let's not forget that the motivations of the people in charge are not always the motivations of the people on the ground. And sometimes the former is more than willing to hoodwink the latter into doing what it wants.
It's realpolitik versus the people: most people in the world would not willingly go to war, and especially not for geopolitical advantage, or for stabilizing balance of power, or for many of the reasons that usually do drive war. So the people in charge dust off some noble lie or another to convince people that war is in their best interest. Sometimes it's religion, sometimes it's "spreading democracy," but it's usually one or another sad puppet show.
But it does pose a challenge when we want to talk about "what was that war really about?", because even if we dissect the motivations of the leaders and discover the truth behind the noble lie, it doesn't mean that soldiers are out on the field fighting for that truth, as well: many whole-heartedly carry that noble lie with them, and the war can no longer be reduced to its geopolitical origins.
Infamous case in point: the American civil war. It's very easy to pinpoint the economics that were really behind the war, but that doesn't mean many troops in the north weren't fighting to end slavery just as many troops in the south weren't fighting to defend their homes. It's a big mess of motivations that resists easy distillation.
I'd argue the same here. Yes, we have realpolitik at work, just as we have religion, just as we have a (largely arbitrary) history of accumulated grudges - motivations piled on motivations like a perverse ziggurat.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Too disregard the religious significance in this conflict is too totally miss the boat on what’s happening and why.
The biggest mistake people can make is to think this is a conflict strictly over land. Hezbollah and Hamas didn’t provoke Israel (yet again) to gain more land in the short term. They wanted to kill Jews period. March all Jews into the Mediterranean Sea and then set their sights on America and the rest of the world. This is because their warped dogma commands it!
Reading the charter’s for both organizations sheds considerable light on their thought process:
Remember both provocations took place after Israel had withdrawn from yet more land and turned it over to the Palestinians.
Looking at this conflict and the GWOT without recognizing the enemy’s distorted take on their religion seems to be the easy way for the appeasement crowd and anti-war folks to lessen or dismiss the threat. These people what you, I and every other infidel dead. That’s the cold hard reality of the situation and I wish more Americans would realize it!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Economic opportunity and respect for cultural differences just might be a better way to go. We can't all be FUNDAMENTALIST AUTHORITIANS like you Steve.
You righties are so gullible and maleable.
How do you sleep at night with the threat of Brown Terrorists Mulitplying Around the Globe Do you really think we can kill them all.
How about we start with ending the root causes. US agression against muslem countries. (unless they are friends of Bush..... the Saudi's)
I'm not afraid of terrorist I'm just the one willing to something about it.
If these people succeed in their mission who will you call on to protect you from death or second class citizenship (with no civil liberties)? It will be people like me with the courage, understanding and will to fight for your freedom. Or will you simply convert?
Btw throwing in lib TalkingPoints™ & KnownFacts™ does little too encourage me to engage!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I am a relativist so I grant right away that the soldiers were fighting a war for their own reason, and those pertain.
However, I think the real reason are those of the command and control, as well as those efficient causues about which even the C&C may not be aware (unconcious intent and/or pressures which have not been really analyzed but which are reacted to with unconscious volition), that is, the true geopolitical reasons, with realpolitik or whatever you like as the marketing and social manipulation.
The reason I rank the "reasons" like this and call the one "real" and the other "merely personal" is that the real reasons are grounded more, they are connected more to real and literal affects, elements of the real world. The personal invention of a personal reason happens only after the political ambitions of the "leaders" have determined a war. They have to come up with a personal reason, true, but history shows many such reasons forthcoming, local folk-history, money, fear, patriotism, etc.
but I think the dynamics are a bit more complicated than that.
Let's take two hypothetical countries, A and Z. A is interested in Z's strategic port, and so the leaders of A start fueling racial hatred against the people of Z. War breaks out.
Ten years later, twenty years later, the strategic issue of the port may have become arbitrary (A discovers an overland trade route), but the racial hatred fueled by their leaders still drives political situations. Some time later, an enterprising young politician from Z channels this into another war against A.
Two or three generations later, and you have no hope for peace between A and Z, because the roots of racial hatred have grown so deeply that the geopolitical reasons for war are no longer necessary. Skirmishes and border battles can break out over race alone.
Again, I don't think you're wrong to focus on the political reasons for war - they usually seem to be the primary motivators, but we should allow that they can be so inextricably mixed with race, religion, or ideology that politics alone no longer explain motivations.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
my point is that the religious views make nonsense of the situation.
they are details among many.
To treat them as primary leads to the "kill everyone" approach. The REAL situation is geopolitical, and it becomes clear why choosing a war model instead of a policing model will not work to end this problem.
The religious angle, for example, is bad enough, the idea tha tyou would have to kill all the members of a given sect to be safe... which you also cannot do. But if you could... NO, there are the cousins of christians and secular citizens being killed. There are nieghbors and friends... the resentment is increased.
Geopolitically one sees this solution is not as clean as you are able to imagine when it's "muslim fundamentalists" that are being attacked.
