Through a Glass Darkly...

Reasons for Delay....and What I've Read and What I am Currently Reading

2012-01-29T00:36:00.004+04:30

Well, many things have happened at once that will delay my promised posts. Because of some emergencies at work my part-time job as become full time for a while and my classes have started in full and already are proving intensive. So it will be two weeks or so before I can get back into a regular routine.

Someone asked me on a forum the other day what I had read so far this year and what I'm currently reading and since right now I don't have anything else to post I'm going to share that for the time being:

What I have read for the year so far:

1. The Path Between the Seas (David McCullough)- A solid, popular history of the conception and building of the Panama canal.

2. The Man in the High Castle (Philip K. Dick)- I'm a fan of Philip K. Dick's work but only recently got around to reading this intriguing counter-factual historical fiction set in an alternate past in which Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were the victors of WWII.

3. The Coming of the Revolution (L.H. Gipson)- A study in the origins of the American Revolution with an emphasis on the British side of the conflict.

4. Death of a Salesman (Arthur Miller)-A classic American play worth reading (and seeing!). However, do not read it in a depressed or melancholy state.

5. Undisputed (Chris Jericho)- The second part of Chris Jericho's autobiography. Not quite as funny as his first A Lion's Tale but still quite entertaining.

6. The Naked Ape (Desmond Morris)- A blunt, zoological and evolutionary take on the human animal. My evolutionary fix for the month.

7. The Varieties of Religious Experience (William James)- A classic psychological study of the various characteristics of religious phenomena; an easier read than one might initially suspect.

8. The Jewish Mind (Raphael Patai)- An intellectual history of the Jewish mind. A little on the verbose and pedantic side but informative nonetheless.

9. Racism: A Brief History (George Fredrickson)- One of the best introductions to this topic I've read so far. A great place to start for the uninitiated.

10. A Game of Thrones (George R.R. Martin)-I reluctantly jumped on this bandwagon and am very glad that I did. Though I found the initial reading difficult and a bit boring at first it eventually found its rhythm and by the end of the book I was immensely satisfied. I've started watching the HBO series that is based on this book and so far it has been an excellent adaptation.

In progress:

1. A Brief History of the Jewish People (Raymond Scheindlin)- Treads ground that I've covered many times over so a bit tedious of a read. Plus, the author accepts certain things as factual that scholars have long since declared other wise such as the myth that Rabbinic Judaism began at the Council of Yavneh just after the destruction of the Second Jewish Temple.

2. The Wealth of Nations (Adam Smith)- A classic economic work. My on and off read that I've mentioned before.

3. Origins of the American Revolution (John C. Miller)- An older but fairly comprehensive study of the origins of the American rebellion.

4. Empires in World History (Burbank et al)- A study of world empires from a macro historical perspective.

5. A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (Maxwell and Hayes)- A study of the origins of Israelite society up to the Persian period. The approach here is a historical-critical one and not a confessional and/or faith one.

6. Before European Hegemony: The World System AD 1250-1350 (Janet L. Abu-Lugold)- I just started this one so I don't have anything to say about it yet.

Zombies, Muppets, and Female Orgasms, Oh My!

2012-01-14T01:31:00.006+04:30

I know that not too many people read this blog, something I knew would probably be the case when I started it a year ago. I think this is partly because I don't have a particular niche that I fit in though on the whole I do write about history proportionately more than other topics. I simply don't like to be pigeonholed and have many varied interests that I want to express on my blog.

This blog was started chiefly for two reasons: (1) boredom; during the downward phase of my deployment in Afghanistan I had a lot of free time and needed to find something else to do besides reading and working out; and (2) writing discipline; I also knew that eventually I would be back in academia and so realized that it would be essential to get myself back into the habit of writing as frequently as possible. In other words, I knew beforehand this blog was unlikely to catch on with many people but that was never the intention. This blog has chiefly been for my own benefit. And for those of you who do take the time to read it rest assured that I am deeply grateful.

Nonetheless, I do occasionally take a cursory look at the most popular search queries that lead people to this blog and I thought I would share them. Here are the top three:

1. Zombies. By far this is the most popular and those that happen upon my blog do so because of my The Geopolitics of Zombies post. It remains the one with the most page views but I highly doubt it has ever convinced anyone to subscribe to my blog simply because I'm sure the people that are putting "zombies" in their search engines were not looking for a quasi-academic treatment of the undead.

2. Female Orgasms. No surprise that this is a popular search query. My two posts on this subject (here and here) also have quite a few page views. Of course the people that were searching for this topic probably weren't looking for the kind of intellectual stimulation that I was providing but rather for an altogether different kind of gratification. Other search terms related to this subject that directed people to my blog: clits, clitoris, evolution of the clit, women cumming, mystery of female orgasms, et al.

3. The Muppets. This one was a surprise but a pleasant one. I've said many times that I'm a Muppets fan and its immensely satisfying to see that there are apparently still quite a few other fans out there given how many page views my A Very Muppets Post has received. Still, I guess not even the Muppets could supersede the compelling subjects of female sexual climaxes and the living dead.

