Monday, December 12, 2005

A Must Read Essay

It's over at the History News Network, it's titled What New Empires Inherit From Old Ones, and it's by Maya Jasanoff, an Assistant Professor of history at the University of Virginia.

To be quite honest, I have never heard of her. But she makes some interesting points, not all of which I am sure I agree with. But, I'll have to digest it and re-read it, as I often do with pieces that are as in depth, as this one.

It is well-written, well-presented. It is not long, but not short either. If you like essays that stimulate your thinking, this one is for you.

13 comments:

VARepublicMan said...

Interesting article. If you like the notion of finding historical patterns you might read an older book by Howe and Strauss titled Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069. They take the notion of understanding current events based on previous eras to the extreme by defining only four major American historical "cycles" that simply repeat themselves.

As for me, I have come to the realization that life is all about living personal individual lives. Each life can be compared against history and one can always find patterns because "there is nothing new under the sun." Finding stereotypical patterns is a nice academic exercise, even useful at times, but pales in relation to understanding the depth of each individual life experience.

As an example, I think that it will help us to understand the notion of an "empire for liberty," which Jasanoff uses in a pejorative sense, but only in light that it can help strengthen us in the fight against an Islamic "empire of religious imposition."

Always On Watch said...

LA,
Good find!

From the essay to which you linked:

New empires also inherit problems from older ones. This has been particularly evident in the modern Middle East, ever since Napoleon Bonaparte invaded the Ottoman imperial province of Egypt in 1798. Napoleon hoped that the Egyptians—Arabs, who had a different language and ethnicity from the Ottoman Turks—would flock behind his standard of liberation. He even prepared declarations in Arabic to this effect, proclaiming himself to be the mahdi, or promised Muslim messiah. Instead, Napoleon discovered exactly what the Ottomans had: an existing struggle for power among Mameluke Beys, which helped provoke his own ignominious defeat.
Might there be a warning there for the United States?

...The unraveling of British and French empires after World War Two helped fuel the longest imperial war of the twentieth century—the Cold War—as the US and USSR vied for influence in former European and Japanese imperial domains. The end of the Soviet empire has triggered a new age of American imperialism, and left its own legacies—such as the Taliban, funded by the US to resist Soviet occupation.
One doesn't often see this in print these days. Furthermore, the fall of the USSR led to a surge in Islamism in many of the "-stans." Take a look at Chechnya, for example.

Always On Watch said...

Just found this quote and thought I'd toss it in:
"Following the downfall of Communism, today, only Islam stands against America's imperialism."
(11/30/2005) Sayed Safavi, Iranian cleric (brother of the commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi)

sevenpointman said...

Howard Roberts



A Seven-point plan for an Exit Strategy in Iraq




1) A timetable for the complete withdrawal of American and British forces must be announced.
I envision the following procedure, but suitable fine-tuning can be applied by all the people involved.

A) A ceasefire should be offered by the Occupying side to representatives of both the Sunni insurgency and the Shiite community. These representatives would be guaranteed safe passage, to any meetings. The individual insurgency groups would designate who would attend.
At this meeting a written document declaring a one-month ceasefire, witnessed by a United Nations authority, will be fashioned and eventually signed. This document will be released in full, to all Iraqi newspapers, the foreign press, and the Internet.
B) US and British command will make public its withdrawal, within sixth-months of 80 % of their troops.

C) Every month, a team of United Nations observers will verify the effectiveness of the ceasefire.
All incidences on both sides will be reported.

D) Combined representative armed forces of both the Occupying nations and the insurgency organizations that agreed to the cease fire will protect the Iraqi people from actions by terrorist cells.

E) Combined representative armed forces from both the Occupying nations and the insurgency organizations will begin creating a new military and police force. Those who served, with out extenuating circumstances, in the previous Iraqi military or police, will be given the first option to serve.

F) After the second month of the ceasefire, and thereafter, in increments of 10-20% ,a total of 80% will be withdrawn, to enclaves in Qatar and Bahrain. The governments of these countries will work out a temporary land-lease housing arrangement for these troops. During the time the troops will be in these countries they will not stand down, and can be re-activated in the theater, if both the chain of the command still in Iraq, the newly formed Iraqi military, the leaders of the insurgency, and two international ombudsman (one from the Arab League, one from the United Nations), as a majority, deem it necessary.


G) One-half of those troops in enclaves will leave three-months after they arrive, for the United States or other locations, not including Iraq.

H) The other half of the troops in enclaves will leave after six-months.

