Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Sahara's latest comment should spark an interesting discussion. What is the best way to win a war? I wouldn't rule out attrition (at least from the view of what is most effective), but here, I think I find I am not so far from Sahara as I usually am. Having recently finished a graduate research paper on the British occupation of Philadelphia during the American Revolution, the Pendragon is well aware of the need to win hearts and minds. The British high command under General Howe started out this way in the Autumn of 1777. Howe severely punished looters, established curfews for his troops, paid civilians handsomely for use of their town and socialized with all the local bigwigs in an attempt to get them on his side. Howe thought that doing this would show neutral Americans that the King's government was preferable to that of the patriots. It shouldn't have been a hard argument to make. Philadelphia was both a city of Quakers (pacifist--although the Quaker influence had declined somewhat from earlier years) and was connected to the Atlantic trading world, whose merchants eagerly desired to restore importation--something that needed the cooperation of the Royal Navy. Yet the strategy failed when reality took over. The British troops lodged in Philadelphia were depressed--not all that different from their counterparts up the road in Valley Forge. And the hard winter did not make people any more generous to Howe than to Washington, as far as food was concerned. To raise morale and procure proper food, Howe began requisitioning supplies, lodged officers in the chief homes in town, and threw lavish galas that horrified the plain Quakers.
The parallels one can draw are scary to the modern-day. I agree with all the premises of the Iraq War and think that on two out of the three objectives it was remarkably successful. Yet any attempt to win hearts and minds has certainly failed. Why? Curiously enough, because of elements of American culture that social conservatives have been fighting for years. There are now strip shows and prostitutes in Bagdhad, and female soldiers lording it over the men. This certainly will not endear the Americans to the Iraqi people at large. It should not even be a part of our culture, but whenever conservatives have raised this problem in the past, we've been told to shove it. Now this liberal fantasyland is playing out in Bagdhad, ruining the perfectly just war that conservatives launched. You have to love the irony. I do not know if there is a way to rectify this situation, but any solution to a problem this large is going to be complicated and deep. If we're uncomfortable exporting American culture to the world as it is (and we should be), then maybe we should try to make changes here at home. In this, the Pendragon concurs that America deserves criticism--I just don't believe we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. Strip shows and prostitutes are not an integral part of our culture and could be lifted out quite nicely if Americans are willing to abandon their culture of narcissism.
The parallels one can draw are scary to the modern-day. I agree with all the premises of the Iraq War and think that on two out of the three objectives it was remarkably successful. Yet any attempt to win hearts and minds has certainly failed. Why? Curiously enough, because of elements of American culture that social conservatives have been fighting for years. There are now strip shows and prostitutes in Bagdhad, and female soldiers lording it over the men. This certainly will not endear the Americans to the Iraqi people at large. It should not even be a part of our culture, but whenever conservatives have raised this problem in the past, we've been told to shove it. Now this liberal fantasyland is playing out in Bagdhad, ruining the perfectly just war that conservatives launched. You have to love the irony. I do not know if there is a way to rectify this situation, but any solution to a problem this large is going to be complicated and deep. If we're uncomfortable exporting American culture to the world as it is (and we should be), then maybe we should try to make changes here at home. In this, the Pendragon concurs that America deserves criticism--I just don't believe we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. Strip shows and prostitutes are not an integral part of our culture and could be lifted out quite nicely if Americans are willing to abandon their culture of narcissism.
// posted by The Pendragon @ 8:41 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
I don't know what exporting american culture is in your opinion. exporting democracy and freedom is a good thing, but war is just not the method. It just doesn't work that way. I think the people in Iraq worry more about their safety than about prostitution.
# posted by 
: 9:14 AM
: 9:14 AM
Then, if I may ask, what is the way to export freedom and democracy? It seems that exporting a worldview almost has to be done by force--so if war won't do it (and I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with that statement as of yet), how do you export it peaceably?
First of all, look at Iraq's history. The country is created by the british, there is no democratic tradition whatsoevr, they've had dictatorship constantly.
the idea that you can impose democracy on a hostile ground -- utter stupidity!
