Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
On the Relative Strength of Horses
From Lee Smith's The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations:
This is a book about Arab poilitics, society, and culture, which is to say this is a book about some Arab idea and the force they have on how people live from day to day in the region. I have tried to discuss those ideas as dispassionately as possible, although I recognize that the main thesis -- that violence is central to the politics, society, and culture of the Arabic-speaking Middle East -- is likely to cause unease. Nonetheless, the idea that people naturally prefer the strong horse to the weak one is this part of the world seems to me unassailable; it is impossible to understand the region without recognizing the significance of violence, coercion, and repression. That doesn't mean that I think the Arabs only understand force -- a charge frequently leveled by many critics against, for instance, the Bush administration. It just means, I think, that force is at the core of the way most Arabs understand politics, and that therefore there is no way to understand how the Middle East works without understanding the concept of the strong horse. It is not a moral judgment but a description.
A few weeks ago, in an interview I conducted for the blog with Deb Amos, I linked to a review of Lee Smith's new book that had been written by Max Rodenbeck, the Economist's longtime Middle East bureau chief. The review was uncompromising in its brutal criticism of Lee's book, and Lee -- who I met in Beirut in 2005 -- took some offense at my linking to it. Despite the fact that I made clear in the post that I had not yet read Lee's book and could not pass judgment on it, Lee perhaps thought I was endorsing the criticism. So I offered to give him some space on the blog to respond to Rodenbeck but never heard back from him. I then actually sat down and read the book. It's well-written, and the reportage is often engaging. But I had a major objection to the above thesis and asked Lee if he would be up for the kind of Q&A sessions I have held with other authors. Lee very politely declined, which was his right, especially since he knew that I could not offer the kind of whole-hearted endorsement I gave this book or this book or this book.
What was the problem I had with the book? I had two, really, and I do not want to get lost in the forest on account of the trees, so I'll stick to addressing the major theme. The first question I would have had for Lee would have been, "What is so Arab about the strong horse thesis?"
I know the quote about the strong horse comes from Osama bin Laden, but if you are going to write a book about how one people -- the Arabs -- live their lives according to this underlying principle, should you not also explain how other peoples are different? I asked Lee if he had ever read a book I often cite on this blog, The Logic of Violence in Civil War by Stathis Kalyvas. There are two ways of thinking about popular support, Kalyvas explains: "One way is to think of it as an attitude, preference, or allegiance, and the other is to emphasize behavior or action."
When studying civil wars and insurgencies, a funny thing happens when you start measuring popular support in terms of the latter: "The higher the level of control execised by an actor, the higher the rate of collaboration with this actor -- and inversely, the lower the rate of defection."
We all, then, more or less obey a "strong horse" principle in conflict environments. Kalyvas found this to be true everywhere from my home in East Tennessee (looking at violence during the U.S. Civil War) to his home in Greece (using microcomparitive evidence taken from the Greek Civil War). Political loyalty is less endogenous than it is continually shaped and re-shaped depending in large part on which faction or party exerts control over an area. When Lee argues Arabs obey a "strong horse" principle, he is right -- but his thesis isn't unique to the Arabs.
The second problem I have with Lee's book is what I believe to be an underdeveloped understanding of American force and its limits. About three years ago, I was having a beer with a friend in Kramerbook's when Lee walked in. We all three knew each other from Beirut and soon began talking about the intransigence of the Syrian regime. Lee shocked us by suggesting quite seriously that one option would be to bomb the presidential palace in Damascus or perhaps the residence in Latakia. I had breakfast with the same friend on Easter Sunday, and I checked with him to make sure I had remembered this conversation correctly. (I had.) What shocked me is that Lee had not seemed to think too seriously about the political effect he intended to achieve with this act of force. Coercive strategies and the force that make them possible are viable options, sure, but entire books have been written
But here is Lee, at the end of his book, conceding that "foreign powers cannot impose political solutions in the Middle East" but arguing that we should be ready to liberally use military force in the region in order to strengthen Arab allies. "Americans ... should understand that he who punishes enemies and rewards friends ... is entitled to rule." It is often said that there exist no military solutions in the Middle East -- only political solutions. "For foreign powers," Lee argues, "the reverse may be true."
Holy Clausewitz, Batman! So we're just supposed to use military force and hope folks get the message? Drop some bombs and wait for the desired political effect?
When Kalyvas writes about control and collaboration, he is talking about exercising real control over a population. The kind of control the U.S. Army exercised with tremendous resources and manpower over Baghdad in 2007. Lee is actually quite critical of counterinsurgency, as he thinks it necessarily leads to negotiations with people he feels the United States has no business talking to. ("We rightly refuse to have relations with groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, but if we continue to see our struggles in terms of COIN, in due course we will have no choice but to open up relations with all these so-called non-state actors.") He also think it distracts from dealing forcefully with Arab regimes since COIN advocates often argue on behalf of sub-national engagement strategies.