I) The remaining 20 % of the Occupying troops will, during this six month interval, be used as peace-keepers, and will work with all the designated organizations, to aid in reconstruction and nation-building.


J) After four months they will be moved to enclaves in the above mentioned countries.
They will remain, still active, for two month, until their return to the States, Britain and the other involved nations.









2) At the beginning of this period the United States will file a letter with the Secretary General of the Security Council of the United Nations, making null and void all written and proscribed orders by the CPA, under R. Paul Bremer. This will be announced and duly noted.



3) At the beginning of this period all contracts signed by foreign countries will be considered in abeyance until a system of fair bidding, by both Iraqi and foreign countries, will be implemented ,by an interim Productivity and Investment Board, chosen from pertinent sectors of the Iraqi economy.
Local representatives of the 18 provinces of Iraq will put this board together, in local elections.


4) At the beginning of this period, the United Nations will declare that Iraq is a sovereign state again, and will be forming a Union of 18 autonomous regions. Each region will, with the help of international experts, and local bureaucrats, do a census as a first step toward the creation of a municipal government for all 18 provinces. After the census, a voting roll will be completed. Any group that gets a list of 15% of the names on this census will be able to nominate a slate of representatives. When all the parties have chosen their slates, a period of one-month will be allowed for campaigning.
Then in a popular election the group with the most votes will represent that province.
When the voters choose a slate, they will also be asked to choose five individual members of any of the slates.
The individuals who have the five highest vote counts will represent a National government.
This whole process, in every province, will be watched by international observers as well as the local bureaucrats.

During this process of local elections, a central governing board, made up of United Nations, election governing experts, insurgency organizations, US and British peacekeepers, and Arab league representatives, will assume the temporary duties of administering Baghdad, and the central duties of governing.

When the ninety representatives are elected they will assume the legislative duties of Iraq for two years.

Within three months the parties that have at least 15% of the representatives will nominate candidates for President and Prime Minister.

A national wide election for these offices will be held within three months from their nomination.

The President and the Vice President and the Prime Minister will choose their cabinet, after the election.


5) All debts accrued by Iraq will be rescheduled to begin payment, on the principal after one year, and on the interest after two years. If Iraq is able to handle another loan during this period she should be given a grace period of two years, from the taking of the loan, to comply with any structural adjustments.



6) The United States and the United Kingdom shall pay Iraq reparations for its invasion in the total of 120 billion dollars over a period of twenty years for damages to its infrastructure. This money can be defrayed as investment, if the return does not exceed 6.5 %.


7) During the beginning period Saddam Hussein and any other prisoners who are deemed by a Council of Iraqi Judges, elected by the National representative body, as having committed crimes will be put up for trial.
The trial of Saddam Hussein will be before seven judges, chosen from this Council of Judges.
One judge, one jury, again chosen by this Council, will try all other prisoners.
All defendants will have the right to present any evidence they want, and to choose freely their own lawyers.

LA Sunset said...

Seven pointman,

LMAO

Nothing personal but, you just posted so much BS, I hardly know where to begin.

I am in one of my busy modes and don't have time to pick it apart, tonight. So, if anyone that regularly reads this site (or anyone that doesn't usually read it, for that matter) wants to take a shot to hone your skills a little, have at it.

I'll answer it later.

Maybe.

sevenpointman said...

As our beloved smirking chimp said:

Bring it on !

kender said...

What a load of insane crap.....but I gotta hand it to ya 7pointhead....you certainly spent quite a bit of time dreaming up an elaborate fantasy.

You should write childrens books.

sevenpointman said...

This is what you call a comment on my plan !


Go back to kendergarten ?
Where they read the same children's books that
Shrub uses to run our country.

And when you have re-circulated your brain to understand my plan:
You may have permission to ask a real question ?

You have been warned: Send comments with intelligence-or- suffer being considered
a fool without knowledge of the subject.

The death of thousand for the caprice and profit of our leaders-is not a joke !

GM Roper said...

"The death of thousand for the caprice and profit of our leaders-is not a joke!"

You have got to be kidding. That statement ALONE removes you from serious consideration. PROFIT, hell, that war has cost us damn near 500 billion dollars and in the words of one 77 year old Iraqi grandmother voting in Detroit: "Anyone who doesn't appreciate what America has done in Iraq ... what President Bush has done ... can go to hell."
http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/1596-Feisty-Iraqi-Voter-Speaks-Her-Mind.html

All_I_Can_Stands said...

Sevenpointman,

Your points don't even get off the ground on point 1.