And so because of the popularity of these subjects I've decided to center my next three posts on these respective topics. (I toyed with finding a way to incorporate all three into one post but alas realized I could not unless I was doing a combined review of Peter Jackson's Braindead and Meet the Feebles.) You're probably now wondering why I would do something like this with the obvious intention of directing even more traffic to my blog when I just explained that was not what I was looking for. Well, the answer is that I'm human and so a bit prideful. Truthfully, it would be nice to have more readers :). Anyways, as a teaser here are the titles for the upcoming posts (subject to revision of course):

1. Biblical Zombies? An Examination of Matthew 27: 52-53

2. Re-revisiting the Female Orgasm

3. The Top ____ Adult Oriented Muppet Moments

Ramblings on Henry Kissinger's "Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy"

2012-01-07T03:37:00.005+04:30

Every so often I get the urge to read one of Henry Kissinger's books. Recently, I finished his first published one entitled Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, a study that was commissioned by the Council on Foreign Relations to assess just how significantly power relations, particularly between the US and the Soviet Union, had been altered by the introduction of nuclear weapons to the post-war world. Though published in 1957 I think it's a work that's still applicable for American foreign policy today even if the world no longer lives under the threat of a nuclear holocaust. I started out trying to do a proper review of the book for the site but struggled because there are so many different (though interrelated) themes that Kissinger tackles in this remarkable work. Instead I'm just going to list some of the more important insights that I gleaned from the book.

1.) The concept of a limited war is a foreign one to American policymakers chiefly because of US preoccupation with total warfare doctrines extrapolated from the overwhelming experiences of two world wars, both of which were "total" wars.

2.) Additionally, US failure to comprehend limited warfare principles has led to an unnatural divorce between diplomacy and war thus violating Clausewitz's famous dictum that "war is politics by other means."

3.) Example: The Korean War; mishandled because the US found itself forced into a limited war that it could never determine how to conduct, evidenced by confused political and military objectives both at the outset of the war and at its end. "Korea caught us completely unprepared, not only militarily but above all in doctrine." (p. 30)

4.) Chief inquiries of the book: has the proliferation of nuclear weapons fundamentally altered the nature of diplomacy? (Kissinger thinks not) Is it possible to engage in limited nuclear warfare? (Kissinger suggests it is). Kissinger notes that most don't believe the latter to be possible; prevailing wisdom is that once nuclear weapons become entered into the equation all out nuclear war becomes inevitable. "The arguments against limited nuclear war are persuasive...in the absence of a natural cutoff point, it is argued, the employment of any nuclear weapon may start a cycle of gradually expanding commitments ending in all-out war." (145)

5.) Kissinger thinks this conclusion is misguided resting as it does on the ever so tenuous slippery slope argument (aka gateway argument). He argues that limited nuclear warfare would be possible if the following conditions were to apply: conducted with highly mobile units only, restrictions agreed by both sides on what could be considered legitimate targets (e.g., bans on certain kinds of infrastructure and large population centers), and a limit to the amount of megatonnage that can be used by the participants.

6.) Kissinger also suggests that the US should re-evaluate the Atlantic Alliance (NATO) because he thinks that, one, the allies aren't bearing enough of the deterrent burden and, two, that they most likely wouldn't have the will to face down Soviet aggression in their spheres of influence. "What if the Red Army attacks in Europe explicitly to disarm West Germany, offering the United States and the United Kingdom immunity from strategic bombing and promising to withdraw to the Oder after achieving its limited objective? Is it clear France would fight under such circumstances? Or that the United Kingdom would initiate all out war which, however it ended, might mean the end of British civilization?" (205)

7.) Domestically, Kissinger suggests an overhaul of the relations between the various military departments in the US, specifically arguing for more centralization in military policy.

8.) Kissinger provides an adroit analysis of Soviet (and Chinese) foreign policy. He describes it as one of "strategic ambiguity". "The nature of the Soviet challenge is, therefore, inherently ambiguous. It uses the 'legitimate' language of its opponents in a fashion that distorts its meaning and increases the hesitations on the other side." (58); Furthermore, mirroring some of the arguments put forth by George Kennan (the so-called father of containment theory) Kissinger states that Soviet policy is essentially expansionist, i.e., it seeks to expand its security sphere via limited aggression taking advantage of US reluctance to engage in limited warfare for fear of escalation into total war and, hence, nuclear annihilation. Strategic advantage: Soviet Union.

As I said this was written in 1957 but it remains a solid work . I don't agree with everything Kissinger argues in the book, particularly his position on limited nuclear warfare. While I accept that the slippery slope argument is dubious where I think his argument is problematic is with the conditions he says must apply if limited nuclear warfare is to be feasible. The difficulty with this position is that it depends on the Soviet Union agreeing and then abiding by said conditions when it's likely that they wouldn't except as another means of taking advantage of the US through its "strategy of ambiguity" by for example accepting the conditions but then failing to adhere to them.

The real value of the book for present American foreign policy needs is to be found in Kissinger's discussion about US failure to comprehend the nature of limited warfare. When it comes to warfare the US's myopic perspective forces it to think that there is only ever one option, namely, total war. This failure to develop a robust doctrine of limited warfare partially accounts for the many international blunders the US has been in since WWII (the Gulf War maybe being the sole exception though I have my problems with the way that war was conducted). In many ways this is a reflection of the still very immature foreign policy of the US. It's easy to forget that this is still a relatively young nation that has yet to form and solidify its own tradition of foreign policy. In many respects this country still operates from a belief that diplomacy and warfare are essentially separate modes of engaging with other states. For the most part this is faulty reasoning and these two ways of dealing with other countries should never be entirely unlinked from one another. And until this is grasped America will continue to misuse its own might. To sum up the development of a healthy doctrine of limited warfare is essential in the avoidance of more foreign policy blunders by the United States something that becomes increasingly more crucial as the United States begins its decline as the sole superpower.