But I have served in two U.S.-led wars and studied many others, and I cannot help but agree with Gen. Sir Rupert Smith
I'll conclude with this: if you're going to make a case for the use of violence to realize a political end, you're not going to find me in the back of the room wearing a Code Pink t-shirt and waving a banner. But you will find me with my hand politely raised asking how, exactly, the use of force is meant to achieve the political end. What are the interests at stake? What are the resources available? What are the desired end states? What are the risks and possible unintended effects? How are we mitigating those risks and unintended effects, and what contingency plans are we developing for when things go wrong? (And things will go wrong.) And what is your plan, by phase, for how force will be used? By all means, let's have a conversation about the use of force. But it has to be a mature discussion, and you better think through the questions I just asked. Because hope is not a method -- not for the Obama Administration, and neither for those who casually recommend the use of force in the political sphere.
Bit off thread, but since
Bit off thread, but since you bring up strong horses....The Telegraph (UK) is endorsing David Petreaus for a POTUS 2012 run. I bring it up because I think you (or someone who hangs out here) might know the man a little better..is this a complete pipe dream? I never thought the man was political.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7549797/David...
Would appreciate any insights. I will avoid any snark for the next 7 days.
This is the best post on
This is the best post on this blog in 2010, and it's not even close.
Goodness, it would be hard
Goodness, it would be hard to state more categorically than David Petraeus has over the past few weeks how much he does NOT want to run for president. See http://bit.ly/9b150i "I thought I'd said 'no' about as many ways as I could. I really do mean no," Petraeus said. "I've tried quoting a country song 'What part of 'no' don't you understand?' but I really do mean that," Petraeus continued. "I feel very privileged to be able to serve our country in uniform. I'm honored to continue to do that as long as I can continue to contribute, but I will not ever run for political office, I can assure you." and http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/05/petraeus-201005Gulliver, I wonder what that
Gulliver, I wonder what that says about my blogging in 2010...Question re: Lee Smith,
Question re: Lee Smith, since you seem to know him -- does he speak and/or read any Arabic at all? I ask because a) I've heard very conflicting things (according to some sources, he's fluent, but others seem to think he's got just a "background in," yanni, studied it once and can sound out the letters). I can't tell exact how my assessment of his work would be affected by knowing whether he knows the language(s) or not, but it seems somehow relevant....*
*in another universe, far far away, people who don't know Arabic cannot become Middle Eastern experts, the way people in our universe who don't speak English can't be experts on America. Alas, this universe I fear is quite distant.
I think Lee studied for a
I think Lee studied for a year at ALI in Cairo prior to arriving in Beirut. So while I do not think he speaks Arabic well enough to conduct an interview, I do think he has some facility with the language. Probably somewhere in between the two poles you describe.This is also off-topic, but
This is also off-topic, but I thought you might be interested. I know very little about the circumstances through which this video was released but it could become a big deal in the near future.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/wikileaks-releases-video-depicting-us-m...
Thanks for the David
Thanks for the David Petreaus feedback.
This was a great post - and you had me at the end with the raise your hand politely bit.
Gulliver, I wonder what that
Gulliver, I wonder what that says about my blogging in 2010...
I just think it's reflective of the new approach. Not supposed to be a rip. This post reminds us of the depth and breadth of reading and thoughtful analysis that first made this blog popular. I get too pissed-off by silly, shallow culturalist explanations to calmly explain how and why Kalyvas shoots holes in this sort of pseudo-anthropology, so I'm impressed.
elf -- I saw that story in the Telegraph this morning. It's hilarious to me that it crops up the week after Petraeus has unequivocally stated that he's not interested, rather than before, when there was at least some uncertainty about it. The article was also sort of misleading (whoa, shocker for the British press!), like when it notes that the "first primary of the 2012 presidential election" will be held in New Hampshire... without commenting on the fact that the first primary is ALWAYS in New Hampshire, and that Petraeus is actually from there. It's also hilarious to me that the writer references Petraeus's comments last week being "almost Shermanesque", while cutting off the quote in such a way as to avoid telling readers that Petraeus ACTUALLY INVOKED SHERMAN in his statement.
And on top of that, the piece pretty obviously rips generously from the Bowden Vanity Fair article.
I agree w/Gulliver. This is
I agree w/Gulliver. This is a great post. Keep up the good work.
Penn, that is a very disturbing video with disturbing implications. It also grates on my nerves to hear our soldiers laugh in these circumstances. War is ugly.
Patrick Lang has a analysis
Patrick Lang has a analysis at http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2010/04/israel-versus...
