[thechat] Arguments for war

[Judah McAuley]

David Wagner wrote:
> Wow -- if you want to make me suspicious of your intentions, use the words
> "they" and "them" four or five times in every paragraph. This guy seems a
> little kindergarten-ish in his attitude.

The author didn't even use the word "they" or "them" until the 7th
paragraph by my count and he spent the first six trying to define who
"they" are.  That's what a great deal of the article is about: who (or
what) is the enemy.

> While the essay contains some interesting arguments, it is also based on
> several fallacious assumptions:
>
> - If I'm your enemy, then you're my enemy.

Not a tautology, but a reasonable assumption in most cases.  Why would
this not be true in most cases?

> - The US is culturally superior to all Arab cultures.

That's not an assumption of the article.  He lists 7 criteria that
define a culture as a failure in the modern world and links to an
explanation provided by the author of those criteria.  Looking at those
criteria and examining them in relation to modern Arabic/Islamic
societies forms the basis for his analysis.  You may disagree with the
criteria, but they are explicit and his conclusion that western culture
(and the US in particular) is superior to Arab/Islamic culture with
respect to those criteria follows from the analysis.

> - Arab resentment of Western imperialism can only be changed by eradicating
> Arab cultures.

That should be Arab resentment of Western culture rather than
imperialism.  And, once again, that is his *conclusion* not his
assumption.  You really ought to be more careful with your words.  And
he didn't advocate the eradication of Arab cultures, he advocated the
eradication of *current* Arab culture/institutions to set the stage for
reconstruction of those cultures.  WWII Japan and Germany are 2 recent
examples of that happening.  Japan and Germany both have strong current
cultures (they have not been "eradicated") but they are most definitely
not the same cultures found in pre-WWII Japan and Germany.  And many
people would argue that the current cultures are "better" in many
respects.  The author argues that a similar reconstruction needs to
happen with the current Arabic/Islamic social world.

> In addition, despite all of the introductory hemming and hawing to the
> contrary, there is no attempt made in the essay to make a truly objective
> intellectual argument. It is a racist and imperialist manifesto, carefully
> cloaked in an "I know it's not PC, but here's all my excuses..." statement.

I didn't feel that it was racist at all.  He argued that cultures need
to have certain characteristics to play well with others in the modern
world.  He also argued that Arabic/Islamic culture currently lacks those
  elements and that other elements of the culture cause the culture to
present a threat to other modern cultures.  That is a straightforward
argument.  I don't know that I agree with him, but I don't think its
racist.  Imperialist, possibly, but the US managed to help rebuild Japan
without ending up in an imperialist relationship.  Who knows how things
would go?

> "Western Civilization" has raped the land and cultures of the Middle East
> for years. Some of its residents have decided to try to tear us apart.
> What's our solution? Kill them back? Why?

The author is arguing that the rape of the land and culture is not the
reason they hate us.  And you will notice that the "rape of the land"
argument would seem to indicate that Ossama, et al., would hate Britain
and France the most since the US has never had much to do with the
Middle East until the last 50 years.  But the greatest animosity is
reserved for the US, who has raped and pillaged plenty over its history
but has never had that much to do in the Middle East.  So that argument
doesn't really hold up.

As for cultural rape, I'm not quite sure what you mean or how to respond
to it.  So I won't for now.

> ESR has never struck me as being a terribly rational guy. Brilliant, yes,
> but kinda rabid. And not necessarily all that coherent:
>
> "Civilizing the barbarians needn't even be a bloody process if you start the
> job right after their will has been smashed by a major defeat in war."
>
> Huh?!?
>
> Try that argument again.

The Marshall plan grew out of an understanding that we failed after WWI.
  We conquered but then we went into isolationist mode.  Because of the
isolationism, there was economic depression and a complete power vacuum
within Germany.  This directly lead to the rise of Nazi Germany.  ESR is
saying that you don't win and then wander off and that if you want
things to go your way, it works alot better if you have a plan for
rebuilding immediately after finishing a war.

> C'mon, Judah, you of all people should know that memes don't work that
> way -- you can't "wipe them out" by destroying them, just as you can't pull
> a gene from your DNA and expect to become healthier. Sorry, I don't mean to
> get personal about this, but you're the one who introduced me to these
> concepts, years ago...

I've never said that you can't destroy a meme.  Historical research
indicates that there were a number of strong matriarchal societies in
the tigris/euphrates and indus valleys where modern human culture was
reared.  Those cultures were conquered by patriarchal groups.  They did
a quite effective job of wiping out a dominant meme.

And as far as the DNA argument goes, we have multiple copies of many of
our genes and gene therapy frequently works by blocking the action of a
defective copy and letting the others do their job correctly.  Take that
analogy for what you will, but I couldn't let the DNA comment stand.

Once again, to cover my liberal white ass, I'm not saying that I agree
with the author.  I'm just saying that its a fairly well argued, non
knee-jerk reaction.  Which is unfortunately rare these days.

Judah