I believe that trade will help spread democracy, supporting international organisations, IMF, worldbank, UN, etc.. helps spreading democracy, but i've heard that the latter organisation is not so popular at the other side of the atlantic
the idea that you can impose democracy on a hostile ground -- utter stupidity!
I believe that trade will help spread democracy, supporting international organisations, IMF, worldbank, UN, etc.. helps spreading democracy, but i've heard that the latter organisation is not so popular at the other side of the atlantic
# posted by : 3:15 PM
: 3:15 PM
Utter stupidity? Surely not! It's born of a probably-incorrect-but-still-reasonable view that is as old as America's Founders: the idea that liberty is an inherent desire of human beings, that God created them this way. Robert Novak summed it up as "the universal hunger for liberty." For myself, I think the desire for security probably predates the desire for liberty. But it's not completely senseless. Just born of a different worldview. The Pendragon did not support the Iraq War because I believed the rhetoric about democracy in the Middle East--I was always skeptical of that (although anyone who said before Iraq that Arabs and Iraqis were incapable of democracy would have been labeled a racist). I supported the War, and still do, because the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein. Bush used the "war for democracy" rhetoric to win over the last bastion of hopelessly deluded Wilsonians, but in the end we went to war not to make Iraq safer but to make ourselves safer. And the latest statistics show that terror attacks are up in Iraq and Afghanistan but substantially down in the rest of the world.
I agree that trade can be a very useful tool of spreading democracy--also an old view (Kant and others). I have to disagree on the efficacy of the UN, however. I can share (some of) my countrymen and women's reservations about an organization that places brutal anarchists and dictators on their Human Rights Committee, and insofar as it proves anything about democracy proves it is hopelessly incompetent and insanely corrupt (Oil-for-Food etc).
You are absolutely right to note that Iraq's history should have been taken into account in framing the post-Saddam government. Iraq is a forced country--three people groups that never should have been a single country. But under Saddam they were being held together by force. Leaving them there no more served the purposes of Iraqi history than trying to establish a democracy. At least if the democracy learns to function, Iraqis might have a shot at either learning to work together or splitting into three democratic countries (probably the best choice). So it's not as if Bush abandoned the historically-proper way things were being done--he merely exchanged one misplaced system with another. Not an improvement necessarily, but not a huge step down either.
I agree that trade can be a very useful tool of spreading democracy--also an old view (Kant and others). I have to disagree on the efficacy of the UN, however. I can share (some of) my countrymen and women's reservations about an organization that places brutal anarchists and dictators on their Human Rights Committee, and insofar as it proves anything about democracy proves it is hopelessly incompetent and insanely corrupt (Oil-for-Food etc).
You are absolutely right to note that Iraq's history should have been taken into account in framing the post-Saddam government. Iraq is a forced country--three people groups that never should have been a single country. But under Saddam they were being held together by force. Leaving them there no more served the purposes of Iraqi history than trying to establish a democracy. At least if the democracy learns to function, Iraqis might have a shot at either learning to work together or splitting into three democratic countries (probably the best choice). So it's not as if Bush abandoned the historically-proper way things were being done--he merely exchanged one misplaced system with another. Not an improvement necessarily, but not a huge step down either.
I truely don't see a (positive) relation between terroracttacks in afgahnistan/iraq and the rest of the world. the (accordingly) fact that terror statistics are down in general has not much to do with the war in iraq i believe.
about the UN, I agree about your criticism, still I think it can be a very effictive way to use american power. The USA has a veto, is still the most powerfull country in the world and though they will have to compromise in the UN and they can not get everything done what they want...still the costs are substantilly lower. How much did the US payed in the first gulf war??? How much are they paying now???
Post a Comment
about the UN, I agree about your criticism, still I think it can be a very effictive way to use american power. The USA has a veto, is still the most powerfull country in the world and though they will have to compromise in the UN and they can not get everything done what they want...still the costs are substantilly lower. How much did the US payed in the first gulf war??? How much are they paying now???
# posted by : 6:37 AM
: 6:37 AM << Home