1. You don't give al qaeda your timeline so they can wait it out until you leave. Of course if your goal is for al qaeda to have a clear shot at killing innocent Iraqis without intervention from our military then your first point would work famously.

1a. What makes you think al qaeda would even come to the table for discussions? And what makes you think they would honorably keep any cease-fire agreement made with them.

Sorry, if you can't make it past this with anything good to say, the rest is not worth my time.

LA Sunset said...

Well Mr. Sevenpointman, Roberts, Chesty, or whoever you are,

It'a apparent that your plan is not well though of, at least here it isn't.

All that have commented on your weak plan have made some astute observations. Observations that you, no doubt, will discount.

You see, your plan assumes way too much. As AICS said, you assume that Al Qaeda will want to sit down and talk. That, in and of itself, is highly unlikely. And I am inclined to believe that those that believe they will are very naive about just who we are dealing with, here.

But not only that, you also assume that the Iraqis are going to want the UN involved in their country. You also assume that the UN will even want to be involved. Do not foregt, they cut and ran when their HQs were attacked and have not shown the slightest interest in returning.

Another thing you fail to understand is the UN (as ineffective as it is) was and is supposed to be an organization, for member nations to settle disputes. It doesn't do anything of the sort. But the important point to note, is that Al Qaeda is not a nation. And to let them be involved, would lend some measure of legitmacy to their status. That would be a major mistake

You do agree that Al Qaeda is not a nation and deserves no legitimacy, don't you?

All_I_Can_Stands said...

"But the important point to note, is that Al Qaeda is not a nation. And to let them be involved, would lend some measure of legitmacy to their status. That would be a major mistake"

Excellent point. I could almost hear the arrow sinking into the bullseye when I read it!

Sevenpoint is busy like all of us, so he may not get this but while I do not yield the point that al qaeda only came to Iraq after we attacked, the fact is they are there now and they are not the sort to negotiate with.

LA Sunset said...

"The ones we and the Pakistanis let through the Konduz corridor in 2002-because our government just didn't want to face putting them on trial-because of what they would testify to."

More so the Pakistanis than us. We would have chased them, Pakistan would not give us permission to cross the border.

"Al-Queda -the ones that had no activity at all in Iraq-until we opened the floodgates of Hell-by invading a country and not protecting the borders."

I do agree with you on not protecting the border. It was a tactical error. But do not allow yourself to be fooled, Al Qaeda was there, as was evidenced by the terrorist training camps discovered after the invasion.


"In this case we were both an illegal invader and an incompetant one."

Define a legal invasion, will you?

Making mistakes does not equate incompetence. Everyone makes mistakes. Mistakes are always going to be made. You should research the misatkes made in WWI and WWII. There were plenty that led to many more deaths, than the few we have made.



"Al Quada- that has at most 150 fighters in Iraq."

Where do you get that figure? I am not sure it is that low, but even if it is accurate, they account for the worst and deadliest of the attacks. The Iraqi based insurgency is losing the capability of making those kinds of attacks and/or is losing the will to attack Iraqis. They are falling out of favor with the Iraqi people and losing support gradually.



"Al Qaeda -the force that will be surrounded and expelled from the country if my plan is implemented-for my plan is anti-terrorist."

I am skeptical. And even if what you say is true, where would you expell them to?



"I am talking about using the diplomatic powers of the United Nations to aid in this plan.
They were never given the proper proctection in Iraq-due to their trust in their diplomatic abilities and their trust that we would protect them."

Hey, was it our job to protect the UN? They could have used their own peacekeepers. They underestimated (and still do) the danger of this enemy, not only in Iraq, but worldwide. And the diplomatic powers of the UN are not nearly as grandiose as you portray them.



"I am not a big fan of some Security council based decisions of the United Nations-especially their following up on sanctions that killed a million people.
But they do a good job of diplomacy and nation-building, if they are given the right conditions."

I'll say one thing, you either have a good sense of humor or you are incredibly naive. Name one recent success of the UN, besides making themselves rich in the Oil for Food scandal.



"If they were asked to join in on my plan, that offered them a role of peacekeeper, and it meant the Occupation would end, the United Nations would do it, and the Iraqi people would give them the chance."

I am sure they would jump at the chance to come in at an opportune time to reap the benefits, without making the sacrifices deserving of the benefits. That's what opportunists do. That's the UN.

But you still assume that the Iraqis want them there.

Anyway, thanks for stopping by. I am still not convinced that your plan is very sound, but I will give you credit for at least trying to come up with something. Maybe, you could try again. I still see many flaws that you have not adequately addressed.