America – armed to the teeth, but unable to win wars. Part 1 of 2

Posted by on

From Tomgram:

The United States remains by far the world’s leading proliferator of conventional arms, accounting for some 50% of all global sales and 48% of all sales to the developing world. During the 2011-2014 period alone, U.S. weapons deliveries included a wide array of advanced weapons technologies: 104 tanks and self-propelled guns, 230 artillery pieces, 419 armored personnel vehicles, 48 supersonic aircraft and 58 other aircraft, 835 surface-to-air missiles, and 144 anti-ship missiles, much of that to the volatile Middle East. Skeptics would say that such transactions are motivated less by an urge to enable recipient countries to defend themselves than by the desire to buy influence abroad while aiding and abetting arms manufacturers at home. The result of such massive sales is, of course, the creation of yet more instability where stability should be.

Garrisoning the planet: The military maintains up to 800 bases in more than 70 countries and stations more than 200,000 active-duty personnel in some 150 countries. This global presence represents the geostrategic equivalent of Parkinson’s law: operational and social entanglements expanding exponentially to fill the space created by these far-flung outposts.

The nuclear black hole: The military remains the permanent keeper and executor of the world’s largest nuclear arsenal: an estimated 4,700 nuclear warheads on some 800 delivery systems, as well as another 2,340 “retired” but still intact and presumably usable warheads. A three-decade, trillion-dollar upgrade of this already monstrous arsenal is now underway. The Economist has called this Washington’s “unkicked addiction.” It should be clear, but apparently isn’t, that these are weapons of disuse. Other than for destroying the planet if used, their only value is as a measure of muscularity against mirror-image peers. They deter nothing at other levels of muscle-flexing but do feed an insatiable thirst for emulation among jealous non-possessors of such weaponry.  (by Gregory D. Foster is a professor at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C., a West Point graduate, and a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War.)

And yet the United States seems unable to win a war, and any success against, for instance ISIS, comes at the cost of untold devastation of ancient cities and displacement of huge number of people.  Trump says he “ain’t gonna do nation building”, so these people are on their own, unless they can find their way to Europe. What is the point in these military empires?  At least the British brought with them a common language, railways, education and orderly government, even if sometimes corrupt.  No, the United States has many good things to its name, but as a hegemon it hasn’t a clue, and is wasting treasure while the country, its environment, infrastructure and education itself ( to name a few things) are falling to pieces.

Ithaca

Posted by on

As you set out for Ithaka
hope your road is a long one,
full of adventure, full of discovery.
Laistrygonians, Cyclops,
angry Poseidon—don’t be afraid of them:
you’ll never find things like that on your way
as long as you keep your thoughts raised high,
as long as a rare excitement
stirs your spirit and your body.
Laistrygonians, Cyclops,
wild Poseidon—you won’t encounter them
unless you bring them along inside your soul,
unless your soul sets them up in front of you.

Hope your road is a long one.
May there be many summer mornings when,
with what pleasure, what joy,
you enter harbors you’re seeing for the first time;
may you stop at Phoenician trading stations
to buy fine things,
mother of pearl and coral, amber and ebony,
sensual perfume of every kind—
as many sensual perfumes as you can;
and may you visit many Egyptian cities
to learn and go on learning from their scholars.

Keep Ithaka always in your mind.
Arriving there is what you’re destined for.
But don’t hurry the journey at all.
Better if it lasts for years,
so you’re old by the time you reach the island,
wealthy with all you’ve gained on the way,
not expecting Ithaka to make you rich.

Ithaka gave you the marvelous journey.
Without her you wouldn’t have set out.
She has nothing left to give you now.

And if you find her poor, Ithaka won’t have fooled you.
Wise as you will have become, so full of experience,
you’ll have understood by then what these Ithakas mean.

(C. P. Cavafy, “The City” from C.P. Cavafy: Collected Poems. Translated by Edmund Keeley and Philip Sherrard. Translation Copyright © 1975, 1992 by Edmund Keeley and Philip Sherrard. Reproduced with permission of Princeton University Press.) Source: C.P. Cavafy: Collected Poems (Princeton University Press, 1975)

Hope, expectation, objectives in life, enjoying life’s journey.  Cafafy was Greek, like Epicurus.  Epicurus would nod and totally agree with the sentiments of this wonderful poem.  Unfortunately, all too many people have nothing in their lives, no dreams, no objectives , nothing fulfilling that offers the excitement of a consuming activity.  They have no journey, no vivid experiences, no passing triumphs or even tragedies .  Nor do they have anything pleasurable, no Ithika,  to look back on.  Would that all the aggrieved and unhappy people in the world could have an objective that  excites them.

Epicurus and Judaism

Posted by on

Yet another of my modern philosophy posts. This completes my take on the three main monotheisms. You can read my views on Islam here http://hanrott.com/blog/epicurus-and-islam/, and on Christianity here http://hanrott.com/blog/epicurus-and-christianity/. 