It's Lebanon and North Israel being attacked. Geography. The impact has to do with geography and politics on the global scale... religion, favortie foods, pastimes, these are demographic details which will be a part of diplomacy, but not of war.
I agree there are multiple points of contention but disagree that this issue can be resolved diplomatically.
Obviously we can create conditions for a cease-fire for the short term and Israel will most likely take the brunt of concessions (as usual) but for the root cause (the hatred for all things not Muslim) coming from the extremists warped view of their religion I believe the choice is clear!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
but my point is this... that evolution you speak of is very realistic, and that's a reason to remember the geopolitical realities... they may be less harsh than the now-metaphysical -need- to be at war with Z (or A). The groups have come to define their own group in terms of the emnity with the other.
Even if the original problem was geopolitical, it fades away.
Subsequent emnity might be social identity related... it seems to me in either case remembering it's really geopolitics helps clarify the issue.
Mind you it doesn't solve the problem (i.e. if A and Z both want to control the port)... but it does limit the problem to it's realistic scope, whereas religious elements broaden it.
Also, in terms of how people think, if we frame the conflict as part of religious conflict, this means we use religion as the metaphor to understand the conflict. This is not too bad in the case of some religions, but for these western judeo-christo-muslim religions it is bad because in that metaphor enemies are evil.
Geopolitically you have harsh realities, people killing each other for resources and true fights for survival, but at least you understand the motivation of your enemy is not really because they are in league with pure evil.
Comments :
Religon is the excuse
Israel controls the water. Cut off the water for people's farm lands, and they get angry.
Has it dawned on any one that the US troops are fighting in Iraq for a Shia government sympathatic to the Lebanonese and Hezbollah.
Ask yourself who controls the water.
It is the economy, stupid.
Mixed reaction;
let's not forget that the motivations of the people in charge are not always the motivations of the people on the ground. And sometimes the former is more than willing to hoodwink the latter into doing what it wants.
It's realpolitik versus the people: most people in the world would not willingly go to war, and especially not for geopolitical advantage, or for stabilizing balance of power, or for many of the reasons that usually do drive war. So the people in charge dust off some noble lie or another to convince people that war is in their best interest. Sometimes it's religion, sometimes it's "spreading democracy," but it's usually one or another sad puppet show.
But it does pose a challenge when we want to talk about "what was that war really about?", because even if we dissect the motivations of the leaders and discover the truth behind the noble lie, it doesn't mean that soldiers are out on the field fighting for that truth, as well: many whole-heartedly carry that noble lie with them, and the war can no longer be reduced to its geopolitical origins.
Infamous case in point: the American civil war. It's very easy to pinpoint the economics that were really behind the war, but that doesn't mean many troops in the north weren't fighting to end slavery just as many troops in the south weren't fighting to defend their homes. It's a big mess of motivations that resists easy distillation.
I'd argue the same here. Yes, we have realpolitik at work, just as we have religion, just as we have a (largely arbitrary) history of accumulated grudges - motivations piled on motivations like a perverse ziggurat.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
That is a rather myopic view of the situation
Too disregard the religious significance in this conflict is too totally miss the boat on what’s happening and why.
The biggest mistake people can make is to think this is a conflict strictly over land. Hezbollah and Hamas didn’t provoke Israel (yet again) to gain more land in the short term. They wanted to kill Jews period. March all Jews into the Mediterranean Sea and then set their sights on America and the rest of the world. This is because their warped dogma commands it!
Reading the charter’s for both organizations sheds considerable light on their thought process:
The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas)
The Organizational structure of Hezbollah
What is Hezbollah and what are its goals
Remember both provocations took place after Israel had withdrawn from yet more land and turned it over to the Palestinians.
Looking at this conflict and the GWOT without recognizing the enemy’s distorted take on their religion seems to be the easy way for the appeasement crowd and anti-war folks to lessen or dismiss the threat. These people what you, I and every other infidel dead. That’s the cold hard reality of the situation and I wish more Americans would realize it!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Remember we are talking
fundamentalists here.
as in fundamentalist Christians that think Jesus will be coming soon, as soon as we wipe out the taint of muslem terrorism
as in fudamentalist Islam who think that Christians and the West are the Great Occupiers.
With rhetoric like that do you suggest that we all live in a state of constant fear?
Or a state of Super Nationalism to win this Global War. Sheesh.
Dolchsttosselegend Much?
Economic opportunity and respect for cultural differences just might be a better way to go. We can't all be FUNDAMENTALIST AUTHORITIANS like you Steve.
You righties are so gullible and maleable.
How do you sleep at night with the threat of Brown Terrorists Mulitplying Around the Globe Do you really think we can kill them all.
How about we start with ending the root causes. US agression against muslem countries. (unless they are friends of Bush..... the Saudi's)
It is the economy, stupid.
Liberal misconceptions and naivet'e abound
I'm not afraid of terrorist I'm just the one willing to something about it.
If these people succeed in their mission who will you call on to protect you from death or second class citizenship (with no civil liberties)? It will be people like me with the courage, understanding and will to fight for your freedom. Or will you simply convert?