"The U.S. can at this point
"The U.S. can at this point do more unilaterally by imposing and enforcing sanctions on companies that do business in Iran's energy industry. But so far the Administration has shown considerably less enthusiasm for these measures than has even a Democratic Congress." - Wall Street Journal
Did you and I read the same Wall Street Journal editorial? There is quite a bit in that article about sanctions and extending nuclear umbrellas - it's not all military strikes against Iran and whatnot. I have no idea if the above is a good idea, but there is more there than strikes in that editorial, yes?
And hope is very much the plan of every single administration, Republican or Democrat. Hope that: we can invade nations and make them democratic, convince nations and various other actors that their interests ought to be different, bend the cost-curve of the national deficit by implementing pages and pages of Health Care legislation (the second and third-order effects of which no administration could ever hope to game out.)
Sorry, hope is very much a part of the plan. It always is.
Madhu: Theres a difference,
Madhu: Theres a difference, in that war has much more fluxing variables than economy. In economy you can make pretty accurate best case/worst case scenarios and rely on the situation to have a certain self-stabilizing factor, because most factors are rational. In warfare it tends to the opposite, as evidenced in Iraq.
"In economy you can make
"In economy you can make pretty accurate best case/worst case scenarios and rely on the situation to have a certain self-stabilizing factor,"
Oh really?
Then why aren't we managing our own economic affairs much better? Why is the potential debt-crises flu hitting everyone so hard?
:)
Madhu: From a liberal social
Madhu: From a liberal social democratic pov, it would be because the state does not do *enough* and so is left to the flux of the marketplace. In Norway, the state owns 5-45% of most of the national industries, because it has reinvested just like any other firm. That means it can control its enviromenty much better. If the government employees are competent, that is. (Read Bruce Sterling "Distraction" for a brilliant scenario where the US surrenders to Holland in 2025 because they are just so much better at running a state ;-))
Smith did a Cspan program
Smith did a Cspan program last month at the Hudson Institute. On the dais along with Smith were Hudson CEO Kenneth Weinstein, Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs Jeffrey Feltman, and all-around good guy and exporter of democracy Elliot Abrams.
Show me your friends and I'll tell you who you are.
Obama is going to have his hands full after our latest sanctions against Iran fail. These types of men will be banging drums for an attack .... and so will Dems like Chuck Schumer, Evan Bayh, etc. God help us.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/291578-1
Fnord, completely offtopic,
Fnord, completely offtopic, but as I see you here and you discuss these things, maybe you could explain something to me. I always wonder how the Scandinavians are able to keep their budgets in solid state. It is as if the normal rule of political incentives did not apply to the Scandinavian culture.
In my own country (Czechia), politicians will borrow any money and promise just anything to the gullible population, just to get 4 more years in office, then spend the office time distributing dubious spending money in ways that would make drunken sailor blush. And most of the public investments are done for ridiculously high prices, low quality and by corporations founded by the politician's colleagues, friends or relatives. The primitives will keep voting them, because they forgeet the unfulfilled promises from 4 years ago; or just to get modest (~ 30 Euro / month) raises in entitlements. The less gullible part of the electorate is nauseated beyond any reasonable levels, but there is simply no alternative, as all the parties from left to right engage in this kind of cronyism in the moment when they reach office. You should see our roads after the winter - huge holes every 10 meters, some places remind me of Baghdad roads peppered with explosions, but in our case, it is only work of mother nature and incompetence. You have to watch out constantly and swerve in order to avoid them, or you'll break your car, and, of course, the authorities will not compensate you. And this is in a relatively developed state whose tax burden is over 45% of the GDP, so it can't be said that taxes are too low to get things in order. Rather, they disappear in black swamp of corruption. Any tax raise will just feed the corruption here more.
From my travels around Europe, things are even worse in Hungary, Italy or Greece. Much worse. Everywhere, primitive populism buys enough votes and the rest of the terms is spent in personal enrichment of the political elites.
How come that Scandinavians avoided this kind of corruption plague? Is it consequence of Lutheran morality? Or do you have that effective and independent judiciary? (And if yes: who guards the judiciary itself from corruption?) Or is it consequence of fiscal transparency? Or does your electorate just have good knowledge of economic principles?
Please tell me. I am unable to parse your exception to the general rule of corrupt, rotten and heavily indebted states that seems to apply approximately from Warsaw and Paris to the south (and yes, I know that Austrians and Swiss are exceptions too).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0&feature=player_embedded#
Penn... that is a crazy
Penn... that is a crazy video.
Good article - but this does
Good article - but this does sort of stand out: "When Kalyvas writes about control and collaboration, he is talking about exercising real control over a population. The kind of control the U.S. Army exercised with tremendous resources and manpower over Baghdad in 2007."
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8603938.stm
"Two journalists working for Reuters were killed on the day the incident took place in July [12] 2007."
