So I really did have something (relativey) light planned for today's entry...
But, like everyone else, I have to comment on London. First, it's a terrible and reprehensible tragedy. I send my condolences and thoughts to folks in London, and I wish the authorities the best in finding the perpetrators.
Yesterday, I spent the day in the library. Today, I took the train to the northside. It was a bit strange on the "L;" I couldn't help but think about bombs and be stressed, especially while waiting for the train. Once I was *on,* everything was much better some reason. There were police and CTA workers on many of the cars, and officers with dogs on the platforms. This was, honestly, my first sort of experience with this, on this scale (I've seen cops on the train before after all). When 9/11 happened, I was living in Bloomington-Normal. While B-N *is* the world headquarters of State Farm Insurance, there wasn't a lot of excessive worry about being a direct victim of violence myself. While the odds of that are still unlikely of course, they're a bit *more* likely than they were 3 years ago. I'm hardly paralyzed with fear - but I am a bit more wary. It's pretty wretched on the whole.
Anyway, enough about my self-centered issues ...
When facing this kind of situation, pretentious types that are distressed and avoiding reading their Adam Smith (side note: seriously, how many examples does this guy need? No wonder the book is like 1,000 fucking pages long....) cannot help but take assessement of the war on terror and wonder what to do. Of course, there are plenty of thoughtful (?) types around who argue for two equally ridiculous positions:
1. Insane military jingoists who want to find something and blow it up RIGHT NOW.
2. Weird hippie types that point to how bad the West is to everyone else and advocate hugs or something. These folks make the argument that somehow the US and its allies are just "reaping what it sowed."
[This is by far a much crueller charactaization of these positions than is fair. But you get the point: overly idealist diplomats versus hopped up commandos.]
I fail to understand why anyone would endorse either of these positions. They are, quite simpy, not going to do anything. I mean, I know that taking the "middle course" always seems sort of .... wishy-washy compared to good ol' direct stances. But really, Aristotle had a thing or two figured out...
1. Yes, in fact, some kind of military response is necessary. There are people who want to hurt other (innocent) people - we shouldn't let that happen. These folks are your enemies and they are pissed - they are not about to be persuaded (or at least, not all of them are). So, martial response is justiifed - though it should be done right.
Given that this is not a state actor exactly and the preference for terrorist cells to hide "in the open" (re: near innocent people and in bustling parts of ciites), pillaging warfare is a bad idea. This is a *political* war against a bad set of people in an otherwise A-OK group of people. Killing innocents is wrong b/c it's, ya know, *wrong* AND it's not going to win you any friends in this war. So, a careful, "police" style approach when "kicking ass," when possible, is the best way to go.
2. BUT, that said, we have to remember that little fact again: this is a political war. (All wars are about politics of course. I mean political in "win the hearts and minds sense;" "PR" war might be the better phrase). It is a mistake to believe that the "terrorists" are just plain evil. Some of them might be. But some of them are perfectly normal folks, who suffer poverty or oppression and end up doing bad things. I mean, we don't think all Germans are evil right? OK then. There are *structural* elements at work here too.
This is where the more diplomatic, hippie-types have something valid to say: just crushing terrorists is not enough. If you do not solve the problems that let terrorists thrive, you get more terrorists. Fighting terrorists *badly* (re: loads and loads of "collateral damage) ALSO gets you more terrorists (duh). In fact, it is worth remebering that most suicide bombers are *not* fanatics - but rather well-educated, politically minded goal seekers. While misguided, they are *rational.* (Just like most Nazis were normal people - a la Hannah Arendt's "banality of evil" or Christopher Browning's work on execution squads in Poland).
Boiled down, this means that figthing terroris means structural changes - addressing the concerns of the oppressed, spreading wealth, and fixing international governing bodies to represent more interests. This doesn't mean denying the agency (re: the choice and responsibility) of terrorists; but it is a more realistic way to deal with the problem than just trying to scare everyone in the whole fucking world "straight."
Fighthing terrorism, in the end, involves short- *and* long-term strategies. Strangely, I do not think this is a lesson lost on politicians, diplomats, or bureaucrats. I think that *we're* the problem this time - we get caught up in our dogmatic answers to the problem (which are more about our domestic political differences than anything else), and miss the whole fucking point. Then we get sound bytes and ridiculous policies, rather than anything effective. Dammit.
Have a good weekend.
But, like everyone else, I have to comment on London. First, it's a terrible and reprehensible tragedy. I send my condolences and thoughts to folks in London, and I wish the authorities the best in finding the perpetrators.