Lastest Video Review: Jet Li's "The Master"

2011-12-31T23:31:00.002+04:30

A review of an early Jet Li film:

Musings on "The Whistle Blower"

2011-12-08T03:05:00.009+04:30

It's always a pleasant surprise when separate spheres of one's own interests overlap. This happened for me the other night when I watched a British political thriller called The Whistle Blower which was suggested to me by that quasi entity known as Netflix based on a recent interest I've taken in a TV show called Burn Notice (A friend gave me some of the episodes to watch while in Afghanistan but under the mistaken notion that the USA network ceased long ago producing quality original programming I kept putting off trying the show out until a few weeks ago and now Burn Notice is quickly becoming one of my favorite TV shows. Bravo, USA Network).

I was about to ignore the suggestion when I noticed that the movie starred a favorite actor of mine, Sir Michael Caine. So I thought why not go ahead and give it a go. Forty-five minutes in I almost gave up on it because the pacing was excruciatingly slow (even by 80's film standards), Michael Caine was so far barely in it, and I was getting aggravated at how I perceived the plot to be unfolding, namely, toward the revelation of a secret cabal composed of elderly white men influencing and directing world affairs, a trite plot device of political thrillers used and abused many times over (A good exception was the unfortunately short lived AMC show, Rubicon, which gave that worn plot device a fresh and unique spin.). But I decided to give it a stay of execution and continued on.

I guess I should try to convey as best I can the plot. The movie (based on a book of the same name) is about Michael Caine's character, Frank Jones, a Royal Navy veteran who gets caught up in a potential government cover up relating to the possible existence of a top level Russian spy in the British government. Frank's son, a linguist who works for one of the British intelligence agencies, through a series of events including the mysterious deaths of two of his colleagues begins to suspect that the British government is sinisterly involved in some secret affair. He makes these concerns known to his father who doesn't take them seriously, believing his son's paranoia to be related to his voracious interest in spy novels and all things clandestine.

But then his son suddenly dies. The police rule it an unfortunate accident but given what his son had just expressed to him the day before about a possible government conspiracy Frank refuses to accept their conclusion. From then on the film centers on Frank's tortured quest to find out the truth about his son's death. And it was here that I became hooked, mostly because Caine's acting was, as usual, phenomenal, his anguish and determination compelling you to see how his quest ends. Eventually he does sort things out, learning that there is indeed a turncoat in the British government and that the government has been aware of this for some time. However, they have yet to act, deciding instead to take some time to assess the damage the spy has done. Furthermore, the British fear that the United States will find out about this and then refuse the British access to their CIA spy network, something the powers that be in Whitehall deem necessary for the national security of the country. And thus they have "dealt with" those who have come close to revealing the Russian spy, including Frank's son. In short, Frank's son was deemed expendable for reasons of national security.

It is with considerable angst that Frank uncovers this truth. Intriguingly, though, he seems to accept the necessity of his son's death, albeit with grave agony. Yet, what he founds unacceptable is that the government has, for the time being, decided to let the spy remain as he is. This Frank simply cannot abide and upon learning the identity of the traitor seeks him out in order to try and force a confession from him. But in addition to extracting a confession from the man, Frank wants to know why he betrayed his country. The spy explains that his actions were the result of a resentment he had been cultivating ever since WWII when the former British empire became a subordinate power to the United States and the Soviet Union, citing events such as the Suez Affair as a prime indicator of this new reality. Britain, he goes on to assert, is slowly being squeezed out by the two new superpowers. Furthermore, he views the United States as the bully who has been forcing British interests to fall in line with its own policy and so decided to cast his support to the Russians. Frank finds this explanation incredulous, prompting him to ask: "Well, why don't you just live in Russia then?" to which the turncoat has no reply. From there the movie ends the only way it can and since I don't want to divulge everything about the movie I'll cease here with the plot description.

This movie really surprised me and in a good way. It has to be one of the more realistic political thrillers that I have seen. Everything makes sense in it: from the actions of the lay characters to the motivations of the government officials. It is all quite sensible, especially the rational basis the traitor gives for why he decided to betray his own country. In short, the movie is, well, believable. A trait I think of the utmost importance for spy thrillers.

Ok, I know that's not a profound assessment of the value of this movie but it is true and rings true to me especially. This is because for the past several months I've been studying British history (specifically their side of the American Revolution) as well as Anglo-American relations since WWII. And so the actions and grievances of the major players in this movie is an interesting reflection of some of my current interests. In sum, my love of movies and my current research interests fortuitously overlapped in a most pleasant manner. And it's always a great joy to me when that happens. Thank you, Netflix, for the excellent suggestion. You chose....wisely.

Reflections on "Lost", Romans 9, and Purpose

2011-12-02T02:38:00.004+04:30

I have been working on getting my second video review done so I don't have a new post available this week so I'm going to post something I wrote in my journal several years ago about the TV show "Lost" and Romans chapter 9. Note, it was written when "Lost" was still in its first season and fresh (I was ultimately let down by the conclusion of that otherwise entertaining show) and during a time of personal anguish which accounts for some of the emotional under current of the journal entry.

