on paradox, splitting hairs, and the use of words like 'barbarian'
evil. a term generally appropriated to dehumanize and perform a violent gesture of othering one's enemy. makes me think of ridicule. one can perform acts of ridicule on person OR the person can do something so silly that it ridcules itself, no act, no gesture is required from an outside party. i think what happened in iraq today might be classified as something similar for evil. sunnis bombing hospitals to attack shi'ites...
barbarian: of or relating to a land, culture, or people alien and usually believed to be inferior to another land, culture, or people
i read an article the other day by an author i enjoy where he used the word barbarian in reference to jihadist killers/"insurgents." at first, it made me squirm. it felt out of line. i'm not so sure anymore. as long as one doesn't use the term to refer to iraq, islam as a whole etc., i might be just fine with calling those who bomb hospitals barbarians. because if we can't call it inferior--if we can't make that judgment call--if we invoke contingency and understanding, by what means to we judge any behavior worthy of fighting against--why fight, why get rid of it if it isn't WORSE?!?!? is collateral damage the same as strapping a bomb to yourself and attacking a hospital because somebody isn't the right kind of muslim?
i saw footage the other day of thousands of iraqis flooding out of their houses and greeting american troops with kisses and hugs. photo-ops? how did they co-ordinate that? was it manipulated? was it just one special place in iraq and everywhere else in the country the troops are hated? i'm inclined to think not. i'm inclined to think that the left is so wrapped up in anti-bush politics and has, for too long since the 'give peace a chance' mantra of the vietnam era thought that being leftist meant being pacifist, that they've forgotten that sometimes wars need to be fought, sometimes enemies need to be squashed. if these aren't enemies of peace, who are the enemies?
the united states and israel. yes, i know this argument well. israelis in american-made helicopters attacking palestinians who have no better weapons than rocks . IDF soldiers shooting palestinian children. i've seen the funeral photos. it's disgusting. and if anybody wants to tell me this is u.s. economic hegemony over oil interests and not religion that's killing these people, i'd say they're having marxist delusions. don't any of the leftists remember max weber? try a little of both, i say. but erase those books from history--the ones that each claim that the most perfect, powerful ghost gave them some land--and i think the conflict would look much different. is that even worth arguing over--would somebody actually make that argument? well, probably, but i can't deal with the problem that there are too many idiots in the world at present moment...
the united states has far to go before they can be called heroic, before they can get out of a conflict like this without lots to account for--devastating tactics, bad policies. naked self interest is evident in everything from what/who we attend to and what/who we neglect. but let's not forget--better yet, let's not paralyze ourselves from saying--that we are fighting a different war, a better war, in a better way. i know we've stooped to the level of these suicide bombers many times in many other wars and conflicts. from japanese concentration camps on american soil to my lai, from hiroshima to dresden, we've fought dirty and we've been responsible for some of the darkest moments in the history of warfare. has anything like that happened in iraq yet?
we were simultaneously heroes to occupied france and devils to burning germany. what we did in germany was unecessary and inhuman, provoked though it may have been. just as now, we are heroes to those who love freedom (yes, in this respect, bush is right!!) and democracy and, at the same time, enemies of those who love economic justice and a level political playing field. these kinds of paradoxes should be acknowledged by the left as common and should be addressed realistically. but in this war, i'm only opposed to the economic aspect. as for the level playing field--should we have gone alone or waited for the feeble corrupted u.n. to waste more time and more lives? see if saddam is on the level? keep him in his box? no way. that the power is in our hands right now is at once comforting and worrysome.
anyway, my point is that splitting hairs over different kinds of violence doesn't reveal equivalence in this conflict (not until there is evidence of some kind of violation like the ones i mentioned above), but inferiority. something more barbaric in setting out to bomb a hospital than in using less than precise weapons that may produce the unwanted result of civilian casualties. this should stop everywhere and who else to stop it? when is it over? i know the perils of a new cold war paradigm. but jihadists aren't people whose idea for the future should even be considered--caliphate as opposed to trasnplanted american late capitalist democracy, mcdonald's and all? i'll take a big mac, please...super size me...and i have the nagging suspicion that those who have experienced the beginnings of the new caliphate, say those living under the taliban, would second that fast-food motion in a second. i believe, in fact, that they already have.
