America and the Middle East

For about a month now I've been reading Michael Oren's Power, Faith and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present.  The first half or so of the book is quite illuminating regarding the first almost 150 years of America and its dealings with the 'Barbary States,' and with the old Ottoman Empire.  Maybe I'll write about some of that, too, but right now I want to share part of what I read last night.

From page 527:  The 1967 war, the reverberations of which continue to convulse the region, was a primary juncture in the making of the modern Middle East.  Arab nationalism, a largely secular ideology, suffered a set-back from which it would never recover and which accelerated the rise of its rival, Islamic extremism.  Zionism was conversely reinforced by Israel's victory and, through the Jewish people's reunion with their spiritual homeland in Jerusalem and the West Bank, galvanized by a new religious zealotry.  The war was also pivotal for America's relations with the region.  For the millions of evangelical Americans who had always valued Israel as the fulfillment of biblical prophecies, the Six-Day War was an act of divine intervention designed to hasten the coming of the messianic age.  But the victory also persuaded American policymakers, many of whom had previously advised against maintaining close relations with the Jewish state, to view Israel as America's small but muscular cohort in the Cold War.

Is he overstating the importance of that war?  Yes and no?  His first conclusion is that it was a death blow to Arab nationalism.  How?  Egypt and Syria got their asses handed to them so radical Islam was born?  Sentiment in other Middle Eastern countries that would have found expression in nationalist movements was turned instead to radical Islam?  The people would rather punish the Jews and/or seek to eradicate the State of Israel than seize the reins of political power in their own countries?  I don't know, eventually all of those countries broke away from colonial rule and some of them have declared the obliteration of Israel to be their number one goal.  Is this really a 'radical Islam' issue or more of an ethnic enmity issue.  "We hate them because they exist!  And besides, they hate us!" 

I think he's onto something with his final conclusion though.  Once Israel kicked some ass and the U.S. could have them as an ally rather than a client state it was "welcome aboard"!     

I'm just up to the part, tonight, where he's about to tear into Carter (I think) over Iran.  I'll be back ...

Going To The Dogs?

There's a popular picture on facebook, I've seen it a few times, of a dog, a Pit Bull maybe, and a caption something like, 'there are no bad dogs, just  bad dog owners.'  People tend to agree with the sentiment and 'like' it. 

What if it was, 'there are no bad boys, just bad parents'?  That one not so much, right? 

Why, exactly?  Because boys can make conscious, willful decisions, right?  And dogs can't?

OK, true.  But still.  Parenting is a crucial element of character-building, right?  And if a boy gets extremely poor parenting, how much more likely is it that he will become well-acquainted with the criminal justice system?

So what am I saying?  Well, two things.  What we do with those boys as they become a problem is critically important, not just for them (cuz it's 'their own fault, right? so too bad), but for society. 

And it is in society's best interest to try to reduce (toward zero) the population of these boys.  First, by reducing/eliminating unwanted pregnancies.  Then by intervening early in these boys' lives, which is a giant can of worms on libertarian grounds so the first part is critical. 

In my opinion we could even waste money at the front end (though let's not) as long as we accomplish our objective of keeping the number of 'bad boys' to near zero.  Compared to if we do nothing at the front end and refuse to commit any resources to the issue until there's a criminal justice problem. 

So, we incorporate into the public school curriculum (state participation to be encouraged with funding), 'adult ed' classes.  Starting about sixth grade.  Keep them age-appropriate, of course.  Though by sixth grade they need to know for sure where babies come from, and how you can get pregnant even if you aren't trying to.  And stuff.  And sixth grade is a good time to be hearing a strong abstinence message.  But we have to be realistic about all possibilities too, so birth control information needs to be available.

Of course there's a lot more to cover in adult ed class than where babies come from.  Various scenarios should be 'gamed,' so kids can start to learn 'first hand' what usually happens to the guy who doesn't finish high school, or guys that smoke and drink at an early age, or guys that figure they shouldn't have to work, or guys that become daddies at a young age, (and girls too, of course).

