Monday, August 08, 2005
The War on Terror, Another "War by Proxy"
I honestly feel that the war on terror is a long hard battle that will take many years to fight; our enemies will be wide and vary by country, nationality and religion; some fights we may win and some we may loose; but in the end we will come out on top.
Allow me to draw a couple of historical comparisons to illustrate my opinion:
The Cold War was a "cold war" because the USA and the USSR never actually declared war on each other. However, looking back historically, I like to call The Cold War a "war by proxy." Although we never directly fought the Soviets, we indirectly fought the Soviets all over the world. We fought a them in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Cuba, just to name the obvious examples. And although the USA never directly invaded Moscow and defeated the Soviets, the collective efforts of all the little wars resulted in the eventual bankrupting of the Soviet Union, the estrangement of its "allies" and victory for the United States. The current US History books refer to each engagement as a war; however, I believe that over time all the "smaller" wars will be summed up into a "large" war theory on Soviet-US engagement.
Very similarly, looking back into history we group smaller, related military engagements into larger military events to help us understand the over-arching infuences and effects of an era. For example, The Hundred Years War is much easier to understand the way it is, rather than trying to see things from each generation's percpective and what they called each section of the wars.
In the same way, we as historians view the expansion of the Roman Empire as one large historical arc. And yes, the elite of Rome may have felt the same way, and even the soldier or peasant on the empire's periphery may have seen it as well, the only difference is that the soldier or the peasant at the periphery were more concerned with the "immediate war." i.e. The Romans vs. Gaul; vs. The Huns; vs. any of the smaller areas they took over. So, a history book at the time in a Roman classroom would probably view each major encounter as a war, just like we independently recognize Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. But, in the end, we summarize all the little wars into the wars of Roman expansion, The 100 Years War and eventually we will refer to the Soviet War (or a collection of all "wars by proxy" we fought in the 20th century) as well.
Now back to my initial point, very similarly, we will eventually look back and view the current war in Iraq and the wars to come (because let me tell you, there will be more "battles" in the war on terror) as the "Incert Catchy Name Here WAR." It could be the "War for Democracy," "The War for Freedom," I don't know.
What I do know is whereas the Soviet Union was too big to fight so we fought them indirectly, inversely the terrorists are too dispersed and loose so we will need to fight them indirectly as well. It may be difficult to see this now, that is why I chose to use the analogies of other large-scale engagements to preface my argument. We may chase terror into Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, who knows. Perhaps this historical percpective to a current event may help people see the conflict in the larger scope of things.
Allow me to draw a couple of historical comparisons to illustrate my opinion:
The Cold War was a "cold war" because the USA and the USSR never actually declared war on each other. However, looking back historically, I like to call The Cold War a "war by proxy." Although we never directly fought the Soviets, we indirectly fought the Soviets all over the world. We fought a them in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Cuba, just to name the obvious examples. And although the USA never directly invaded Moscow and defeated the Soviets, the collective efforts of all the little wars resulted in the eventual bankrupting of the Soviet Union, the estrangement of its "allies" and victory for the United States. The current US History books refer to each engagement as a war; however, I believe that over time all the "smaller" wars will be summed up into a "large" war theory on Soviet-US engagement.
Very similarly, looking back into history we group smaller, related military engagements into larger military events to help us understand the over-arching infuences and effects of an era. For example, The Hundred Years War is much easier to understand the way it is, rather than trying to see things from each generation's percpective and what they called each section of the wars.
In the same way, we as historians view the expansion of the Roman Empire as one large historical arc. And yes, the elite of Rome may have felt the same way, and even the soldier or peasant on the empire's periphery may have seen it as well, the only difference is that the soldier or the peasant at the periphery were more concerned with the "immediate war." i.e. The Romans vs. Gaul; vs. The Huns; vs. any of the smaller areas they took over. So, a history book at the time in a Roman classroom would probably view each major encounter as a war, just like we independently recognize Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. But, in the end, we summarize all the little wars into the wars of Roman expansion, The 100 Years War and eventually we will refer to the Soviet War (or a collection of all "wars by proxy" we fought in the 20th century) as well.
Now back to my initial point, very similarly, we will eventually look back and view the current war in Iraq and the wars to come (because let me tell you, there will be more "battles" in the war on terror) as the "Incert Catchy Name Here WAR." It could be the "War for Democracy," "The War for Freedom," I don't know.