Yesterday, I spent the day in the library. Today, I took the train to the northside. It was a bit strange on the "L;" I couldn't help but think about bombs and be stressed, especially while waiting for the train. Once I was *on,* everything was much better some reason. There were police and CTA workers on many of the cars, and officers with dogs on the platforms. This was, honestly, my first sort of experience with this, on this scale (I've seen cops on the train before after all). When 9/11 happened, I was living in Bloomington-Normal. While B-N *is* the world headquarters of State Farm Insurance, there wasn't a lot of excessive worry about being a direct victim of violence myself. While the odds of that are still unlikely of course, they're a bit *more* likely than they were 3 years ago. I'm hardly paralyzed with fear - but I am a bit more wary. It's pretty wretched on the whole.
Anyway, enough about my self-centered issues ...
When facing this kind of situation, pretentious types that are distressed and avoiding reading their Adam Smith (side note: seriously, how many examples does this guy need? No wonder the book is like 1,000 fucking pages long....) cannot help but take assessement of the war on terror and wonder what to do. Of course, there are plenty of thoughtful (?) types around who argue for two equally ridiculous positions:
1. Insane military jingoists who want to find something and blow it up RIGHT NOW.
2. Weird hippie types that point to how bad the West is to everyone else and advocate hugs or something. These folks make the argument that somehow the US and its allies are just "reaping what it sowed."
[This is by far a much crueller charactaization of these positions than is fair. But you get the point: overly idealist diplomats versus hopped up commandos.]
I fail to understand why anyone would endorse either of these positions. They are, quite simpy, not going to do anything. I mean, I know that taking the "middle course" always seems sort of .... wishy-washy compared to good ol' direct stances. But really, Aristotle had a thing or two figured out...
1. Yes, in fact, some kind of military response is necessary. There are people who want to hurt other (innocent) people - we shouldn't let that happen. These folks are your enemies and they are pissed - they are not about to be persuaded (or at least, not all of them are). So, martial response is justiifed - though it should be done right.
Given that this is not a state actor exactly and the preference for terrorist cells to hide "in the open" (re: near innocent people and in bustling parts of ciites), pillaging warfare is a bad idea. This is a *political* war against a bad set of people in an otherwise A-OK group of people. Killing innocents is wrong b/c it's, ya know, *wrong* AND it's not going to win you any friends in this war. So, a careful, "police" style approach when "kicking ass," when possible, is the best way to go.
2. BUT, that said, we have to remember that little fact again: this is a political war. (All wars are about politics of course. I mean political in "win the hearts and minds sense;" "PR" war might be the better phrase). It is a mistake to believe that the "terrorists" are just plain evil. Some of them might be. But some of them are perfectly normal folks, who suffer poverty or oppression and end up doing bad things. I mean, we don't think all Germans are evil right? OK then. There are *structural* elements at work here too.
This is where the more diplomatic, hippie-types have something valid to say: just crushing terrorists is not enough. If you do not solve the problems that let terrorists thrive, you get more terrorists. Fighting terrorists *badly* (re: loads and loads of "collateral damage) ALSO gets you more terrorists (duh). In fact, it is worth remebering that most suicide bombers are *not* fanatics - but rather well-educated, politically minded goal seekers. While misguided, they are *rational.* (Just like most Nazis were normal people - a la Hannah Arendt's "banality of evil" or Christopher Browning's work on execution squads in Poland).
Boiled down, this means that figthing terroris means structural changes - addressing the concerns of the oppressed, spreading wealth, and fixing international governing bodies to represent more interests. This doesn't mean denying the agency (re: the choice and responsibility) of terrorists; but it is a more realistic way to deal with the problem than just trying to scare everyone in the whole fucking world "straight."
Fighthing terrorism, in the end, involves short- *and* long-term strategies. Strangely, I do not think this is a lesson lost on politicians, diplomats, or bureaucrats. I think that *we're* the problem this time - we get caught up in our dogmatic answers to the problem (which are more about our domestic political differences than anything else), and miss the whole fucking point. Then we get sound bytes and ridiculous policies, rather than anything effective. Dammit.
Have a good weekend.
VIEW 3 of 3 COMMENTS
re: adam smith - it makes me laugh that he cites so much, but makes up so much of it.
re: all about politics - isnt a political war, as is anything really, about power?
people who live in the middle of bumblefuck are so worried their living room is going to get blown up, when in reality, there are only a handful of real targets right now, it seems....and they are in only a handful of cities. though...ironically, if someone blew up the football stadium in lincoln, nebraska (or urbana champaign), it would put the fear of ___ in me - more so than if wall street were hit again.
thanks for the birthday wishes.