Smarter Than Thou!

DEFENDING ISLAM (THE PEACEFUL?) probably one of a series

   THE title is not a joke. Let me establish my anti-credentials. I am a functioning Catholic. Thus, inevitably, I hold ALL other “religions” to be of demonic or human origin, based in deception and/or malice. However, my Faith encourages me to be (1) fair and (2) truthful… at least some times. Plus, I like advancing unpopular (even impossible) positions.

   The general view of Mohammedanism is that it was violent and aggressive from its origins. From roughly 650AD to tomorrow it encouraged its members to murder, carry on wars, invade, conquer etc. This is evidenced by the historical record that shows the numerous wars this movement has been involved in. It IS a matter of simple math. If a religion is at war from year 1 to year 17 then it was in a war for 17 years, right? Not necessarily.

   Let me give an example from European history, specifically the 30 Years War, which (not surprisingly) went on from 1618 to 1648. It began as a religious war (Catholic versus Protestant). On one side was the Holy Roman Empire and Spain. On the other side were some rebellious German principalities, Denmark, Sweden and France. I have written the complete truth, and yet it conveys very little of the reality. Many of the smaller German states were eliminated early in the war. Denmark entered after it had begun, was crushed and withdrew. Sweden fought for years (1630 onward), but only after Denmark left the war. France entered only at the later stages (1635), as did Spain(1634).

   So did Spain “really” fight in that war? Sort of. It fought in approximately one half. Consider this. You are trying to measure to what degree Spain was war-like in the 17^th Century. As it fought for “30 Years” it was quite warlike in the first third. As it stayed out of a major war for 16 years, and fought only in one half, then it was not that warlike, was it? It is NOT a simple matter of math. The criteria are, at best, indefinite.

   The Hundred Years War was fought between England and France for (over) 100 years. The disagreement centered upon a claim made by the English kings for the crown of France. This is clear, no? For years, part of France, ruled by the Dukes of Burgundy, fought on the side of England. Was this a (new) civil war, going on at the same time? Was France then twice as warlike, as it was fighting two wars at once? During those hundred plus years there were truces, treaties and times of no fighting. If there were no fighting can these time periods be considered as part of the war? When the fighting began again, was this a new war? France gave up, officially, accepted an English king, and the war was over, right? Not really. St Joan of Arc got involved and France ignored its formal surrender and won the new, or renewed, war… or was it the same old war?

   My point is this. For purposes of questioning answers on “Jeopardy” particular dates for wars beginning, continuing and ending, may be useful. And high school history teachers need something to use as test materials. But the real world is not so neat.

   Let me in conclusion refer to one Islamic “incident.” From roughly 711AD to 1492AD the Islamic Moors in and of Spain were involved in a war, called the Reconquista. That is the Catholic forces were trying to force them into Africa. Does this seven-century effort make Islam more war-like? Does the fact that it was mostly a defensive war against invading foreign “Crusaders” change judgments? What about the fact that the Moors were the original aggressive invaders in 711?

  I am simply arguing that fair and just judgments are not so easy to make. It is far easier and more pleasant to rely on our prejudices, and then alter the facts to fit. You have my permission to do so.

DEFENDING OBAMA, AND RELUCTANTLY SO.

           The current president, whom I consider to be a national disaster, is frequently attacked by pretty much everyone for his “war strategy.” Perhaps I should write “lack of strategy.” I refer to the on going conflict involving ISIS in the Mid East. The main criticism is that this movement, although not (yet) a significant threat to the US, can grow to become one. Thus, it is generally believed, it can be, and should be, destroyed now, at relatively little cost. And the president is thus criticized for not doing this.

           One complicating factor is that there are a number of different “actors” involved in this conflict. Some are real countries such as Jordan, Russia, Turkey. Some others are not states, but (perhaps) tribes, such as the Kurds. Then there are the religious subdivisions, such as the Jews, Christians, Sunnis and Shiites. Added to this is the centuries old traditional role of Russia as protector of the Mid East Christians. I shall not mention the racial differences. Each of these has different short and long-range goals, which probably conflict with the goals of the other “allies.” Because of these massive complications any major commitment towards one policy (or one ally), and thus one strategy, can lead to an unforeseen disaster (as was the election of this president---except that that was foreseeable).

