceived threat of Soviet expansion, President Truman felt that the United States was obliged to take up the reigns and fill the void wherever it could. This hand-off of British domination to the U.S. is somewhat comparable to an unhappy car owner faced with nickel and dime problems, deciding that riding the tube offers a whole lot less headaches in the grand scheme of things. Meanwhile the United States having little experience in international affairs is analogous to an anxious fool grabbing the keys forgetting that he doesn’t know how to drive, let alone work, on the hapless automobile when it breaks down.
Two key factors conspired to chasten the new driver as the U.S. became more settled in behind the shoddy wheel and further invested in at least shallow stability of the region. The first factor refers to the condition in which British imperialism had left the analogy’s vehicle. As a result of World War I, the Ottoman empire ceased to exist. This left European powers with the opportunity to imagine new borders for the Middle East. Very little consideration, if any, was given to actually drawing the lines along the vague, natural borders which already existed due to regional ethnic and religious differences of those who populated the area. In fact, borders which encompassed more than one group that could be identified as distinct peoples benefited European powers for ruling purposes.
Dividing and conquering was the form of rule most often employed by the British. What came to be known as indirect rule called for the placement of a desirable “native” ruler. The loyalty and compliance of the native ruler with imperial interests was insured by the fact that he could not retain power and would be quickly deposed without the support of the imperial power. The problems which likely arise when one attempts to maintain colonial boundaries in the absence of a blatantly brutal, overbearing, imperial power were quickly exposed as the U.S. implemented different methods to dominate the region.
After WWII, as the empires of the old European powers began to crumble under the financial strain of repressing the independence of colonies, it became clear that old-fashioned imperialism was not a viable option in the modern world. To propagate U.S. dominance and expand markets, the United States drastically broke from classic imperialism and even denounced stubborn European claims to remnants of rapidly disintegrating empires. In the face of rapid decolonization, partially due to the persistent wave of nationalism that had drenched the world by midway through the 20th century, the U.S. recognized that official control of a government was unnecessary. To maintain U.S. dominance over most nations and their resources, all that was required was the financial dependence of the nation. The tactics that the U.S. employed to insure its economic superiority over a wide range of decolonized nations across the world were soon emulated by other western powers and the practice eventually became known as neo-imperialism.
The attraction of neo-imperialism for the U.S. was the more hands-off approach that it allowed. Yet, although the U.S. had mostly avoided overt occupations of Muslim countries before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the rarely subtle economic pressures, as well as the small scale interventions and humiliating covert actions that the United States readily implemented in order to influence policies, were easily interpreted by the peoples of the Muslim world and often culminated in resentment of Western power. Even the often generous financial and military aid that western powers offered pro-western regimes of the Middle East could not be interpreted as simply altruistic gestures. Aid has often been openly withheld as a form of punishment for disappointing positions of regimes. It is not difficult to see the correlations between the levels of foreign aid regimes receive and the relative approval western powers feel toward their foreign policies. The repeated meddling in the internal affairs of sovereign Muslim nations, along with the incentive-driven system of delving out aid, combine with economically devastating embargos easily levied by those who hold all the cards, evoke a profound ire in the Muslim world that is easily directed at the “Great Satin”.
The second factor that seemed to have bungled U.S. policy in the Middle East from the days immediately following WWII was the Cold War. From involvement in Vietnam to its support of Latin-American right-wing dictators, viewing the world in the context of cold war politics led the United States to forty-some years of irrationally hypocritical and dangerously contradictory policies. The misconceptions of policy makers that seemed welded to U.S. involvement in the Cold War may stem from the measures which had to be taken to cajole the American populous into willingly participating in Cold War antics.
