Showing posts with label daesh. Show all posts
Showing posts with label daesh. Show all posts

Saturday, December 12, 2015

Hanukkah 2015: Afghanistan, Syria, ISIL


            I'm preparing this blog post at the end of Hanukkah 5776, which is in mid-December 2015, Christian style, or near the start of the month of Rabi' al-awal, 1437 A.H., i.e., counting, as Muslims do, from the Hijra of Mohammed.
            I use the different dates not because they're important in themselves, but just to remind Christians that the scientifically-calibrated Gregorian calendar may be the best-est, most accurate, most convenient calendar, but that it's the Gregorian calendar and a calendar, not the calendar and the only one around. All God's children — or at least Abraham's — got calendars and reckon time, but not all in terms of A.D., Anno Domini, "in the year of our" — or the — "Lord."
            I'm also recycling below much of a blog from "a Yule Tide" in 2009, in which additional American troops were "gearing up for the war in Afghanistan," and I asked readers to momentarily contemplate the much discussed "true meaning of Christmas and wonder what The Prince of Peace might think about that move," continuing what we used to call in the Vietnam era, a dirty little war. I noted that, applying What Would Jesus Say?, "hawks can always cite Jesus's saying he came not to bring peace 'but a sword' (Matthew 10.34)" — and noted that "truth be told, we humans have never been keen on 'Blessed be the meek' and 'resist not evil,' or turning the other cheek to be hit, or more generally like the peace-love-dove bits of Jesus's Sermon on the Mountain (Matthew 5.1-7.27). The kick-ass Christ as The Rider on the White Horse of the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse 19.11 f.) is the more relevant figure for most folk, most of the time, but He doesn't have a holiday.
            No, Christmas is the time of the Christ-Child and the paradox of unimaginable power getting itself incarnated in a helpless infant.
            Now in another time of tribulations (and this time with Donald Trump moving US political discussion toward open belligerence), now in a time of civil war in Syria, with the Great Powers and a number of lesser ones joining in — now is a time to again consider, as some might have in 2009, one true meaning of Hanukkah.
            Among other things, Hanukkah celebrates a successful insurrection (167-60 B.C.E.) by a movement led by religious zealots, first for an end to imperial suppression of their religion and then for national liberation and a return to religious purity: a struggle to get the Greeks of the Seleucid Empire out of Judea, and to get the Greekified, elitist Jewish collaborators out of power or dead — and achieve a truly sovereign, fully independent, rigorously Jewish state.
            According to my old history book (Joseph Ward Swain, The Ancient World, volume 2 [© 1950]), if not according to my old rabbis, the struggle in Judea "was first and foremost between Hellenized and non-Hellenized Jews" — richer, better educated city-folk following newfangled Greek ways, versus those supporting the old ways — "with Greek troops supporting the former and the populace following the latter faction" (p. 202).
            It was a struggle that was probably classic back in the time of the Maccabees and certainly to become classic: state terror by the imperial Seleucid authorities alternating with rebel terrorism against collaborators and a "king's officer" here and there, followed by the rebels' fleeing to the hills. Soon, "[A]ll who became fugitives to escape their troubles joined them and reinforced them. They organized an army, and struck down sinners in their anger," i.e., Jews who accepted Greek culture, "and lawless men in their wrath; the survivors fled to the Gentiles for safety …" (1 Maccabees chs. 1-2, esp. 2.23-25, 2.43-44).
            And when the Seleucid Empire ran into difficulties elsewhere and couldn't suppress the rebellion, the traditionalist Jews got religious liberty restored, then the execution of a Hellenized, collaborating high priest, and, fairly soon — if only for a while — "complete national independence" (Swain 203-04).
            There's a moral here for superpowers: Keep your troops out of local conflicts, especially when those conflicts involve religion and nationalism — to say nothing of tribal rivalries; and stay out of wars in localities that may have strategic locations but really aren't worth fighting for. And do not try to impose your modern ways on others, however superior your ways might be or clearly are.
            As was said back in the 1960s, "'To liberate' is a reflexive verb": with a few blatant exceptions, you don't liberate others, people liberate themselves. However much Americans might have wanted to liberate Afghan women from Taliban zealotry, we could at most help those women with their own struggle. However much some worthy rebels might want to overthrow Bashar al-Assad and crush ISIL, there's only a limited amount of help we in the "Zionist-Crusader godless West" can do to help them.
            Most Afghans were happy to see the Taliban removed from power in 2001-02, but they became increasingly unhappy the longer we foreign infidels stuck around. Afghans are as tribal and faction-ridden as the ancient Jews, but the Afghan peoples have always managed to cooperate to expel a truly foreign occupation.
            Ditto in Iraq, at least of late.
            The Seleucids were one of the successor states to the empire of Alexander the Great, with a center of power in what is now Syria; and the Seleucids had their problems in Afghanistan, as did Alexander before them and the Persians before that. Afghanistan is "the place empires go to die" — the British and Russian more recently — and the best rule there is to get in if you must; do what you can to achieve some limited goals; and then get the hell out. If you can help the Afghans from a distance (which you should if you've killed a fair number of their people), do so generously.
            In a nastily ironic variation on a historical theme, the religious zealots of "the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant" — which includes Syria — are attempting to establish a political entity larger than Judea under the dynasty that arose from the Maccabees, and a state with ambitions that go beyond those of the Seleucids: a Caliphate that could, in theory, reach from Spain to Indonesia, and more immediately would include large hunks of Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
            Back in 2009, I repeated the rule that Great Powers like the US as much as possible should keep our troops out of countries where they're not wanted, and should avoid sending troops to fight for one faction or tribal grouping against their rivals. Not unless one has time, resources, money, and troops to spare: lots of all of them. And America is running short.
            For a happy Hanukkah 5776, Lessons in Foreign Policy, aspect, we're should consider the probability that we Americans are like the Seleucid Empire in being over-extended, stressed, and in no position for an invasion of "the Levant" and a protracted war to suppress modern fanatics who make the Maccabees look like a Unitarian-sponsored Scout troop. At the same time, precisely because ISIS is both so vicious and viciously attractive to fanatics, we will need to do something the Seleucids would not do: cooperate with the other established states to contain ISIS and resist it with a light enough touch that it will "burn itself out" in a military/social parallel to the horrific ways highly lethal diseases "burn themselves out."
            Neither we, the British, French, Russians, nor for that matter the Iranians or Saudis (or the Israelis) have much skill with delicate touches, and the phrase is grotesque when it includes air-delivery of high explosives and training teenagers to kill people. Still, President Obama has the right instincts: as much as possible avoid putting military units in places where they'll be targets for fanatics and where they will produce more fanatics by killing fanatics (plus the inevitable deaths, wounding, and maimings summed up in the obscene euphemism, "collateral damage); indeed, avoid putting them in places, e.g., Saudi Arabia with its holy places, where their mere presence is a provocation..

