Joe Biden's appearance on Bill Maher's Real Time damn near has me converted to his cause. I know he's not popular in progressive circles, but his plan for Iraq -- de facto partition of a nation still held together by a loose confederation -- coincides with my own view of the least-awful outcome. The time for that plan may be past: 2004-2005 was the best period for this suggestion. Still, the idea deserves consideration.
Maher himself was a disappointment. His jokes about celebrity rehab might have sat better if the guy were not so obviously well-toasted on the air.
Had he been in his right gourd, he would have avoided some real embarrassments -- as when he tried to claim that the Koran was more violent than the Old Testament, or that the god of the OT directed his wrath almost entirely against the Jews, not against other tribes.
Hey, Bill -- ever read past Genesis? Try Joshua. Exodus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. Ah, now there's a stroke book for the Divine Marquis: "When the Lord delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the males..." "As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves." Not to mention: "You will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you." Yum-O!
You don't have to be a Muslim to take offense at Maher's ignorant suggestion that Islamic societies are inherently more warlike than others. Oh really? Let's look at the record of Islamic nations, focusing -- at first -- on conventional war.
As readers know, I am no fan of the despotic Saudi regime. That said, when was the last time Saudi Arabia went to war? If I recall correctly, their last battle occurred when Abdul Azziz cemented his rule in the 1920s.
The United Arab Emirates has never been involved in a military conflict in its (rather brief) history. Oman has been ruled by a peaceful and more-or-less benevolent dictator since 1970; before that, the British held sway. (And why were the "Christian" British in that part of the world in the first place?) Bahrain has not been involved in a war since it broke free of the British, although it has had internal troubles. Jordan has not been involved in a war since 1967. Iran had a revolution in the late 1970s and was invaded by Iraq shortly thereafter. Egypt and Syria have not prosecuted a war since 1973. The most violent Islamic nations in the post-WWII era have been Indonesia and Pakistan -- neither one the target of American animosity -- and Afghanistan.
By contrast: The United States of America has involved itself in seven major conflicts over the course of the past hundred years, not counting smaller incursions such as the invasions of Panama and Grenada. (I count Afghanistan and Iraq separately.) Four of those conflicts occurred in the post-1967 era. (Obviously, Vietnam began earlier.)
Yes, but what of non-conventional warfare? In this field, we can all agree that factions within Islam have sponsored many horrors. On the other hand, take a look at William Blum's history of U.S. non-conventional actions against other societies.
Humanity may give lip service to the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Koran, or some other set of scriptures. But our one true god remains Ares.
6 comments:
first, may i suggest that aries was modeled on yawheh. just a thought.
second, bill maher has been a disappointment to me on so many fronts... i find him pompous and snooty, way too full of himself. but he has really irritated me with some of his over the top pro-israel commentary, such as this one posted on huffpo during the israeli invasion of lebanon last summer:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/i-love-being-on-the-side-_b_25375.html
at that point, i decided he had exceeded his meaningfulness for me. i'm on a maher boycott until he begins to show some sense.
The division of Iraq is hardly a Joe Biden plan. Like all divisions of the region, the division of Iraq is not for the Iraqis, but for strategic and resource purposes of the invading forces.
Modern history has demonstrated how the false division of regions of the middle east ie: the division of Syria into statelets.. has brought terrible problems which otherwise would not have existed.
You really think drawing lines across a map and forcing people to move from their homes, families and marriages solves problems? ..the fact that marriages ARE being broken apart is the most basic evidence that partitioning is being ENFORCED.
"The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking. For example, Ze'ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha'aretz (and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes about the "best" that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: "The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi'ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part" (Ha'aretz 6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of the plan is very old."
zed, is anyone inviting Israel to the negotiating table? Would Israel be welcome?
The fact is, the Sunnis and the Shi'ites are partitioning themselves with bullets and explosives. It could and should have been avoided, but here we are. What to do now?
It is said that Iran (Persia) has not started a war in 250 years.
As for Biden's tri-partite solution: the Kurds will settle for nothing less than political independence, and if they get it that leaves the Shiites and Sunnis to the insoluble problem of sharing the oil wealth of southern Iraq (which would belong to the Shiites if the area were divided on a religious basis).
Sad to say, there are some human problems that can only be worked when the solutions are lubricated by lakes of blood. The Iraqis may need to fight a civil war like the US did, before this can end. And such a war would almost certainly drag many other nations into it: Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and China for starters.
Before the US abandons Iraq, we should hold a summit with Russia and China and agree not to meddle in the coming bloodbath. But that would require that we have a true statesman in the WH.
That "lakes of blood" image is certainly memorable. But surely we must do all we can to avoid turning the present catastrophe into an even worse catastrophe?
The virtue of the partition-with-confederation idea is that it can evolve into outright partition (should the parties choose that in the future) or re-unification (should the parties choose THAT). The confederation trick has worked before, usually in the wake of British decolonialization. I mean, that's what the UAE more or less is, right?
I completely agree with your position on partition, but not on the peacefulness of Islam.
None of these Arab countries have any non-Islamic neighbors, and all of them are newly organized, their whole few decades of history a war of internal repression. How many wars has Ireland fought since the 1920s? They are only now starting to look outward.
Post a Comment