The general claim now being made is that the journalist's TV camera and telephoto lens were mistaken for an RPG. In the video, the helicopter crew sounds panicked, and opens fire as soon as the group comes out from behind a wall.
www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/05/video-appears-forces-firing-unarmed-suspects-baghdad/
Doesn't look too good...
Julian Assange of WikiLeaks released the video at the National Press Club in Washington. He described the U.S. troops as callous and the shootings as 'another day at the office.' "The behavior of the pilots is like they're playing a video game," said Assange. "It's like they want to get high-scores in that computer game." Reuters attempted to obtain the 38-minute video without success through the Freedom of Information Act. Assange would not say specifically about how WikiLeaks obtained the video.
It is worth noting here that about one helicopter a month was being shot down around Baghdad at the time - but does that justify free-fire zones in urban areas? Firing on people with no weapons, who were simply trying to grab the wounded and take them to a hospital? No control at all...
G.D, Humor is a tool for
G.D,
Humor is a tool for people in bad situations to help them cope. Most humor is to some degree callous.
Julian Assange of WikiLeaks - can come to a war zone and show us how to do it the sensitive, progressive way. What do you want them to do? Cry every time they kill? Our troops are actually incredibly restrained. If we had urban free fire zones BTW the war would have ended about mid 2004.
He will not say how WikiSneaks obtained the tape - oh simple. They obtained because we are breeding a culture of sniveling rats. My bets on a TOC jock or some righteous twit at CID. Whoever did it should know they compromised the investigation. To the detriment no
Pointing things that look like weapons in a warzone - great way to get killed.
What evidence do you have
What evidence do you have that proves that US Forces exerted "control" over the Baghdad population in 2007? If it did exert such control, what kind of tactical force was applied to do so and what were the mechanics of that control? Presence? If it was presence then how did control of all of Baghdad (as you say) extend from the paltry number of US outposts relative to the size and population of the place?
Ironically with regard to the history of the Vietnam War the majority of current scholarship on it convincingly shows that that violence was reduced in the rural countryside between 69 and 72; but it was not reduced because of better Coin methods practiced under Abrams. No it was reduced because the rural countryside was depopulated from the death and destruction brought about by military operations which either forcibly or "willingly" caused people to move into the cities or to larger villages under government control. In short, and contrary to the Sorley myth, it was firepower that pacified (at least temporarily) the rural countryside.
For current scholarly works in this regard see David Elliot's masterly two volume work on social and revolutionary change in the Mekong Delta; and Mai Elliot’s recently released monograph on Rand in Vietnam; Thomas Ahern's 2010 book on the CIA and Coin in Vietnam; and also Richard Hunt's monograph on Pacification.
gian
Going back to violence in
Going back to violence in Arab politics...and strong horses...it appears someone doesn't like the results of the recent elections in Iraq, or the Son's of Iraq.
http://challengecoin.blogspot.com/2010/04/embassies-and-executions.html
SOI getting it from AQ and the government. Including SoI who won seats in Parliament.
I think the problem with Lee
I think the problem with Lee is that the guy does not really get into the Middle East. He is a so called academic, but I don't really see him leaving the ex pat communities or challenging his perspective by hanging out with the common Arab bloke.
The strong horse principal... you know the British used to always back the weak horse to support balance in their day. But really, is using hard American power to do anything in the Middle East the most efficient, let alone the most effective way to accomplish anything? It is definitely is not when it when there are no political means in place.
The reason why is exactly the Syrian model in which Lee suggest. The Assad regime may not be great for US interests... but the Alawite state is probably much weaker than say, a Sunni or Shia state. Thus, American force vis-a-vis Syria, like the rest of the Middle East, is better served using the soft power--or better yet, outsourcing force to whatever other local Tom, Dick or Hussin that is willing to use it on our behalf. Like the Sons of Iraq program.
But that being said, force is the language of the Middle East.
That was very polite of you,
That was very polite of you, Andrew, to deal with Lee's ridiculous premise in this way as opposed to how The National review guy dealt with it. Especially since the guy obviously has some ulterior motives - see the quote below:
We rightly refuse to have relations with groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, but if we continue to see our struggles in terms of COIN, in due course we will have no choice but to open up relations with all these so-called non-state actors."
I will seriously bet you a year's worth of drinks that Lee's one of those guys who thinks there's a "clash of civilizations" going on, and "the US needs to support Israel, the Only Democracy In The Middle East, against the barbarian horde - oops, I'm sure he means the Arabs as Lee sees them.
I wonder if he's going to
I wonder if he's going to come out with "don't change horses in midstream" theme? Most of what he says is recycled garbage from the Cold War era...