            Like Christmas and other mid-winter holidays, Hanukkah offers hope that once the days get short enough, the sun will return for longer stays and spring will come. The history behind Hanukkah reminds us that figurative winters of warfare can be pretty damn long and deadly.

Monday, December 7, 2015

Address to the Nation: Terrorism



         It's not going to happen, but if we could mix together a "gaffe" by John Kerry — a politician's slipping and telling an unpleasant truth — with the knowledge and intelligence of Barack Obama and the intemperance of Donald Trump, we might get a useful talk to Americans on terrorism.
*
            As Democratic candidate for President, John Kerry was impolitic but right in his assertion that for the foreseeable future, the best we can hope for with terrorism is to reduce it to the point where, in terms of America, it is a nuisance, even as it is deadly for some Americans.
            There's a distinction there we need to get. Terrorists threaten American interests and the lives of Americans and, more so, non-Americans in war zones; terrorists are not a threat to the American State, what we have of an American nation, nor, unless we panic, to the American Republic. One of the horrible lessons of World War II is how many people can be killed, wounded, and maimed, how much property and infrastructure and cultural products can be destroyed, without even bringing down a regime, let alone destroying a State or a people.
            So get that straight: terrorists are a variety of "existential threat" to Americans — they can kill (etc.) a fair number of us — but not to America.
            That, relatively speaking, is the good news.
            The bad news is that you will die. More or less unpleasantly, you will die; your children will die; and every human, animal, and plant you know and love (or hate or have never heard of) will die. As Hamlet's mom reminds him, "You know it's common: all that lives must die, / Passing through life to eternity," or passing on to just to being dead (1.2.73-74). You will die; unless we screw up badly, human life and civilization will carry on.
            Even if you are one of America's fairly numerous homicides, however — 13,716 in 2013 — it is highly unlikely you'll be a victim of terrorism or some other exotic crime where you'll be killed by a stranger. To repeat again a repeated statistic, "between 2001 and 2013, there were 3,030 people killed in domestic acts of terrorism" in the USA, plus 350 in that period killed abroad. "This brings the total to 3,380," as opposed to more mundane "American Deaths by Firearms on U.S. soil" during that period of 406,496, although many of those deaths were suicides — 41,149 in 2013 — which you may count as you like.
            Heart disease, cancer, respiratory diseases, or just some dumb-ass accident: those are the "leading causes of death" for Americans, saith the Centers for Disease Control; terrorism is nowhere near the top ten.
            So, first thing to do, fellow Americans, is to get your figurative spines stiffened and "grow a pair": increase the size of the part of the frontal lobes that does math and risk assessment, locate your gonads, and get those adrenal glands going at a good level for courage but not panic.
            Because we are threatened.
            President Obama was correct in 2014 in saying that ISIS (ISIL, Daesh) was a junior varsity team. The varsity would be a "kinder, gentler" successor group to ISIS, one that can hold territory without extreme brutality and for long enough time to prepare for the professionals. The true threat would be a territorial entity that is the origin of a mass movement with a charismatic leader, an expanding army, and, eventually, access to air and naval power.
            Think of Muhammad, Umar, and Abu Bakr (the first caliph), but with heavier weapons and a variety of fundamentalism necessarily absent when the fundamentals of a religion are in development. Speaking of initial expansion of Islam within and then out of the Arabian Peninsula, my 1937 Thompson and Johnson History of Medieval Europe notes that it is "impossible" in the early years of the Faith "to speak of Mohammedan [sic] fanaticism, except possibly in isolated instances. Mohammed himself in his conquest of Mecca displayed a fierce enough zeal; but in general no such militant intolerance as, for example, characterized the struggle of Christianity against paganism, characterized Mohammedan expansion. The fanaticism of Islam is that of much later converts, and even so Mohammedanism has normally been marked in practice by its tolerance" (164; ch. 7, "The Empire of the Arabs").