One of the few television shows that I keep up with is "Lost". So far this show has many of the elements that I enjoy in a TV series. The thrust of the show is this: Oceanic Flight 815 has crashed on an unknown and mysterious island. The survivors of the crash are ultimately trying to find a way off the island but at the same time are trying to uncover some of its mysteries. Now this premise is in no way unique but the creators of the show, J.J. Abrams and Damon Lindelof, added one interesting feature to this often used plot device which, in my opinion, gives it a fresh spin. In short, they gave the island a personality. And it's this "personality" that in some manner, I suspect, is the source for many of the oddities of the island such as polar bears, an invisible monster that devours people, the miraculous healing of a former paraplegic, just to name a few.

Now this former paraplegic is one of the central characters of the show. He is John Locke, named after the famous philosopher who developed a theory of epistemology which argued that humans were not born with innate ideas. Instead they come into the world with a tabula resa or blank slate in which knowledge and, ultimately, experiences are "chiseled" into over time. In other words, Locke squarely came down on the side of nurture in the seemingly interminable "nature vs nuture" debate. Incidentally, one of the episodes in season 1 is named "Tabula Resa".

Obviously, because of his seemingly supernatural healing, Locke is the most driven of the survivors to unlocking the secrets of the island. It is Locke who constantly refers to the island as an entity. Furthermore, it is Locke who sees purpose in everything that has been happening on the island summed up when he tells one of the other characters that "it is the Island that brought us here." Ultimately, Locke is the man of faith who sees purpose and destiny in everything that has happened to the survivors. And if Locke is the man of faith on the island then without a doubt Jack Shepherd, the surgeon, is the man of doubt. In fact, in a heated argument between the two concerning the island Jack explicitly tells Locke that he doesn't believe in purpose or fate and vehemently argues that everything that has happened can be ascribed to a series of coincidences.

Maybe it is too much of a generalization but it seems to me that these two types of characters represent the divide that most people fall into when it comes to questions of fate and randomness. Some are inclined to see purpose in everything while others are satisfied to relegate everything to the workings of chance. I guess I have grown up being one of the former. Some of which surely stems from my love of certain movies like Star Wars that heavily involve a motif of destiny in their plots. But mostly this comes from my Christian heritage. You see when you grow up in a Christian atmosphere you are constantly told that God has a purpose for your life. Indeed, the preferred text cited in support of this notion is almost always Jeremiah 29:11 which states, "For I know the plans I have for you, declares YHWH, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you a hope and a future."

But the older I get the less sense this viewpoint of "God having a purpose for everyone" makes. To be honest, I'm inclined towards the negative of that statement which, incidentally, seems to be supported by the texts deemed in some sense sacred and divine by Christians. One need look no further than Romans chapter 9. Now I've stated before that I don't think the Calvinist interpretation of this chapter, i.e., that it is concerned with God's right to predestine some to eternal salvation and, at least passively, the rest to eternal damnation. But one thing is clear to me now: this passage is definitely about God's sovereignty in election to promise (purpose).

The problem that Paul is exploring in this chapter is the seemingly apparent rejection of the Jews in favor of the Gentiles displayed in the fact that so few Jews are accepting the gospel message. If this is the case then it would seem, Paul implies, that God's promises have failed. But Paul of course immediately rejects this implication with a hefty, "God forbid!".

Yet through all of Rom 9-11 Paul fails to give us a clear solution to this problem. But what he does say is nevertheless important, namely, that God's choice of receives promise (purpose) has always began with his election and mercy, and therefore not based on anything in man or of man. To support this Paul cites the example of God's choice of Jacob over Esau: "Before they had been born and before they had done anything evil or good, so that God's purpose in election might stand not on man who wills but on he who shows mercy, it was told to Sarah that the 'elder shall serve the younger'". Then Paul quotes from Malachi to further strengthen his argument: "For it is written, 'Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated.'" Though most scholars understand this harsh saying to be a Hebrew idiom meaning simply "Jacob I have chosen, Esau I have rejected" we should not let this detract from the harshness of the saying. The impact is the same: God's purpose for people begins solely from His own purposes. For no reason but his own, God chose Jacob over Esau to be the child of promise, through whom would emerge Israel, his chosen people. This is reinforced by the fact that by birthright Esau should have been the chosen because he was the first born but God upended this traditional mode of election by choosing the second born. In short, God gives purpose to some and not to others.

Now though I've rejected the traditional Calvinist interpretation of this chapter which Calvin himself called "The Terrible Decree" that sees this as about predestination, I wonder if my interpretation is not at least as terrible? Indeed, God choosing only some for purpose seems a hair's breadth from the Calvinist doctrine of predestination.

But some might try to reply to my argument by quoting Romans 8:28 which states that "God works all things for good." But in reality, that passage has some restrictions that many miss. You have to love God and more importantly you have to be called according to His purpose. For this is what the passage actually says: "For God works all things for good to those who love him and who are called according to his purpose."

What can be inferred except that not all are called according to purpose? And again, if this is the case, is this not just as terrible an implication as Calvin's "terrible decree"? I guess then it is God who decides who will be the John Lockes and Jack Shepherds.

A Very Muppets Post

2011-11-24T21:09:00.005+04:30

Well, I'm sure that most of you are aware that I'm a Muppets' fan and so in honor of the latest Muppets' movie release I give you ten great Muppet moments. Enjoy and Happy Thanksgiving.