I would love to see after school programs fully funded so all kids have safe and constructive places to go after school.  In fact, the logical extension of the idea that society should feel ultimately responsible for child development would be to offer 'after school' programs 24/7.  But this would become very expensive, no matter how much we think we'll save not waiting until we're using the d.o.j. to finally deal with it.  So the emphasis on 'adult ed' and reducing/eliminating unwanted pregnancies is paramount.

Once we do find the need to incarcerate, at a greatly reduced rate if we're smart enough, we start on them again, for the first time maybe in some cases.  Adult ed, academic classes, substance abuse counseling, whatever is needed.  Only this time they're locked in.  And we have the key.  And the sentences work for us.  "You can do the whole ten, or you could probably be out in three if you do everything we ask ... "

Will we ever do this?  Doubtful.  Why not?  I think mostly because, even if we could get wide-spread agreement that it would be cost-effective, most Americans would think it's just way too big a role for government to take.

Right?

American History

I finished another lecture series recently, this one on The History of the United States.  84 half hour lectures.  You might think it would be hard to watch/listen to 42 hours of professors lecturing on history but I thoroughly enjoyed the whole thing.  I've also read three different histories of the United States, from Columbus to the present (Paul Johnson, Howard Zinn and Tindall & Shi).  What can I say?  It's a story I never get tired of.

This series uses three professors.  Allen Guelzo takes us from the age of ocean-going explorers up to the 'great compromise' in the run-up to the Civil War.  Gary Gallagher takes us through the war and the post-war 'reconstruction' period and southern 'redemption.'  Patrick Allitt takes us the rest of the way, beginning with Industrialization and finishing with Clinton's America and the Millennium. 

In the final lecture, Reflections, Allitt lists four basic 'truths' that make the story of America unique.  First is American Exceptionalism; Allitt believes that this 'belief', which goes all the way back to the beginning, plays a role in everything that followed.

Second, "A combination of cultural and environmental circumstances enabled America to become the richest nation in the history of the world." 

Third, "America's political institutions nurtured and protected vital freedoms."

And finally, "America has welcomed and assimilated more varied immigrant groups than any other nation."

I intend to explore some of these themes in the weeks to come.  Tonight I begin with a question.  In his 'reflections' Professor Allitt states that America has consistently fallen short of its ideals but also has consistently performed 'better' than any other country.  Does he have that about right?

Book Of Genesis

I finished a DVD lecture series (24 half hour lectures) on the book of Genesis last night.  It was interesting but at times quite sleep-inducing.  If I was at all sleepy it literally forced my eyes shut and my brain to sleep.  So I only watched when I was wide awake. 

Professor Rendsburg "holds the Blanche and Irving Laurie chair in Jewish History in the Department of Jewish Studies at Rutgers University.  An expert in the history of ancient Israel and the literature of the Bible, he has spent decades immersed in the study and exploration of Qumran and other ancient sites in Israel,
Egypt and Jordan."  He is also fluent in the ancient languages of the Old Testament (mostly Hebrew) and doesn't need to rely on someone else's translation.

The thing that struck me the most watching these lectures is Rendsburg's approach; at no time does he suggest that the author (he believes in a single author for  the whole book of Genesis) was in any way 'inspired by God.'  He talks about a gifted literary craftsman recording the oral/aural lore of the region.  Over and over he shows us how the author uses various literary devices (alliteration, rhyme, etc.) to tell his story.  Consequently the series never takes a position regarding the 'truth' of the stories.  He does attempt to place them in a historical time-frame, e.g. when did Abraham live, and cites the evidence for his conclusions.

The two creation stories (yes, two) are treated as just that, two stories.  Clearly allegorical in nature and not historical.  Ditto  the flood story, which he suggests was borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh only with a local guy as hero. He also shows us the several themes that run throughout, such as the 'second son' theme.  Isaac was Abraham's second son, Jacob was Isaac's second son, etc., and suggests some possible lessons that can be drawn from these recurrent themes. 