What I do know is whereas the Soviet Union was too big to fight so we fought them indirectly, inversely the terrorists are too dispersed and loose so we will need to fight them indirectly as well. It may be difficult to see this now, that is why I chose to use the analogies of other large-scale engagements to preface my argument. We may chase terror into Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, who knows. Perhaps this historical percpective to a current event may help people see the conflict in the larger scope of things.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Don't Punish Me for Another's Stupidity
Do any of you have older siblings? Maybe siblings who consistently angered your parents?
Well here is a hypothetical situation to clarfify my position:
Lets say I have an older brother who flooded the basement while home alone at 15 years of age; he stole a new sweatshirt from the mall at 16; he totaled his car at 17; and he lied to our parents and went to a party instead of his friends house after the Homecoming dance at 18.
So, rather than ask me to learn from my brother's mistakes and give me the benefit of doubt I deserve, my parents change their parenting rules to make sure that it becomes impossible for me to make a mistake.
The new parenting rules are:
You are forbidden to be home alone until you are 16.
You are forbidden from going to the mall.
You will not be allowed to drive.
You will not be going to your Homecoming dance.
Now, this seems like an unrealistic reaction to parenting.
Yet this is the same knee-jerk-response, hyper-reactionary form of society we live in today.
Whenever a tragedy happens it is not enought to learn from the mistake; instead people try to "change the rules" so it never happens again.
So, when people wreck their car because they are on the phone or smoking, I am forbidden from using my cell phone and smoking while driving; however, cars are still built with loud radios and there are still drive-thru restaurants so you can eat a burger and drive.
A child says that a video game and a music video made him kill someone, so we do not analyze his personal life and try to figure out why he cannot differentiate between reality and entertainment; instead we ban thosevideo games and music videos.
An unbalanced teen decides to kill his friend and himself, so we decide to out law all guns.
Parents who were embarassed by their unathleticism in grade school have now changed the school physical education program to get rid of dodgeball to "shelter" their child from the same embarassment. But, no one tries to get rid of reading-outloud, or "around-the-class" flash card drills, even though certain kids may get embarrased.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that while growing up kids will get injured, they will get embarassed, they will make mistakes, the will break the rules and maybe at times dissapoint; however, they will also succeed, rise to the occassion, and impress. You can't keep restricting everything we do based on "potential hazzards," let us live out lives on our terms.
If you have never came up short in life you never reached far enough.
Well here is a hypothetical situation to clarfify my position:
Lets say I have an older brother who flooded the basement while home alone at 15 years of age; he stole a new sweatshirt from the mall at 16; he totaled his car at 17; and he lied to our parents and went to a party instead of his friends house after the Homecoming dance at 18.
So, rather than ask me to learn from my brother's mistakes and give me the benefit of doubt I deserve, my parents change their parenting rules to make sure that it becomes impossible for me to make a mistake.
The new parenting rules are:
You are forbidden to be home alone until you are 16.
You are forbidden from going to the mall.
You will not be allowed to drive.
You will not be going to your Homecoming dance.
Now, this seems like an unrealistic reaction to parenting.
Yet this is the same knee-jerk-response, hyper-reactionary form of society we live in today.
Whenever a tragedy happens it is not enought to learn from the mistake; instead people try to "change the rules" so it never happens again.
So, when people wreck their car because they are on the phone or smoking, I am forbidden from using my cell phone and smoking while driving; however, cars are still built with loud radios and there are still drive-thru restaurants so you can eat a burger and drive.
A child says that a video game and a music video made him kill someone, so we do not analyze his personal life and try to figure out why he cannot differentiate between reality and entertainment; instead we ban thosevideo games and music videos.
An unbalanced teen decides to kill his friend and himself, so we decide to out law all guns.
Parents who were embarassed by their unathleticism in grade school have now changed the school physical education program to get rid of dodgeball to "shelter" their child from the same embarassment. But, no one tries to get rid of reading-outloud, or "around-the-class" flash card drills, even though certain kids may get embarrased.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that while growing up kids will get injured, they will get embarassed, they will make mistakes, the will break the rules and maybe at times dissapoint; however, they will also succeed, rise to the occassion, and impress. You can't keep restricting everything we do based on "potential hazzards," let us live out lives on our terms.
If you have never came up short in life you never reached far enough.