Back then, it was a "Clash of Civilizations" as well, wasn't it? In reality, of course, it was an economic battle, not an ideological one - which is also true in the Middle East today. The ideology is only there for window dressing, because if the public knew that the real goal was simply control of the oil supply, that is, control of Middle East and Central Asian oil exports as a means of extracting 'rents' - your basic neocolonial approach - well, who would send their kids off to die for that?
Force isn't the language of the Middle East - oil & gas is the language of the Middle East - and these "wars" are just efforts to control those flows and thereby grow rich - not that the American people will benefit at all from this - the oil goes to the highest bidder, not to the plebes.
P.S. consider this on that video:
[Iran has] intensified the regime's "security approach" to society, which means they see very ordinary people - students, activists, humanitarian workers, scholars, journalists, dual-nationals, etc. - as threats to their security, threats that must be confronted through security measures such as harassment, intimidation, and imprisonment. - Roxana Saberi, Iranian-American journalist.
Is Iran alone in that kind of paranoid behavior? Witness the U.S. government response to the Wikileaks video. Why did they tail the Wikileaks people? Why did they lie about it? Why did they try so hard to keep it from being released? Why do they still think PR matters more than reality?
@wikileaks off topic. Been
@wikileaks off topic.
Been reading comments about the video on Reddit. Claimed former service members, giving due to the armchair nature of their perspective, seem to be more uncomfortable with subsequent targeting of the van than with the quick reaction to the perceived the RPG threat. A fair bit of discussion focuses on the difference between what one may do, within the ROE, and what one should do, as a professional. Disagreement over emotional/stress context of decision process occurs, with views ranging from "they genuinely thought they were helping [by killing insurgents]" to "they wanted trigger time." Claimed former helicopter pilots seem somewhat more critical than former soldiers in general.
However, an excellent point is made, that it is unknown (in the discussion) whether or not the Reuters journalists might have been embedded with an actual group of insurgents, something that Namir Noor-Eldeen had apparently been known to do. An RPG was reportedly found on one of the corpses. A full-length version of the video, without editing or editorializing, is said to be available here.
@Abu Muqawama - It is an
@Abu Muqawama - It is an obvious point that you raised about the Strong Horse principle applying to everyone, not just Arabs: Hobbes said it, Machiavelli said it etc.
But its truth applies on a spectrum: in the West, other principles supervene on the Strong Horse principle, i.e. force is not the primary tool that people understand because we have and value democracy, political liberalism etc.
It seems that Lee Smith's thesis endorses the tribalism narrative of the Middle East, and he is saying that because there is not a strong tradition of either democracy or liberalism, the Strong Horse principle has a greater effect in that region than on others. He even says this in a way that is non-offensive, and I paraphrase: "People in the West tend to think that democracy and liberalism are the normal trajectory of the world but this is obviously not true."
Sure, this goes against our desires to see democracy spread in the Middle East, or against our recurrent attempts at "nation building," but it sure seems like Smith is on to something.
because there is not a
because there is not a strong tradition of either democracy or liberalism, the Strong Horse principle has a greater effect in that region than on others.
even places w/a strong tradition of democracy and liberalism have tribal tendencies. our own military is tribal. as a demonstration of that tendency observe the defense of the video by elf.
show us how to do it the sensitive, progressive way. What do you want them to do? Cry every time they kill?
it is no coincidence video games are used for recruitment nor any coincidence the shooters responded w/the same sounds i hear from my son and his friends playing w/their digital toys. videogames serve as a desensitized conditioning process that programs a reward/release stimulation effect. the eagerness in anticipation of permission to make the kill didn't sound like anyone 'coping', but everyone finds a way to cope w/war lest they go insane.
that is just one example of tribal. we are tribal in nature, we just don't call it that. democracy doesn't wash away our tribalism. heck the tea partiers are a tribe.
I am just thankful I don't
I am just thankful I don't have to hear about the top five bars in beirut from someone who says the city "pulses with eros."
Just creepy!
Let's add this up for a
Let's add this up for a minute.
The message of the COINdinistas in the military direction: "we know coercion works, but it's politically impossible. Trust us, we're professors." The message of the COINDinistas in the political direction: "coercion can't work. Trust us, we're military professionals."
Let me paraphrase: "we could endorse coercion, but that would end our appearances on CNN, careers at Harvard, book deals, etc. Not that we are venal, exactly - just pragmatic. Therefore, the US military must continue walking around Pashtoonistan, handing out candy, Bibles and money, and getting blown up. Trust us, we're political and military experts. Why, we appear on CNN and have careers at Harvard and get book deals. Also, we passed Ranger hazing and commanded a company once or something, for nine months in West Bumfuckistan."
Frankly, some of us cheered when we saw the jihadi journalists of al-Reuters getting lit up. If you sign up to embed with the enemy, you sign up to be disemboweled with the enemy. What - should journalists provide automatic immunity to air cover for a party of armed guerrillas? If you have a press card, are you automatically a human shield? And is there still a difference between war and reality TV? Discuss.