I put this differently: to wait out events, as long as possible, while doing as little as possible, may be the most prudent course of (in)action. This waiting approach may well help the USA avoid the consequences of some significant mistake made by a temporary ally. I am also reminded of an old military maxim. In a cavalry battle he who commits his reserves last wins. While other forces kill each other, and use up their resources and material, the USA is paying a very slight price to be a major player. It may even work out that the end result may allow the USA to benefit while doing very little.

I offer another point of defense. Every “expert” on the subject offers the following policy as part of the “solution.” The local, most involved, parties “must” be more involved. For example, Saudi Arabia should be fighting and bearing the cost. The theory is valid, but the means are lacking. One expert said that the administration should give the Arabs the following ultimatum. “Fight now, or, later, when ISIS comes for you, the US will let you fall.” First, how can such an ultimatum be enforced? Would the USA really let all that oil be controlled by open enemies? Second, the Arabs are realistic, and are quite willing to bet that the US forces will, if needed, fight. Thus the Arabs are quite willing to stand by and benefit from American soldiers dying for them. If I can see this then so can they. And I can see that there is no way to force other states to do anything.

Perhaps the current administration is as bad as I have concluded based upon other policies. Perhaps it is consciously choosing the best alternative. However, even if it were not there is not much it should, or can, do. It may not be a matter of making necessity into a virtue, as it is simply accepting the reality of a necessity.

TRADITION… AND ITS OPPOSITE, SORT OF

   IN “Fiddler on the Roof” the play is introduced with the song “Tradition.” The main character explains that without traditions, a whole lot of them, Jews would be as insecure and uncertain as a fiddle on the roof.   Apparently the USA is beginning to follow his tradition (ha-ha). This tendency is best exemplified by the “debate” on immigration. By this I refer to the legal type, and the illegal (over the border) types, and the proposed refugees (from the Mid East) type. The different sides can be summarized as follows. The “keep them out” side argues that these people place a burden on the American system and may be undesirable in various ways. The “let them in” side argues, primarily, from a philosophical point of view. That is, “our values” require a more liberal attitude towards the stranger and the alien. The support for this comes from the following: (1) we all came here as immigrants (“all” here meaning ancestors or ourselves); (2) the traditions of the USA demand that we automatically welcome new arrivals. The two are related.

In other words, we need to do what Americans of the past have done. This is interesting. America was founded on a renunciation of tradition. The Declaration declares (which is what they do) that one people is separating relations with another, and beginning a new society. It is a logical (if invalid) presentation of “new” rights. In the “Fiddler” play Tevye, the main character, breaks with a strict tradition at a wedding celebration. I assume that the new policy then becomes a tradition, and sets a pattern for future actions, based upon a past. This is what traditions provide.  

   And this brings me to my core question. What is an American tradition? Perhaps I should rephrase this: when is an American tradition, and when does it end? An American tradition, even before independence was to kill off locals and take their lands… if the New England tradition is followed. If the Spanish tradition is followed then the locals are conquered, converted and civilized. And the real American tradition is… who knows? It is also an American tradition to conquer large parts of the territory of our neighbors, manly Mexico and (then) French Canada. It is also a tradition to live in total peace with these neighbors. How did one replace the other?

   Another clear American tradition was not to allow women to vote, until they were allowed. Similarly it was to allow legal slavery, until it became illegal. A more recent one was to allow mothers legally to execute their children for any reason, except when this had been against the law.   It is quite American to have prevented Black players from being in baseball, and now it is quite American to have them be stars. American has had, and has forbidden, racially segregated schools and armed forces. The list is long.   

   I have been having some fun. The USA is unintentionally amusing. The unavoidable conclusion is this.   America has a traditional value for almost every aspect of human life, and also has a corresponding traditional opposition to the same value. At the same time, as if someone was playing a cosmic joke on us---and maybe this was done---we have the tradition of… “we are a nation of laws and not of men.” In other words traditions, the customs of men (and women) should mean nothing. Only laws, expressed by authorities, elected by the people, and approved of by the courts, matter.

   So if and when you hear about the “traditions of our nation” keep in mind that this means everything… and nothing. But then being profoundly self-contradictory is probably the only American tradition that is actually followed, pretty much all the time.