newcity
Merry Christmas to Christians everywhere....though Christmas today here in Allentown, PA is a disaster (winter storm warnings, etc.), I hope yours is filled with family, friends, and the spirit of the season.
The world is caught up in confronting crazed dictators and terrorist groups in various areas of the world. Historically, while these may have been inconvenient, they generally did not represent a threat to the peace of the world unless they invaded their neighbors.
Today we face a different situation. The challenge now is in dealing with countries and groups possessing weapons of mass destruction. Even a small group of terrorists can have a significant effect on large developed countries. While the international community has been largely successful at dealing with this after 9/11, the future remains uncertain.
One of the major issues facing the international community is its failure, so far, to develop a comprehensive set of guidelines for dealing with rogue states and terrorist groups. Though these are distinct problems (not all rogue states support terrorism), in the challenges they present to the international community there is little difference in their effects.
Nationalism, the great organizing principle of the modern world, has shown itself to be a very effective mask enabling the international community to avoid dealing with problems. Rather than facing the Kim Jong Il’s and Saddam Hussein’s, the world community believes war is a greater danger than dealing with intractable threats. These aren’t going away, and they’re only going to get worse. As more countries and terrorist groups gain access to WMD’s, this issue will present itself again and again.
Shocked by incessant destructive wars in the 20th century, Europe shows little stomach for dealing with the problem. In fact, the atrophy of European defensive capabilities reveals there’s little evidence Europeans have the ability to think strategically about the use of force. Some of the opposition to US actions reflects an attitude that force can’t be tolerated under any circumstances. European inaction over Kosovo reflected that. Even in its own backyard, Europe was unable to agree on using force and ultimately relied on US troops.
No doubt part of European opposition is due to racism. Many Europeans can’t conceive of anyone but western intellectuals having the ability to invent ideologies of genocide. Thus they believe all violent actions are reactions to western actions. It’s the “white man’s burden” redux.
But the fact is the international community will, at some point, have to have to develop a comprehensive policy for dealing with rogue states and terrorist groups acquiring WMD’s. Such a policy may, for example, legitimize the use of force in countries where local government does not exist. In the border regions of Pakistan, the outlying regions of Yemen, in some areas of Indonesia, such a re-think of the principles of nationalism may make the world more secure by ensuring there is no sanctuary either for terrorist groups, or for national governments which maintain ‘plausible deniability’ while sheltering terrorists.
It may also involve international aid to provide schooling, peacekeeping among tribes, healthcare, and other activities designed to reduce the ability of terrorist groups to function in lawless areas. Such policies may involve host governments, or they may be bypassed if corrupt, or non-existent, as in Somalia.
States like North Korea would be faced with a united opposition threatening them with sanctions, or worse. In addition, guidelines could assure the international community that the United States, which alone has the capability to project military power worldwide, would use this only in accord with law.
The ad hoc approach now employed is fraught with danger. By ignoring a recurring problem, and with acrimonious debates among democracies, it only promotes the very problem it tries to confront.
The United States, or the UK, is well prepared to bring the UN around to such policies. By agreeing to act in accord with law, and by defining principles and concepts that enable it to defend civilization, the US can be the leader in ensuring the world is a more secure place.
I happened to get an email today from the pastor of a fundamentalist church. He was responding to my email about a series of advertising articles he wrote on creationism.
Of course, he’s wrong. Creationism is latter day astrology, a superstition for those who are too lazy to think. He says, for example that the ‘big bang is dogma’. But the big bang has nothing to do with evolution at all. It’s obvious he, like so many creationists, hasn’t a clue about how evolution works, or, indeed, how the different facets of science fit together.
His biggest mistake is one typical of creationists; he says evolution offers ‘no hope’. I wonder where creationists get the idea science is supposed to offer hope? When I go into the lab, and study acid/base chemistry, am I supposed to look at a chemical reaction and say ‘golly, that gives me a reason to live’? The idea is absurd. Yet creationists insist that biology alone should introduce the idea of purpose into its field of study. That is, in and of itself, proof that creationism isn’t science, but magic.
He objects when I compare creationism to other ideologies that want to destroy civilization. That may seem, to some, to be an overreaction. But science in general, and evolution in particular, are some of the greatest achievements of the human intellect. It’s no mystery people don’t know much about science. But knowing particular details about a particular science pales in comparison to knowing how radical science truly is. Science makes NO claims about purpose at all. To people used to having teleology present in all aspects of their lives, this must be incomprehensible. Here, after all, is a human invention…science…which has nothing to do with the purpose of life. It has no religious significance apart from that which you seek to give it.
No wonder fundamentalists object. To Muslim fanatics, this is anathema. Sharia governs all, so science must exclude evolution. To Christian fanatics, evolution contradicts their view of the Bible, so science must be re-written to exclude evolution. It’s a threatening idea, this inability to find purpose in nature; to see that nature has rules that function apart from our desires.
But it is how nature works. The radical limits of science offend many. And that is, in a way, proof of the validity of science.
One thing I've noticed about the far left in their analysis of foreign policy; it's blatantly racist. They believe no poor country has people smart enough to develop genocidal ideologies. Therefore, every slaughter must be because of something the west did.
They believe no 3rd worlder commits an atrocity worthy of condemnation. And no western country, including the US, commits an act of mercy worthy of praise.
Are Americans becoming the new Jews? Every country in medieval Europe did, at one time or another, expel the Jews. Xenophobia, opportunism, irrational fear, and religious bigotry all contributed to Jews being seen as overly influential, and having values that undermined “Christian” culture. They became targets of opportunity for failed leadership.
It seems Americans are in the same position worldwide today. The clueless parrot the cliché a war in Iraq will be for cheap oil. Though this is demonstrably false (oil company profits rise with increasing prices, not decreasing ones), it’s a very easy concept to wrap a limited intellect around.
Quite a few folks believe the ‘immiseration hypothesis’ of Paul Baran and Immanuel Wallerstein. This idea states that the US grew rich by ruthless exploitation of the 3rd world. There’s no question that, in the cold war, the US played ruthlessly with many countries. In countries like Guatemala, this led to hundreds of thousands of deaths. But the US acted like the UK, France, or any other country ‘protecting its interests’. (France, as you read this, is involved in military action in the Ivory Coast. Is this imperialism? When Spain kicked Morocco off Leila earlier this year, was that imperialism?).
But every powerful country has committed evil acts. Not every country has done great good. The UK and the US are among a select few which have also done great service to humanity. While the UK’s occupation of India was unfortunate, India today is the world’s largest democracy. When it created Bangladesh, it created another democracy.
The US occupied Germany and Japan, both of which are stable democratic countries. Korea, in the midst of anti-American fervor, is also a democracy.
Anti-American sentiments are a reflection of fundamentalism; the concept that a very simple idea can explain complex situations. It’s very east to blame the US for every hangnail; to deny that murderers could fly planes into buildings because ‘only the US could organize this’. While these neo-fundamentalists declare their solidarity with Al Qaida, they somehow forget that what they support-religious fanaticism-has a record much worse than anything the US has ever done.
But to these fundamentalists, that doesn’t matter. When Europeans ghettoized the Jews, they did so for reasons that are inexplicable. Some Europeans today, running from their past, and attempting a revisionist re-write, try to blame the US for what they themselves created. But it’s so easy to do. And you portray yourself as courageous…fighting this colossus. It’s good for the ego. And, of course, it requires no thought. Fundamentalism never does.