Alas, there's only one way to save America's military effort in Afghanistan. Transfer full command to those guys on the Apache tape, now. I get the feeling they understand the difference between war and reality TV.
Also, if you want a serious
Also, if you want a serious answer to the question, I'd say it's just impossible.
At this point, hiring the US foreign policy establishment - Defense and State together - to occupy a foreign nation, is hiring nuns to run a whorehouse. It could consume the entire GDP of North America, and it would be unable to occupy Marja, Afghanistan, a town of 80,000 Pashtoons in the middle of nowhere. This whole machine is incapable of any organized coercion. It simply cannot exercise physical force, in any but the most passive-aggressive manner (ie: drone warfare).
If USG wanted to occupy Afghanistan by coercion, it could just read C.E. Callwell - of the Royal Artillery. He's dead, but he's detailed. Colonel Callwell can tell you exactly how to quell a little Pashtoon uprising. With drones - not to mention cars, planes, and helicopters - he would probably consider it an appropriate task for his 12-year-old daughter.
But Colonel Callwell worked for the Raj, not DoD. And certainly not DoS! Lesson: if you want to do the Raj's job, you need the Raj. Or at least, you need to think like the Raj. The details are all obvious. And the perspective is impossible.
I think none of you know
I think none of you know anything about horses......or muslims.
AM: The most damning
AM:
The most damning observation Max Rodenbeck makes about Smith's book is that the fundamental notion of "Sunni Arabs" ruling over Shias for several centuries is simply WRONG! From the heavily Persian-infuenced Abbasids to the Fatimids to various Turkish tribes to Mongols to Mamluks from the Caucusus and the Ottomans [including Egypt's Albanian dynasty] to Berber Kingdoms across the Maghreb and Spain, one of his most central historical theses is simply wrong! I wonder if Smith ever seriously read the history of the region [in any language.] If an author gets wrong something that basic, it is hard to take anything else he has to say as an "expert" seriously. Rodenback, no starry-eyed naif about the region in which he has lived most of his life, points out many other equally aggregious mistakes and misunderstandings starting with its central thesis.
Smith's book is simply a rehash of the well-worn and wrong-headed ideas that led to disastrously false assumptions about what what we could do in the region as well as and to Abu Ghraib and other detention scandals, ideas striaght out of the much discredited Raphael Patai's "The Arab Mind" which brought us notions about Arabs and force, Arabs and sexual humiliation, etc. It is ironic that Smith goes after Edward Said, who pointed out in 1978 that such WWII-era "national character studies" were discredited in the academy as racist EXCEPT with regards to Arabs and Muslims. While many contemporary social scientists today challenged and have revised much of the theoretical bases of Said's ideas, they continue to see as valid the cross-cultural prejudices [and dangers] behind works such as Smith's book.
For anyone who has the benefit of more than a quarter century of engagement with the Arab region, the idea that US policies are behind anti-Americanism and AQ attacks is a no-brainer. To psychoanalyze collectively hundreds of millions of human beings in order to dismiss what they clearly state as their grievances is a rather pathetic way to defend a certain political view in the US is certainly not helpful to US discussions of our Middle East policies. It was good that Gen. Patraeus stood up and stated the obvious, adding his credibility to the conversation in spite of the predictable reaction of many.
PT
"Nonetheless, the idea that
"Nonetheless, the idea that people naturally prefer the strong horse to the weak one is this part of the world seems to me unassailable; it is impossible to understand the region without recognizing the significance of violence, coercion, and repression. "
Look at the US politcal/media establishment; give them a guy who even pretends to be 'Big Daddy', in a laughable sense, and their knees get weak, and their panties are soaked :)
!Barry - that was
!Barry - that was hysterical.
Uh...you're not BHO are you...? :O
@Raised Hand - What's Arab
@Raised Hand - What's Arab about backing the stronger horse? Maybe nothing but there's something anti-Western about it.
Really. Bear with me for a brief social history: the West (to the extent that this is a useful generalization) has developed in a area where Christian values dominate society. Since the Reformation and culminating in the Enlightenment, we have shifted towards a secular society with religion in the 'private sphere', but the fact remains that the Crucifixion is a part of our cultural DNA. And with it is the message that somehow the “first shall be last”. The Realpolitik may rationally push to back the stronger horse but the sociocultural influences embedded in our culture whisper that “Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth ”.