10.) It only seems right to start with the classic opening theme to the original show:

9.) Muppets Bohemian Rhapsody:

8.) Koozebanian Mating Ritual:

7.) Veterinarian's Hospital-Bread:

6.) Treasure Island Roll Call:

5.) Muppet's Christmas Carol Scrooge Song:

4.) Muppets try out for Star Wars:

3.) Muppets Take Manhattan Wedding Song:

2.) Great Muppet Caper: Happiness Hotel Song:

1.) And of course the classic Manamana:

And since it is Thanksgiving here's a bonus video from the Swedish Chef:

The Eclipse of World War I

2011-11-17T00:43:00.006+04:30

Several days ago the nation celebrated Veteran's Day. I had planned to write on that day but it coincided with the day of my grandmother's funeral. Now even before I became a veteran I've always been uneasy with the fact that this country celebrates its war veterans annually on Nov. 11th. Originally, this day marked Armistice Day, the day in which WWI unofficially came to an end with a cease fire between the Allied and Central Powers. My concern is that by celebrating all veterans of every US war on this single day risks obscuring the memory and significance of what once was universally called "The Great War".

To a large degree this has already happened. The relegation, indeed subordination, of WWI to other events of the 20th century, specifically of course WWII, can be readily observed by visiting your conventional US bookstore. On average there are only a handful of books on WWI compared to dozens of books on WWII and the Vietnam War (As an aside I should note that the Korean War gets the shortest shrift of all with at most two or three books on that often neglected conflict.) Moreover, there is only one memorial in D.C. dedicated to the fallen soldiers of WWI and it is in a state of disrepair.

Why the neglect? Well, there are many reasons but only a few worth mentioning here. For one, it must be recalled that though the US was an eventual participant in the "Great War" it was so only very belatedly. WWI began in August of 1914, the US did not declare war on Germany until April of 1917, and even then didn't actually start contributing troops to Europe until May of 1918. The war was then mercifully over about 6 months later. Thus compared to the horrible costs paid by Britain and France after four years of a literal hell on earth in the trenches, the material and spiritual investment of the United States to that war was nearly negligible. This lack of comparative sacrifice was then exacerbated by the combined naivete and idealism of Woodrow Wilson's preachy diplomacy during the peace process with the other three principal world leaders (Lloyd George, Clemenceau, and Orlando). In short, aside from the late and brief role played by the US, WWI was essentially from beginning to end a European war. And except for the inculcation of an unfortunate isolationist mindset, the Great War left very little of an impression on the minds of the American people partially reflected in the eventual refusal of the Senate to ratify the Treaty of Versailles.

Another factor, related to the previous point above, in the eclipse of WWI has to do with the relationship often assigned to that war vis a vis WWII. Often, WWI is seen, at best, as the prequel, or, at worst, as the prologue to WWII. Indeed, most interpreters of WWII believe that in many significant ways WWI was the cause of WWII. Largely this has to do with the causal value given to the peace treaty that officially ended WWI, namely, The Treaty of Versailles. Subsequent Germans, most notoriously Adolf Hitler, often cited the "cruel and harsh" peace inflicted on them by the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles (specifically concerning the so-called "war guilt clause" which supposedly forced the Germans to accept full blame for causing the Great War) as justification for their grievances against the other powers of Europe. (Many historians have bought into this argument. I for one am skeptical of this view....a post for another time though.)

Also, WWII is a war that's a bit easier for people to understand both in terms of the causes of the war and the cast of colorful characters that were involved: Hitler, Stalin, FDR, Churchill, etc (Yes, Churchill was involved in WWI but not as centrally.). In contrast, apart from Woodrow Wilson, most people wouldn't be able to tell you whom the world leaders were during WWI. Additionally on this score, the "evil" of WWII was something much clearer from a moral perspective. Nazi Germany and Japanese aggression were lucid factors that led to WWII and therefore easier to grasp as opposed to the myriad of components (secret alliances, foolish treaty obligations, naval arms race, Prussian militarism, Austria-Hungarian designs on the Balkans, Russian concern for the Slavic races, etc) traditionally said to have created the conditions for WWI.

Lastly, though I've already hit on this point, WWII unlike WWI featured the US prominently, decisively even (though it didn't officially enter until late 1941 when the war began in September of 1939). Pearl Harbor, D-Day, the Battle of the Bulge, Yalta, Iwo Jima, etc. were all major events which involved the United States. In most every way then WWII was demonstrably a United States war whereas WWI was essentially a peripheral conflict that the US only very lately contributed to.

And for all of these reasons WWI becomes eclipsed by WWII and later US events of the 20th century. For my part I think this is most unfortunate. WWI in my opinion still deserves, as the British and other Europeans continue to call it, to be known as the Great War. Its significance should not be understated and in a future post I will seek to lay out just how important of an event WWI really was for the 20th century and not just in the limited sense that it was the cause for what most people see as the greater of the two world wars.

RIP Grandma

2011-11-09T01:43:00.004+04:30

Typically, I try not to write about personal events on this blog but I want to make an exception for this post. Today, I lost my last grandparent, Grandma Elder, my maternal grandmother. It wasn't a huge surprise since she had been in the hospital for about a month fighting an infection. Still, I think we are all experiencing grief...especially those who were holding out hope that she might recover. I will miss her greatly....and not just because of the excellent home cooked meals that I would receive when visiting her or staying the night. She was a very generous person who lived a very difficult life. Nevertheless, she was always willing to help out her kids and grandkids. This included me. Before I deployed to Afghanistan I was in a bad financial position because I had left my job in Chattanooga at the time to come home to get ready for mobilization. But, as is the Army way, they kept delaying my mobilization which squeezed my finances. It was my grandmother who loaned me some money that enabled me to get through until I did finally leave the country. I will never forget that.