Btw throwing in lib TalkingPoints™ & KnownFacts™ does little too encourage me to engage!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Thanks freedom fighter
Who did you say the ruling magority in Iraq was aligned with again?
Oh that's right Hezbollah.
Is that what our troops died for?
It is the economy, stupid.
the real cause
I am a relativist so I grant right away that the soldiers were fighting a war for their own reason, and those pertain.
However, I think the real reason are those of the command and control, as well as those efficient causues about which even the C&C may not be aware (unconcious intent and/or pressures which have not been really analyzed but which are reacted to with unconscious volition), that is, the true geopolitical reasons, with realpolitik or whatever you like as the marketing and social manipulation.
The reason I rank the "reasons" like this and call the one "real" and the other "merely personal" is that the real reasons are grounded more, they are connected more to real and literal affects, elements of the real world. The personal invention of a personal reason happens only after the political ambitions of the "leaders" have determined a war. They have to come up with a personal reason, true, but history shows many such reasons forthcoming, local folk-history, money, fear, patriotism, etc.
Agree to an extent,
but I think the dynamics are a bit more complicated than that.
Let's take two hypothetical countries, A and Z. A is interested in Z's strategic port, and so the leaders of A start fueling racial hatred against the people of Z. War breaks out.
Ten years later, twenty years later, the strategic issue of the port may have become arbitrary (A discovers an overland trade route), but the racial hatred fueled by their leaders still drives political situations. Some time later, an enterprising young politician from Z channels this into another war against A.
Two or three generations later, and you have no hope for peace between A and Z, because the roots of racial hatred have grown so deeply that the geopolitical reasons for war are no longer necessary. Skirmishes and border battles can break out over race alone.
Again, I don't think you're wrong to focus on the political reasons for war - they usually seem to be the primary motivators, but we should allow that they can be so inextricably mixed with race, religion, or ideology that politics alone no longer explain motivations.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
it's a matter of counterproductive strategy
my point is that the religious views make nonsense of the situation.
they are details among many.
To treat them as primary leads to the "kill everyone" approach. The REAL situation is geopolitical, and it becomes clear why choosing a war model instead of a policing model will not work to end this problem.
The religious angle, for example, is bad enough, the idea tha tyou would have to kill all the members of a given sect to be safe... which you also cannot do. But if you could... NO, there are the cousins of christians and secular citizens being killed. There are nieghbors and friends... the resentment is increased.
Geopolitically one sees this solution is not as clean as you are able to imagine when it's "muslim fundamentalists" that are being attacked.
It's Lebanon and North Israel being attacked. Geography. The impact has to do with geography and politics on the global scale... religion, favortie foods, pastimes, these are demographic details which will be a part of diplomacy, but not of war.
Religion has to come into play.
I say that because even the secular folks in the middle east define themselves, their clans by their faith.
But, that isn't to say that they can't live in harmony, side by side. They can. They have in the past & they can in the future.
What they need is to feel like they got a fair shake.
Things that need addressing:
1) allowing all peoples to freely practice their religons in and around where they live, work & travel.
2) refugee/right of return NEEDS to be addressed, and not just by saying too bad, so sad.
3) national boundries need to be agreed upon by ALL PARTIES.
4) the security & the ability of all parties to find thier lives, liberty, freedom and happiness needs to be guaranteed to all.
5) All parties need to be able to participate in political elections.
Every group has it's nutcases. Most people are actually really nice. But they aren't the ones on the news every night.
Sound
Thanks for the clerification
I agree there are multiple points of contention but disagree that this issue can be resolved diplomatically.
Obviously we can create conditions for a cease-fire for the short term and Israel will most likely take the brunt of concessions (as usual) but for the root cause (the hatred for all things not Muslim) coming from the extremists warped view of their religion I believe the choice is clear!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Nicely done.
The war lovers refuse to accept that Brute Force is not the answer.
Can't they exchange the Israeli prisoners for some water rights.
There has to be some way to save face for Lebanon.
It is the economy, stupid.
excellent example
but my point is this... that evolution you speak of is very realistic, and that's a reason to remember the geopolitical realities... they may be less harsh than the now-metaphysical -need- to be at war with Z (or A). The groups have come to define their own group in terms of the emnity with the other.
Even if the original problem was geopolitical, it fades away.
Subsequent emnity might be social identity related... it seems to me in either case remembering it's really geopolitics helps clarify the issue.
Mind you it doesn't solve the problem (i.e. if A and Z both want to control the port)... but it does limit the problem to it's realistic scope, whereas religious elements broaden it.
Also, in terms of how people think, if we frame the conflict as part of religious conflict, this means we use religion as the metaphor to understand the conflict. This is not too bad in the case of some religions, but for these western judeo-christo-muslim religions it is bad because in that metaphor enemies are evil.
Geopolitically you have harsh realities, people killing each other for resources and true fights for survival, but at least you understand the motivation of your enemy is not really because they are in league with pure evil.