Out of the three Abrahamic monotheisms, Judaism is perhaps the most unique. Unlike Christianity and Islam, it does not aspire to convert large portions of the world to its beliefs. As a result, the Jewish people are an ethnoreligious group. Due to its small size, Judaism has never established a continental sphere of influence, the way Christianity did in Europe or Islam did in the Middle East and North Africa. Moreover, Jews have been subject to extreme discrimination throughout history, unlike Christians and Muslims who have only suffered discrimination periodically. There has been no equivalent for the Holocaust for Christians or Muslims. This is despite Judaism being by far the least threatening of the these three religions.

Theologically speaking, my critiques of Christianity and Islam also apply to Judaism. The notion of submission to a divine being whose nature we cannot discover except for by reading ancient texts is one I find troubling. Like Christianity and Islam, Judaism generally promotes social conservatism, though its liberal denominations are more prominent than either of the other two. But because Jews don’t proselytise, I don’t view Judaism as a threat to liberal values or secular government the way the conservative branches of Christianity and Islam are. For the most part, Jews simply want to be free to practice their religion, which is a fundamental right for everyone.

Having said that, in Israel, the rapid growth of Haredi Judaism is a concern. The Haredi do not integrate with wider Israeli society, preferring to live on their own. They have very low labour force participation rates, often preferring to study the Torah- putting pressure on Israel’s generous welfare state. They are largely exempt from national service, which is resented by secular Israelis who understandably believe that if the Haredi benefit from a secure Israel, they should contribute to it. They also have exceptionally high birth rates, which not only puts pressure on housing in a densely populated country, but it will make Israeli culture more conservative in the future. Wider Orthodox Judaism doesn’t necessarily have these issues. But the Orthodox do tend to vote for some right wing parties, who may make peace with the Palestinians less likely.

The tendency for the more religious Jews to have more children is a worldwide trend, not just in Israel. As a result, global Judaism and Jewish identity will be considerably more socially conservative and distinct. As the West grows more liberal and secular, Jews living outside Israel will become more conspicuous. Religious Jews outside Israel may feel alienated from a wider society that does not share their values. If they stay in their home country, they may be unhappy and feel like non-Jews don’t understand them. If they move to Israel, they will add to the country’s increasing conservatism. The size of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem will have to grow, much to the frustration of the Palestinians and the international community. Outside Israel, the increasing religiosity of the world’s Jews may cause anti-Semitic discrimination to rise. The far right may see a culturally distinct Jewish minority as a threat to the nation’s character, in a similar fashion to their view of Islam now. The far left may be suspicious of the fact that most religious Jews are pro-Israel and tend to vote for conservative parties- orthodox Jews in America are overwhelmingly Republican.

Overall I’m hopeful for the future of Judaism and I wish the world’s Jews the best of luck. Unlike Netanyahu, I don’t believe that Europe is irredeemably anti-Semitic. For the most part, the West will continue to welcome the cultural and economic contributions of its Jewish community. The West will also continue to engage with Israel, not isolating itself from them. But there are significant challenges ahead. Israel’s population, economy and global influence will continue to rise, which will enrage much of the Arab world and the European far left. The need for a peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict will become more urgent. As Jews living in the West become more distinct, it’s important we teach the next generation tolerance and understanding. Provided we can overcome these challenges, the future of the world’s Jews is very bright. They make a disproportionate contribution to the arts, science, industry and technology, and will almost certainly continue to do so.

 

Best of the Week #13 The unwinnable war

Posted by on

Trump won the 2016 Republican Primary for a myriad of reasons, some of which I’ve looked at here http://hanrott.com/blog/how-the-republicans-should-respond-to-trump/. But a crucial factor was the fact that he distinguished himself from other Republicans. Partly through his straight-talking manner. Partly through his support for entitlements, in contrast to a Republican establishment that wants to reduce them. Partly due to his opposition to free trade. But the most significant different between Trump and the his opponents was that Trump presented himself as a realist in regards to foreign policy. He eviscerated the other candidates for their support for the Iraq War, Jeb Bush especially. He wasn’t a non-interventionist per se, promising to ‘bomb the shit out of ISIS.’ But he vowed to put the national interest first, not spend billions of American dollars on fruitless foreign adventures.

It’s long been obvious that the war in Afghanistan can’t be won, simply because as soon as America withdraws, there’s nothing to guarantee the country won’t be taken over by the Taliban because they enjoy protection in Pakistan. Laurel Miller, who was until recently America’s leading diplomat in Afghanistan and Pakistan, agrees. Her explanation can be read in this excellent interview with Vox’s Sean Illing https://www.vox.com/world/2017/8/1/16049272/afghanistan-war-donald-trump-mattis-military. Yet Trump has backtracked on his past support for a realist foreign policy. As Miller points out, his new Afghanistan policy is little different from the neoconservatism/liberal internationalism that has defined America’s approach since the war started in 2001.

Trump’s u-turn on Afghanistan is yet another example of how his presidency is a complete failure, even on his own terms. The typical Trump voter wanted: proper job security, a substantial increase in the number of manufacturing and energy jobs, the repeal of Obamacare with ‘something ‘fantastic’, an America-first foreign policy and a considerable reduction in immigration. So far, none of those things have happened, or even are likely to happen between now and 2020. So what was the point in voting for Trump? Perhaps only the certainty that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be a continuation of the status quo. If neither Trump nor Hillary Clinton were serious about reforming a badly divided and indebted country, then American politics is truly broken.