I remember watching a football game as a child with my grandfather on Saturday morning. It was a college game and he didn't know either team, but the paper said the blue team was favored to win, so, he cheered for the brown. “Always root for the underdog”, he said. I know that's just one personal anecdote. But Westerns, and Americans in particular, don't always back the stronger horse, sometimes we finish the words of Matthew and say, “and the last, first”. This tendency might be completely subconscious but who doesn't love a little ironic reversal, or a good David and Goliath story? Although the Quran mentions David and Goliath (2:251) the story does not have the cultural currency as it does in the West and the Quran does not tell the story of Jesus most famous sermon.
So, coming from a different cultural DNA, non-Westerns, including Islamists, might indeed pick the stronger horse more often. Of course, Lee Smith doesn't make that argument so Abu Muqawama's point still stands, but I think it a interesting discussion point.
Bravo, Aquilo -- the current
Bravo, Aquilo -- the current Christianized West certainly does not, to such a great extent, glorify the strong horse.
We glorify the righteous, justice oriented horse -- and all too often the weaker horse that yet somehow wins because of justice. Harry Potter & Frodo Baggins and most heros of most books are the underdogs. Even Jean-Claude Van Damme's early movies involved him looking like the underdog, before winning (Kickboxer, Bloodsport, Lion Heart).
I came here from Michael Totten's reprint of Lee's response, which is pretty strong:
a) you're missing his point about the strong horse (I think you missed it), and
b) his key point is that the USA should be punishing, directly, Syria and Iran, two regimes which have been, directly, supporting the killing of US soldiers. I agree with him, but you don't. (I also thought Bush should invade Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur; and that the US needs to learn how to be a better world policeman/ nation builder, rather than deny the role we're taking on.)
You correctly state that force has real limits -- I think Lee strongly agrees with you!
Yet perhaps advocates different limits of force.
(Without quite saying it, you seem to imply acceptance of Iran getting nukes, is that your opinion? If not, what do you propose to stop them?)
You ask lots of good questions at the end of your post above, so let me ask you about your own Iraq-Afghan-Pakistan-Iran strategy:
how, exactly, the use of force is meant to achieve the political end. What are the interests at stake? What are the resources available? What are the desired end states? What are the risks and possible unintended effects? How are we mitigating those risks and unintended effects, and what contingency plans are we developing for when things go wrong? (And things will go wrong.) And what is your plan, by phase, for how force will be used?
I hope to read more of your answers to these questions.
Attacking the answers of others is not quite the same as offering your own answers.
RE: "Lee had not seemed to
RE: "Lee had not seemed to think too seriously about the political effect he intended to achieve with this act of force." - Abu Muqawama
FROM TED RALL, 07/22/10: ...Umberto Eco's 1995 essay "Eternal Fascism" describes the cult of action for its own sake under fascist regimes and movements: "Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation."...
...Robert O. Paxton defined fascism as "a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."...
SOURCE - http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/22-1
This site is remarkable with
This site is remarkable with its rich contents. I am searching for my projects topic regarding the testking 220-701 and it’s an other term related to it that is testking 70-649 both of them are essential for my thesis. I have visited the site about the testking 70-642 and testking 70-646 But it’s not up to the mark. Could you please guide me!
If you need to surprise this
If you need to surprise this love inside of your life using a silver Pandora Necklaces on the woman birthday, ones anniversary, Valentine's or Holiday, then purchasing on Ebay an important event smart switch. The past time WE checked you can get over SOME, 100 heart Pandora Necklace to generate sale certainly , there. Have a look at almost every other retail outlet or sometimes bricks plus mortar Pandor jewelry store you now won't receive a better availablility of silver Pandora charms that can be purchased. It looks like a metalic heart necklace could be a modern, the latest Pandora Charms statement. Silver furthermore looks ideal on women of the certain age who've decided likely going dreary.
If you need to surprise this
If you need to surprise this love inside of your life using a silver Pandora Necklaces on the woman birthday, ones anniversary, Valentine's or Holiday, then purchasing on Ebay an important event smart switch. The past time WE checked you can get over SOME, 100 heart Pandora Necklace to generate sale certainly , there. Have a look at almost every other retail outlet or sometimes bricks plus mortar Pandor jewelry store you now won't receive a better availablility of silver Pandora charms that can be purchased. It looks like a metalic heart necklace could be a modern, the latest Pandora Charms statement. Silver furthermore looks ideal on women of the certain age who've decided likely going dreary.
Good post! It has raised some
Good post! It has raised some valid points. Great work, keep it up. I love returning back to this site and reading the quality content you always have on offer.mago garden
The world's most popular
The world's most popular marathon, the ING New York City Marathon?, is just around the corner, and if you are one of the nearly 40,000 individuals taking asics shoes to the streets on that day, the best of luck to you—you're in for an incredible race experience! While the race may be the main gucci outlet event, you should make the most of your time in the asics running shoes Big Apple, especially if you're a first-timer to the city. If you're able to shuffle around the gucci shoulder bags city after the marathon, reward yourself with lots of sightseeing! In terms of food, New York is world-renowned, offering everything from food-cart falafel to the finest in high-society dining. Just walking New York's streets gucci shoes will expose you to a asics gel plethora of enticing smells, so you needn't worry about going hungry. Still, if you have a hankering for something special, it always pays to do your research ahead of time. For a hearty prerace pasta dinner, consider a visit to Little Italy, located in lower Manhattan, or wander over to the West Village, which boasts a number of highly praised Italian restaurants.