Europeans were not the only ones worn out by WWII. Americans were quite ready to call their boys back home, leaving dirty power politics once again to the European powers. Knowing that Western Europe was not up to facing the Soviet Union’s expansionist ideals alone, President Truman felt that he must somehow persuade the American public to support continued U.S. involvement in international intrigue. The only way to do this was to literally scare the hell out of the public. The moralistic Americans’ fear of evil had always been any president’s most potent weapon in rousing the public. So, it was not long before not only communism but any who even appeared to support communism at home or abroad became evil enemies. With Cold War fears acting as shades blinding policymakers to many crucial realities, the United States was easily manipulated by savvy, unsavory proxy states. National security objectives repeatedly blurred the fact that many of the regimes being dealt with were remnants of the age of imperialism that had lost their imperial benefactors. That is to say, a minority segment of the ‘native’ populous hoping to hold onto the powerful positions imperialists had bestowed upon them had to quickly learn to play the two superpowers off each other, or face losing everything. Many regimes were fast to realize that U.S. support could be won easily by simply warning that their nation was in danger of becoming the first domino to fall. It is difficult to divine whether those who contrived policies with an eye on containment ever stopped to ponder the awful side effects that their cure for communism would cause. Unfortunately, the containment policy was not simply a prescription pill with a warning on the side of the bottle for the American public to read: Warning: containment may cause regional instability, Islamic fundamentalism and extreme anti-Americanism. If terrorism occurs consult a physician immediately…
The West must now face the warranted agitation that much of the Muslim world feels toward their “immoral oppressors”. But since the United States is still for the moment in the driver’s seat of the rickety contraption, what of the two factors which have so deftly conspired to create the woeful dilemma? Well, the problem of outdated colonial borders and the despots that cling to them is not likely to soon be resolved. Luckily because of the moralistic American reaction to Hitler’s Nazi Germany, and the magnification that the region is under due to huge oil and natural gas deposits, simply turning a blind eye to attempts of former colonial states at ethnic purification through genocide or expulsions has not been an option. Mass media has also gone far to help limit the prospects of even the most despotic of regimes simply purging the societies they rule of any “undesirables”. With a mass movement of peoples unlikely, what about making up new countries with borders that more readily align with ethnic and religious divisions to quell instability? The prospects of redrawing the borders of the region are dim. Presumably, an international coalition could never agree to simply redraw the borders of the Middle East, despite any benefits that one would argue that such an action would incur. It is quite likely that even with the strongest military amassed in the history of the world at its disposal, the United States would face insurmountable resistance if it were to attempt such an immense mission. It would take a tremendous amount of wherewithal, and perhaps blind moxy on the part of any administration that might dare to tackle such a massive undertaking. The predictable domestic uproar alone that would ensue from the mere suggestion is reason enough to be sure that no major American politician is likely to ever suggest such a strategy.
The second factor, the U.S. propensity to view national security and therefore foreign policy in the context of the Cold War, came to its fortuitous end in 1991. Yet, the damage done to the image the Muslim world has of the United States cannot be erased by simply changing detrimental policies instigated by the Cold War. Just as fear of communism often blinded the public and policymakers alike to the long term consequences of erratic, ill-conceived strategies in the Middle East, fear of terrorism could easily have the same effect. Along with a fear-fueled foreign policy, features within the U.S. political system itself make intelligent insightful policies all the more difficult to come by. Powerful lobby groups with tremendous influence over U.S. policies that effect the Ummah rarely have good relations between the West and the Muslim world at the top of their list of concerns. Inconsistency due to the U.S. electoral cycle also often aggravates the coherence of U.S. policy. Moderate and secular leaders of the Muslim world have a difficult time relying on U.S. policy due to the unpredictability of U.S. stratagem resulting from drastic breaks in policy that often come with new administrations.
Despite all the evident difficulties in forming better relations between the Muslim world and the West, steps can be taken by both sides to begin bridging the fissures. First, if those within the Muslim world who disapprove of terrorist tactics were to vocally condemn atrocities committed by terrorists views held by many in the west that all Muslims are Islamic fundamentalists could quickly evaporate. Secondly, Americans in particular must drop their illusions that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were the beginning of some new chapter in history with no links or roots in past chapters. The horrific terror attacks of that fateful September day were not the first action of some new war to be fought. They were, in fact, the most dramatic and awful reaction in a series of reactions dating back decades. That is not to say that U.S. citizens ought to feel that they brought it on themselves and ask for forgiveness. They should, however, attempt to better understand both the roots of terrorism and the nature of the conflict they have entered into. The moralistic expectations of Americans do not allow U.S. leaders to simply butcher millions of Muslims until survivors either comply with their will or do not exist. Therefore, long-term strategies must be well thought out. If the United States continues to haphazardly rely on short-term solutions, at best, in forty-some years, Americans will be confronted with the next great ism that they will have to fear as a result of policies put in place today to win the war against terror.
Chivo
posted by friars | Thursday, December 15, 2005
3 Comments:
beautifully written chivo!!!
ah... potential/efficiency coming back to bite me in the ass- ha; our old friend lazy.
l a-ro
agreed... nicely stated chivo
i would be alot more lazy if
it weren't for my laziness
--el vikingo
Very impressive. You certainly educated me on a few matters. One thing that sticks out for me is something I struggle with. That is people do tend to misunderstand the Twin Tower attacks and consistently fail to recognize all the chess moves that led to it and what we as Americans are perceived to another deep threaded culture.
What would of ever happened if they just let Hitler into Art School? What if we donated Kansas or Wyoming to the people of Israel?
ODF
Post a Comment
<< Home