Musings

So,

For those of you who do not know me (I realize that was a heck of an assumption to make as nobody reads this blog anyway, and if anyone does, it is highly likely he/she/they does/do know me), I am somewhat a fan of U2. Those who know me maybe a little better, will know that a lot of what interests me about U2 are the political nature of their music and the idealism and activism of their front man.

I have been following a lot of various policy and foreign affairs sites lately (I like knowing what is going on in the world and I also like knowing what people out there are doing to make it a better/worse place) and just went to www.one.org for the first time in a long time. Going there I saw some of the stuff about one causes and I can't help but think of something that has come up several times in conversation with other people abot Bono. I have heard several people remark that they like U2, but they wish Bono would shut up about his causes. I have had people indicate to me they have issues with his causes.

I have occasionally asked which causes they take issue with. The campaign to end extreme poverty? The campaign against hunger? The campaign to irradicate malaria? The campaign to provide treatment for people infected with aids and fight that terrible disease in Africa? I cannot help what wonder which of these causes people find repugnant. I have a hard time to find a good justification for opposing those causes. Especially for people who claim to love and follow Christ. You know, that crazy fellow who wandered about telling people to love their enemies and feed the poor and clothe the naked.

I don't get it. I really don't get it. People are happy to remember the parts of the Gospels that can and probably should be interpreted as being punitive or judgemental. They latch onto Mosaic divine justice and retribution. They want blood sacrifice, forgetting that, at least according to their sectarian beliefs the final blood sacrifice has been made. They remember mercy only when they have cheated on their wives or gotten caught stealing or making some incredibly insensitive comment or the like that is sure to result in checking into rehab.

I wonder what it is that people find offensive about somebody working alost tirelessly to get people involved in resolving some of the greatest causes of human suffering.

Peace.

Joe

Ammended

I need to stop blogging late at night and in bed and stuff. Actually, I need to start blogging more, but less in a diminished mental state, i.e. sleep deprived and such.

Anyway, the whole purpose of my second point from the "Frustrated" post was meant to be that the only way we have even the slimmest shot at what could be considered even menial success in Afghanistan is with the support of the locals. That will never, ever, ever be won by using harsher tactics. Even now when we, at least ostensibly, care about limiting collateral casualties, we still generally fail colosally, and even when we do not, we do not really have the whole public relations campaign working for us over there, and suspicion and misinformation regarding U.S. intentions and the results of various operations abound.

We need the people on our side. Let me rephrase. We need more of the people on our side. We need much more support from the ethnic Pashtuns. Harsher tactics will not garner that support.

Another sort of sub-point I would like to add to this is Afghanistan will never be Germany. Without public support (Afghan and American), it will not even be Bosnia or Kosovo. Without significant participation from the locals, and without some pretty significant changes in attitude, as well as the general socio-economic structure of the country, it will be impossible to see the U.S. maintain a longterm presence (ala Korea and Germany), in Afghanistan, because it will be way too costly.

At any rate. More ramblings of a fool.

Whatever happens, it will take a lot of work for us to accomplish anything significant over there. It will take a lot of patience, and all the boys and girls who are over there serving the cause must be on their absolutely best behavior.

Peace.

Joe

Frustrated

I am frustrated.

I realize that I have been doing rather horribly as far as posting goes. I have gotten in a bit of a funk and not really been in that much of a writing mood. Also, I would prefer my posts be at least somewhat credible and more than just emotionally charged junk. I think there are a lot of folks who make a lot of money out there selling semi-truths and dealing in rhetoric. I wouldn't want it even if I was a desired commodity (which obviously I am not). My lack of bona fides makes me feel inadequate when it comes to having an opinion on anything.

I am frustrated. I am frustrated at the inability of people to get outside of their own heads. I am frustrated that people are unwilling to learn from history. I am frustrated that the only history a lot of people out there are interested in is some idealized and mythological dream past where everybody held hands and pranced about flying old glory and singing "Yankee Doodle" and having a time of it.

I am not an intentional cynic. I am some ways feel myself forced to cynicism. I would rather be considered a realist and honest seeker of truth. The problem is, for some people, there is no reality beyond a reality that is based on in many cases nothing tangible at all, and there is no truth beyond their often narrowly acquired truth.

I am not talking philosophy or religion here (although I do believe that some peoples' concept of "religious truth" does limit their receptiveness to the possibility of a worldview or perception that falls outside their understanding of said concept). I mean garbage like only conservatives are patriots and the only real America is somewhere in the "middle" (whatever that means) or the frozen tundras of Mooslaska (yes, I realize this could be viewed as a generalization of the type I am deriding, but I feel the need to make it clear I am not actually questioning the validity or patriotism or Americanism in general terms of anybody falling in these geographical parameters).

I am frustrated today cause I hear people talking about the issues of collateral damage in Afghanistan and pushing for a more bloody policy against the terrorists or insurgents or whatever you want to call them, and I have two questions.

The first question I want to ask is how many children these individuals have shot in the face. That is kind of harsh and graphic, but that is my point. Or perhaps how many children being shot in the face is acceptable. I can tell you that the proportion of the Afghan population that would be categorized as children is extremely high, so children are likely to comprise a fairly significant percentage of all collateral. Women, who in many cases are below children in social status and are equally defenseless also comprise high levels of collateral. People for some reason think it is okay to kill random people with bombs. For some reason the fact that it is impersonal and the collateral so unavoidable make it okay. But the end result is really no different from shooting people in the face. I suppose one could make the argument that by killing people over there we are saving lives over here. I have all kinds of issues with that idea that I may get into some other time, but... This is an ideological argument so, you know, whatever.

The second question I have is why people do not study history. The Soviets used much more heavy-handed methods in their fight against the Mujahideen, and look how successful they were. I am not saying we are the Soviets. I am not saying that the current insurgents are anti-Soviet Mujahideen, except, there is the nasty and unfortunate facts that many of the important people behind what is going on in Afghanistan are the same "freedom fighters" who fought the Soviets, and while we are definitely not the Soviets, and I think our motives and hopes for Afghanistan are generally much more benevolent, the people we are fighting see us much the same. Actually, I think they respect the Soviets a little more, because they were much more ruthless. Regardless, the lesson from history, is conducting military operations without concern for civilian casualties is not an effective strategy for Afghanistan. It did not work for the Soviets. If we were foolish enough to pursue such a policy, it would not work for us. Now, it is true that we backed the Mujihadeen, and that was a key component of their ability to defeat the Soviets. Some would argue that is a significant factor I suppose. My response would be that there are all sorts of people out there who will back the Taliban and everybody else against us.

Anyway. These are just my thoughts on the matter. I believe them sound, but hey, like I said, no bona fides.

Whatever.

I love my country. I love its people. I believe it is the greatest nation on Earth. I do not, however, believe that makes me better than anybody who was not blessed or privileged or whatever to be born here or somehow have managed to immigrate legally. I also do not believe that other nations should not be great. I believe that America's greatness should benefit her people. I also believe that America's greatness should benefit all of humanity.

I suppose the most critical argument among the Left and Right and everybody in between could be expressed in the question: What makes America great? The answer to that question I believe would fairly accurately reflect the sometimes violent differences of ideologies.

Anyway,

Peace, be you blue or red or left or right or completely apathetic.