Another thing I will always remember about Grandma Elder is her sharp mind. Everyday that I was there she would be working on crossword puzzles and usually finished them completely. And though her memory often failed her towards the end of her life she still knew if the slightest thing in her kitchen was out of place! I have no doubt that had she been born in a later time period where women had more opportunities to advance that she would have gone on to great things. Wait...that's not fair. Raising six kids and many, many grandkids is a testament to the fact that she did do great things in her life.

Over the last several years my religious worldview has gone through some drastic changes...."refinement" is the way I like to phrase it, though that's probably a bit disingenuous. But I'm still a theist who believes in a just universe and therefore a just creator. And if I believe such then it seems to follow (though not necessarily) that there will be an "afterlife" of some kind...though I intensely dislike that word. I care not really to fruitlessly speculate on what it might be like but I do hope that it would be something akin to the classic Judeo-Christian (and Islamic) belief in the resurrection of the dead (Yes, I know those choice of words conjure images of zombies stumbling out of their graves to walk the earth. Still...) and redemption of the created order....much more appealing than the now popular (among modern day evangelical Christians at least) conception of an eternity floating about "heaven" as disembodied souls.

Nonetheless, if my vestigial Christian belief turns out to be well founded then I truly look forward to the day when I see my grandmother again at the Day of the Resurrection. I will severely miss you, Grandma. Rest in peace...for now.

"In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall all be changed." (I Cor 15:52 KJV)

And Now for Something Completely Different...

2011-11-02T02:27:00.005+04:30

I have been a viewer of a website called thatguywiththeglasses.com which is basically a place where many different kinds of personalities do reviews of their genre of choice. Most of them are reviews of bad films and games which is where it is easiest to extract humor. For years I've had a passion for two things: video editing (that I've been doing since VHS days) and Martial Arts films. I've combined the two in the past but I wanted to try and do something akin to those reviewers that I watch. So for the past month I've been working on my first video. I don't really know if this is the kind of forum for presenting this project and it is doubtful that I will continue to link to these reviews if I should decide to do more of them because this blog is meant to be my sort of intellectual sphere. I have a lot still to work on, principally learning to be more natural and casual with the narration and not so "professorial" or stolid. Anyways, here are the links to my first video. Hopefully, those of you who choose to watch it will be at least moderately entertained.

My Job in Afghanistan

2011-10-27T02:04:00.004+04:30

Except for a brief explanation in one of my earliest posts I haven't really tried to describe what my job was in Afghanistan. This is in part because of the difficulty involved in doing so. My official MOS (military occupational speciality) is 12B or combat engineer. Historically, combat engineers have been mostly involved in the use of demolitions and/or area clearance (e.g., mine detection and removal) but with the proliferation of IEDs as a favorite tactic of insurgents combat engineers have mostly been involved in "route clearance" which is not as benign as it sounds. In a nutshell, combat engineers attempt to clear routes for infantry, supply lines, special forces, et al by finding and neutralizing IEDs. That sounds a lot like what EOD (explosive ordnance disposal) does which is what people most confuse combat engineers with.

But a crucial difference between a combat engineer and EOD is that the former is actually a combat MOS whereas the latter is only combat support. This is an essential distinction because it means that EOD is not permitted to engage in active combat situations and so only to be employed in a supportive role. Usually they sit around on the base until they are called out to neutralize an IED. This renders films like The Hurt Locker wholly inaccurate which is why, even with the critical acclaim it received, I did not care for that movie because an EOD unit would not have found itself in 90 percent of the situations depicted in that movie. The other chief difference between the two is that EOD is qualified to BIP (blow in place) and/or neutralize more types of IEDs than are combat engineers which is why they are equipped with a bomb suit and robotic investigative unit.

A friend of mine the other day pointed out to me a documentary that National Geographic did on combat engineers called Bomb Hunters. I've watched some of it and it is pretty accurate in terms of what I did in Afghanistan. For those interested more specifically in the day to day operations of a Route Clearance unit I suggest watching this documentary. Here's the link to the first part (embed doesn't work):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7JCHJYdSak

Revisiting the Female Orgasm

2011-10-19T22:09:00.012+04:30

Sometime ago now I wrote a tongue in cheek post about the evolution of the clitoris relying heavily on the conclusions of the late paleo-evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould that sought to provide a structural as opposed to adaptive explanation for the evolution of the clitoris. The conclusion reached there was that the penis and clitoris are homologous and that it is only through embyronic sexual differentiation that the two become "distinct" parts of their respective genitalia. Now in that post I did not treat the various adaptive explanations that many have proposed for the clitoris such as that a clitoral orgasm might help "draw up" sperm further into the reproductive tract thus increasing the chances of propagation or that it is a part of "bond pairing", the idea being that a female is more likely to stay and therefore continue to reproduce with a male that is able to fulfill her sexually via clitoral stimulation. There are many others and I chose not to engage with these adaptive theories because, again, that post was meant primarily to be humorous and entertaining.