            Such tolerance is not a characteristic of ISIS, and they threaten wars of Reformation plus a Sunni vs. Shia civil war, combined with warfare against more obvious infidels.
            The serious danger is not the relative "nuisance" of terrorism nor even guerilla warfare, but full-scale war that parallels the European Wars of Religion following the Protestant Reformation in the Early Modern period, combined with the Medieval Crusades, in turn combined with the earlier expansion of Islam that marked the end of the Ancient World.
            Except that the Modern and postmodern world has a plentiful supply of nuclear weapons, including in places in reach of an ISIS successor, like Pakistan and Israel.
            The 16th- and 17th-centuryWars of Religion between Catholic and Protestant Christians killed over seven million people; if we are not careful, we in our times — with more lethal weapons and far larger populations — can make such numbers look trivial.
            And such a war would be fine with the members of ISIS with apocalyptic aspirations, and with potential opponents with similar hopes: "Onward Christian soldiers," marching into literal war, maybe joined by extremist Jews and Hindus, "depending on the breaks," all in a world awash with heavy weaponry.
*
            All of which is why we must "Be of good courage" in the face of terrorism and not panic. Our fears have led to enough damage already in Afghanistan and, far more so, Iraq. Getting sucked into Syria would compound the damage. We must indeed fight ISIS to prevent wars of religion that would be an existential threat not just to the United States but to the human world as we know it; but we must fight ISIS in cautious alliances that will not start the wars we wish to prevent.

            For Americans, terrorism is a deadly but unliely danger; for America, it is, in itself, a nuisance. A real clash of civilizations — fights to the death among the armed forces of States and a caliphate — would be massive slaughter.

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Crusades and Historical Memory (16 February 2015)

Reference: Ann McFeatters column "Mike Huckabee: Right-wing huckster or serious candidate?" / Tribune News Service 12 February 2015
---------------------------------  
         In the midst of an excellent column on Mike Huckabee, Ann McFeatters mentions President Obama's "artless remarks about the Crusades and Christian violence centuries ago. Obama is correct that great evil was perpetrated in the name of Christianity hundreds of years ago when civilization barely existed. Yet for Obama to compare that and Christian support of slavery to the horrors that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is perpetrating today was stupid in light of today's politics."
         McFeatters is right about the politics, but otherwise wrong.
         By the 21st century, historians had compiled roughly reliable figures on human atrocities, and these have been conveniently summarized by Matthew White in The Great Big Book of Horrible Things (2012).
         "The Crusades" of Western Christendom went from A.D. 1095 to 1291 and killed some three million people, with Crusaders killing not just Muslims but Jews and non-Roman-Catholic Christians as well — with the Jews and non-Roman Christians generally unable to fight back. The Albigensian Crusade against heretics ran from 1208-29 and racked up about another million deaths, and the European Wars of Religion of the 17th century killed off some 7.5 million people.
         Civilization had existed over five thousand years by 1095, and if it wasn't at a high point in darkest Europe, it was there, and truly mass slaughter is a civilized activity. "The Noble Savage" is a dangerous myth, but it takes technical sophistication, strong organization, and significant population to get massive body counts.
         And for Christendom's part of the slave trade, well, the Atlantic trade ran from 1452 to 1807 — a thriving time for European civilization — and whatever the churches' share might be, it's a share of some sixteen million victims.
         It was bad politics for President Obama "to compare" the crusades "and Christian support of slavery to the horrors that the Islamic State […] is perpetrating today," but it was wrong only because the horrors committed by the "Islamic State" so far have been minor by historical standards.
         ISIS has horrific potential, however, and recognizing the wide history of fanatical slaughter emphasizes that ISIS as a movement must be destroyed — but destroyed in a way that does not bring back jihads, crusades, and Wars of Religion where deaths are in the millions.