I tried reading Genesis last fall but threw it in about half-way through.  I now feel like I have some understanding of what the point of the damn book is, how it fits in with the rest of The Bible and the other literature of its time and place.  What still puzzles me is how so many people insist on taking everything in it as literally true when it so clearly is a literary work and not an historical one.

I'm At It Again

This was sent to the Wisconsin State Journal just minutes ago!  Not all that deep, just something I had to get off my chest.

Jonah Goldberg begins a recent column (Wednesday's WSJ), "President Obama's re-election largely hinges on his ability to play young voters for suckers--again-- ... "

Do young voters think they got 'played'?  I was a 49 year old 'sophomore' at the UW in November 2008.  Yes they were excited about a candidate who spoke their language, who saw the importance of 'green energy.'  Passé?  Hardly.  After four years of no progress 'green energy' is more of an issue than ever.  These 'kids' are going to be around for sixty more years; they aren't interested in kicking the can down the road for the next generation to solve.  They ARE the next generation.  Goldberg and Romney's only hope is that they will blame Obama for the lack of progress rather than seeing it as his opponents doing just what they promised: oppose him at every turn, for political reasons.  Sure they might turn their backs on the whole system, but don't bet on it.  I was pleasantly amazed at how engaged and perceptive they are already.  And this year there'll be four more years worth of them. 

Suckers they are not!

Oops?

It has occurred to me recently that people who feel that government infringes on their liberty should think about how the 'Indians' must have felt.

Do they think, some of them anyway, 'you know what, the Indians had it about right'?  Because they didn't have much government.  Of course, they didn't need much.  Few people, lots of space, even the biggest nations were  homogeneous enough to make Hitler drool.  Who needs government in those circumstances?

But then, along came the Europeans, with their organized society and their government and their Army, infringing on the Indians' rights, in a pretty big way.  What do the Libertarians think about that?  

I'm pretty sure there's no going back, though, is there?

Mad Bomber?

Well I finished the LeMay book a week ago, or so.  Pretty good read, I had very little knowledge of the man prior to this.

As you might guess, war is a central theme of the book.  I don't believe there is an official 'LeMay Doctrine,' but if there were, it would be something like, Do not go lightly into a war.  Think long and hard.  Once in, WIN!  And that means doing whatever it takes.

"Whatever it takes" might sound a bit harsh but in LeMay's view the men in charge of prosecuting the war owe it to the people of both sides (but especially his side, of course) to bring about a swift end to hostilities and get back to normal.  If this meant bombing cities then so be it.  In WWII, especially the last six months of the war against Japan, it meant exactly that.

What it would NOT mean would be 'anything goes.'  What's the difference between 'whatever it takes' and 'anything goes'?  Efficacy.  You might do some pretty horrible things, but you only do them for the positive end of shortening the war.  If it takes dropping an Atomic Bomb, or two, you do it.  (This is LeMay talking yet.)  You do NOT do things that don't promote that end, such as abusing prisoners or allowing your soldiers to 'take liberties' with the other sides' civilians or property.  LeMay wasn't actually on the policy side, he was a strategist, but he would NOT have agreed with the Bush/Cheney 'enhanced interrogation' program.  Unless he would have been convinced that the program would produce valuable information.  Which it never did, nor would he have been so deluded, in my opinion. 

The Vietnam War frustrated LeMay in a big way.  He could not see any sense in fighting a 'limited war.'  Either fight it or don't, he thought, and if you're going to fight it, go all in.  There were reasons why the U.S. wouldn't/couldn't do that, in Vietnam and that drove LeMay crazy.  Similarly I believe he would be appalled at our Afghanistan policy, or lack thereof.  'Figure out want you want to accomplish, then go about it in the most efficient manner possible.'   Anybody think we're doing that?

Next up (already on page 70):  Power, Faith and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present.  See you in a month.  ;  )