Why am I then revisiting that post? Well, I came across an article on CNN that deals with exactly this issue and, interestingly enough, cites a recent study from Animal Behavior which questions the validity of the byproduct theory of the evolution of the clitoris:

Yet a study of twins and siblings published recently in the journal Animal Behavior questions the byproduct theory of female orgasm. Researchers looked for similarities in orgasm function between 10,000 Finnish female and male twins. And although there were significant similarities between same-sex twins, the researchers found no such correlation in orgasm function between opposite-sex twins, a correlation one would expect if female orgasm is a byproduct of male orgasm.

I'm not going to debate the findings of this recent research because I'm simply not qualified to do so though I do think it is flawed. And though I wrote about this with considerable levity in that earlier post this is actually an important issue when it comes to female sexuality. As the CNN article states we tend to reflexively value things that we hold as being more natural. But the female clitoris has historically been viewed as less than natural because of the (seemingly) lack of a role it plays in the reproduction of the species. Because of this it was seen as unnatural and hence improper for a woman to experience an orgasm other than through sexual intercourse. Sigmund Freud for example noted that it was fine for a young girl to experience an orgasm through self stimulation of her clitoris but that when she got married she should put away such childish behavior and thereon only attempt to achieve orgasm through intercourse thereby consigning an untold number of married women to sexual oblivion because as I noted in that earlier post the majority of women cannot achieve orgasm except through direct or at least indirect stimulation of their clitoris.

I suppose this is why I am attracted to the "byproduct" theory of the evolution of the clitoris because it easily disarms those who may be tempted to argue that stimulation of the clitoris is unnatural or unwarranted. And though I joked about it in that earlier post, the subject of the evolution of the female orgasm really is no laughing matter since at stake here is the justified sexual satisfaction of millions of women.

An Unexpected Value From Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations"

2011-09-30T23:05:00.007+04:30

I mentioned quite a while back my intentions on getting through the unabridged version of Adam Smith's famous The Wealth of Nations before the year was out. I have been steadily chipping away at the book over the last several months and have finally made it to the halfway point (603 pages!). It's truly been a love/hate affair. Because of this I've only been able to dabble in the book from time to time; sustained readings of this book are, for me at any rate, quite difficult to maintain. Now there have been many parts of the book that I've found stimulating and quite refreshing, especially Smith's chapters detailing the origins of commerce and the development of specie as the preferred instrument of commerce. But there have been others, particularly a plethora of chapters detailing certain elements of an 18th century economy that simply don't apply to the 21st century (a lengthy discussion about ship insurance comes to mind as one example).

But Smith's loquacious discussion concerning entails (kind of like inheritances but to a much more legal complex degree) was one of the harder sections to endure. However, entails were a major part of English society for several centuries and so I knew I would later be burdened by a major defeciency in my understanding if I skipped that discussion (which I certainly was tempted to do) so I bravely carried on.

And I'm definitely glad I did because the value of that section recently came to light from an unexpected source: TV, specifically, a Masterpiece Theatre TV series called Downton Abbey that I've come to enjoy very much. It was created and written by Julian Fellowes who won best original screenplay for the likewise enjoyable Gosford Park. The show is basically a replica of that movie except a couple of decades removed from that film's time period. Like Gosford Park, Downton Abbey deals with the upstairs lives of the British upper class with the downstairs lives of their various assorted servants and the occassional overlaps between the two groups, minus the mystery murder subplot. The show is very well done but I don't want to say too much about it because I want to give it a proper review at some point on this blog.

But the chief story arc in the show pivots around the problems of an entail. The great thing is that because of my perseverance in sticking with Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations I have been able to understand fully the problems surrounding the entail in the TV show. In short, that lengthy section in Smith's work on entails has enhanced my understanding of this pivotal plot point in the show which in turn has enriched my experience of Downton Abbey as a whole. This unexpected value from laboring through Smith's book has made all the hard work of reading the unabridged version thus far worth it.

Conan the Disappointment

2011-09-24T05:52:00.010+04:30

(Sorry for the white boxes; blogger is acting up and I wasn't able to fix it.)

Yesterday I finally got a chance to go see the remake of Conan the Barbarian. I had been anticipating seeing the movie for quite some time knowing full well that it would probably be a disappointment partly because probability dictates that the majority of remakes will suck and partly because I read many of the reviews before seeing the film. (Yes, I'm one of those people who look over critic reviews of movies before going to see them.) While the movie has some highlights, notably Jason Momoa performing remarkably well as the titular character, overall it is fairly insipid and banal; related in name only to the original Conan the Cimmeria n as created and developed by Robert E. Howard. (To be fair, though, the original movie was mostly related to the Howard Conan in name only as well.)

Recently, I began reading the original Conan stories which has been an absolutely delightful experience. And one thing that I've come to realize about the Conan character created by Howard is the lack of motivation that Conan has for doing the things he does. Well, that's not quite correct. He does have a reason for what he does but it's fairly base. Basically, Conan acts in the manner he does (i.e., like a barbarian) in the stories simply because he likes it, simply because he's a Cimmerian, simply because he's a barbarian. And that's what barbarians do; act like barbarians! Consider the following discussion Conan has with the Pirate Queen in the story Queen of the Black Coast. The context has to do with a discussion about the larger purpose of living and, especially, the afterlife:

I seek not beyond death. It may be the blackness averred by the Nemedian skeptics, or Crom's realm of ice and cloud, or the snowy plains and vaulted halls of the Nordheimer's Valhalla. I know not, nor do I care. Let me live deep while I live; let me know the rich juices of red meat and stinging wine on my palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content. Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content.