barbarian: of or relating to a land, culture, or people alien and usually believed to be inferior to another land, culture, or people
i read an article the other day by an author i enjoy where he used the word barbarian in reference to jihadist killers/"insurgents." at first, it made me squirm. it felt out of line. i'm not so sure anymore. as long as one doesn't use the term to refer to iraq, islam as a whole etc., i might be just fine with calling those who bomb hospitals barbarians. because if we can't call it inferior--if we can't make that judgment call--if we invoke contingency and understanding, by what means to we judge any behavior worthy of fighting against--why fight, why get rid of it if it isn't WORSE?!?!? is collateral damage the same as strapping a bomb to yourself and attacking a hospital because somebody isn't the right kind of muslim?
i saw footage the other day of thousands of iraqis flooding out of their houses and greeting american troops with kisses and hugs. photo-ops? how did they co-ordinate that? was it manipulated? was it just one special place in iraq and everywhere else in the country the troops are hated? i'm inclined to think not. i'm inclined to think that the left is so wrapped up in anti-bush politics and has, for too long since the 'give peace a chance' mantra of the vietnam era thought that being leftist meant being pacifist, that they've forgotten that sometimes wars need to be fought, sometimes enemies need to be squashed. if these aren't enemies of peace, who are the enemies?
the united states and israel. yes, i know this argument well. israelis in american-made helicopters attacking palestinians who have no better weapons than rocks . IDF soldiers shooting palestinian children. i've seen the funeral photos. it's disgusting. and if anybody wants to tell me this is u.s. economic hegemony over oil interests and not religion that's killing these people, i'd say they're having marxist delusions. don't any of the leftists remember max weber? try a little of both, i say. but erase those books from history--the ones that each claim that the most perfect, powerful ghost gave them some land--and i think the conflict would look much different. is that even worth arguing over--would somebody actually make that argument? well, probably, but i can't deal with the problem that there are too many idiots in the world at present moment...
the united states has far to go before they can be called heroic, before they can get out of a conflict like this without lots to account for--devastating tactics, bad policies. naked self interest is evident in everything from what/who we attend to and what/who we neglect. but let's not forget--better yet, let's not paralyze ourselves from saying--that we are fighting a different war, a better war, in a better way. i know we've stooped to the level of these suicide bombers many times in many other wars and conflicts. from japanese concentration camps on american soil to my lai, from hiroshima to dresden, we've fought dirty and we've been responsible for some of the darkest moments in the history of warfare. has anything like that happened in iraq yet?
we were simultaneously heroes to occupied france and devils to burning germany. what we did in germany was unecessary and inhuman, provoked though it may have been. just as now, we are heroes to those who love freedom (yes, in this respect, bush is right!!) and democracy and, at the same time, enemies of those who love economic justice and a level political playing field. these kinds of paradoxes should be acknowledged by the left as common and should be addressed realistically. but in this war, i'm only opposed to the economic aspect. as for the level playing field--should we have gone alone or waited for the feeble corrupted u.n. to waste more time and more lives? see if saddam is on the level? keep him in his box? no way. that the power is in our hands right now is at once comforting and worrysome.
anyway, my point is that splitting hairs over different kinds of violence doesn't reveal equivalence in this conflict (not until there is evidence of some kind of violation like the ones i mentioned above), but inferiority. something more barbaric in setting out to bomb a hospital than in using less than precise weapons that may produce the unwanted result of civilian casualties. this should stop everywhere and who else to stop it? when is it over? i know the perils of a new cold war paradigm. but jihadists aren't people whose idea for the future should even be considered--caliphate as opposed to trasnplanted american late capitalist democracy, mcdonald's and all? i'll take a big mac, please...super size me...and i have the nagging suspicion that those who have experienced the beginnings of the new caliphate, say those living under the taliban, would second that fast-food motion in a second. i believe, in fact, that they already have.