Marathon is an interesting
Marathon is an interesting sport. I love it. thanks to the post author share his ideas with us.
hemorrhoid treatment
Great information. I think it
Great information. I think it is very interesting. many thanks should be given to the author.
how to get a tan
Local time on October 17, NFL
Local time on October 17, NFL Jerseys week 6 regular season battle, the New England Patriots 23-20 win over the Baltimore Ravens at home, kicker Gostkowski in the regular time and overtime, scored the final two free kick 2 minutes, respectively, to help patriotic were tied and the go-ahead score.
The last time the two sides clash in the beginning of this year, New England Patriots Jerseys in the playoffs to 14-33 on a humiliating defeat, so this home for the game in the Patriot also contains a means of revenge, no one thought the kicker Gorst Khodorkovsky to become the protagonist, and he left in the second half and extra time 1 minute 56 seconds 1 minute 57 seconds left scored a free kick each, respectively, the Patriots pull back from the edge of the cliff and kicked an opponent Cliff, the two sides have emerged in overtime repeated attacks on the poor, abandoned Ravens play 3 times, 2 times the Patriots played abandoned. Seattle had just joined last week, WR Dane Branch today is the Patriots star, he finished the ball from 97 yards, the fourth quarter touchdowns in the first 5 yards catching the ball ed hardy outlet the score, and shows out and the chemistry between Brady, overtime, the ball is advancing two consecutive Branch 23 yards and 10 yards for the winning free-kick created the conditions. Brady 44 times the passing and only 27 were successful, the captured and killed three times and steals two times, advancing from only 292 yards passing score of 69.5, far less than 2 touchdowns ed hardy clothes came not ed hardy steals the Flacco.
Secure your own legs from
Secure your own legs from accidents tend to be essential with regard to the rocks hockey players. Hockey is often a rough activity which necessitates good safety, so you can’t be careless in the basic safety products. The employment of products will assist gucci sale should you have knee conditions, minor to reasonable and may aid avert fresh wounds occurring in the foreseeable future. This specific transition is actually stylish, gucci handbags discreet in addition to light in addition to carries a solid construction to fulfill that involves regarding athletes challenging within higher impact athletics for instance hockey. And also the light design won’t minimize activity at all.A good number of wounds might be handled and perhaps prevented through DonJoy knee ligament brace Complete Power comprises of reasonable to extreme ACL as well as PCL instability in addition to hyperextension. It might be employed in treatment once medical procedures as well as ACL reconstruction PCL. Aim to put on Green Bay Packers jerseys the far east when ever. That outfit includes a 4 Details lever system mechanics, which assists send out that pounds place to the structures through 4 details, relieve knee agony.
Running is hard work and
Running is hard work and takes a lot out of us; that's why post-run strengthening with your group is such a great idea. Not only does it aid recovery and help prevent injuries, but the time you spend together as a group also provides the opportunity to reinforce your shared goals. Focus your post-run routine on two areas: stretching and gucci outlet online strengthening. Running causes our muscles to tighten, so stretching is essential to keep them elongated. It also decreases soreness and helps prevent lactic acid from building up in those muscles. Leading stretches is an important task. Your job is to ensure that each person performs balanced stretching—that both sides of gucci sale the body are being worked evenly. Remind your group not to overstretch, as doing so can lead to injury. Move slowly and deliberately, and hold each stretch for 15 seconds. Keep an eye out to make sure no one is overexerting; stretches gucci shoes should be easy, smooth and relaxing.
Ray Ban Aviator Ray Ban
Ray Ban Aviator
Ray Ban Wayfarer
Oakley Goggles
Ray Ban Cats
Ray Ban Caravan
Oakley Sunglasses
Ray Ban Sunglasses
Ray Ban Cockpit
Gucci Backpack
Gucci Boston Bag
Gucci Messenger Bag
Gucci Bamboo
Gucci 1973
Gucci Hysteria
Gucci Joy
Gucci Pelham
Gucci Sukey
Hermes Kelly Bag
Hermes Birkin
Gucci Diaper Bag
Rolex Gmt Master ii
Ray Ban Wayfarer II
Ray Ban New Wayfarer
Ray Ban Original Wayfarer
Ray Ban Wayfarer Sunglasses
Oakley A Frame
Oakley Ambush
Add your comment