Now any other time I would probably complain about the lack of depth in a character but in this case it makes sense for Conan to be the way he is. He does not need any further motivation to act in a barbarian manner. Yet, one of the things that this film gets wrong, as well as the original Schwarzenegger film, is to ascribe an unnecessary layer to the motivation of Conan’s character, namely, revenge. Why can’t it be enough to read a story in which a barbarian does barbarian things principally because he is a barbarian! I hope subsequent adaptations of the original Howard concept eventually get this but that's doubtful. Oddly enough, the film Conan the Destroyer which most lambaste as a terrible film actually comes closer to capturing the true essence of Conan the Cimmerian as created by Robert E. Howard. So, and I can’t believe I’m saying this, if you don’t have time to read the original short stories then watch Conan the Destroyer for a more accurate portrayl of the Conan character. On the other hand if you want to see a better film that involves Arnold Schwarzenegger beating up people then watch the original Conan the Barbarian and stay clear from this film which should have been titled Conan the Disappointment.

Just How Transformative was 9/11 of US Foreign Policy?

2011-09-13T00:49:00.006+04:30

Several days ago the nation commemorated the ten year "anniversary" of the 9/11 attacks. On that day I was stuck in Orlando International Airport awaiting my flight back after having finished my third, and thankfully last, Army Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program. And as I do from time to time I purchased the New York Times Sunday weekender chiefly for the NTY Bookreview and magazine but this edition also included a lengthy special insert assessing the impact of 9/11 after ten years. Not surprisingly the bulk of this section concentrated on the Iraq war. In fact out of the twelve sections or so more than half dealt with the Iraq war and its consequences. By comparison only a few sections reflected on the conflict in Afghanistan. Again, this isn't all that baffling since when most consider the impact that 9/11 has had on the world they think specifically in terms of the misguided and bungled invasion of Iraq.

But a partial result of this narrow reflection on the consequences of 9/11 has been the development of the fashionable claim among historians of American foreign policy, IR theorists, political scientists, foreign journalists, et al that 9/11 caused a fundamental shift in how the United States now conducts its foreign policy by turning from the astute and calculating realism of the 80's and 90's to the heavy handed, highly ideological and unilateralist foreign policy of the Bush administration and its, mostly, neoconservative policy advisers. As I've briefly touched on before this kind of thinking is typical of those who study American foreign policy in one degree or another, i.e., it's illustrative of a broader attempt by that establishment to isolate specific "hinge" moments in American history that changed and/or altered the direction of then US foreign relations.( Even Henry Kissinger, a former diplomat I admire, is guilty of this in his otherwise excellent monograph Diplomacy).

I think this is a deeply flawed analysis of the history of American foreign policy. For my own part I'm inclined to allot a lot more continuity in the how the US has conducted foreign policy since its inception. Additionally, I would argue that Bush's so called "preemptive" war against Saddam Hussain makes much more sense within this paradigm of thinking or rather fits squarely with how the US has acted against "perceived" national security threats before. In this sense then I don't think that 9/11 was all that transformative in regards to American foreign policy. Thankfully, I'm not alone in this belief as I discovered when I read Melvyn Leffler's excellent essay in the most recent edition of Foreign Affairs where he asserts the same idea. Since he argues his position much better than I feel I can at the moment it's worth quoting from at length to close out this post:

"Preemptive and preventive actions were not invented by Bush; his vice president, Dick Cheney; and Rumsfeld; they have a long history in the annals of US foreign policy. A century earlier, President Theodore Roosevelt's "corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine was a policy of preventive intervention in the Americas, as were the subsequent US military occupations of countries such as Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Later, President Franklin Roosevelt justified his resort to anticipatory self-defense against German ships in the Atlantic prior to the United States' entry in World War II by saying, 'When you see a ratlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him.' Some 20 years on, President John F. Kennedy determined that he could not allow a Soviet deployment of offensive weapons about 90 miles from US shores, and he unilaterally imposed a quarantine-essentially a blockade and an act of belligerency-around Cuba during the missle crisis...Responding to the threat of terrorism in the mid-1990's, President Bill Clinton signed a national security directive declaring that 'the United States shall pursue vigorously efforts to deter and preempt, apprehend and prosecute...individuals who perpetrate or plan to perpetrate such attacks'...The long term significance of 9/11 for US foreign policy should not be overestimated." (pp. 40, 42)

Jesus of History, Christ of Faith

2011-09-09T02:11:00.008+04:30

(I've been away for an Army thing so I haven't had time to compose anything this week so I'm going to post something I wrote a few years ago.)

Who do men say that I am?

There are two images of the figure of Jesus which I have chosen that exhibit the distinction between traditional conceptions of Jesus as the Christ of faith and the more modern notions concerning the historical Jesus or Jesus of history.

The first is a painting done by Coppo di Marcavaldo around 1261 titled simply “Crucifix” which presents Jesus in the more traditional vein. His body is contorted in a slightly unrealistic manner in that his arms are too long and his torso is stretched too far. The face lacks any kind of definite emotion and behind his head appears the typical halo-like piece that can be seen in many of the representations of Jesus during this time period. Moreover, the crucifix is surrounded by well known images from the narratives of the four Gospels and the cross itself is “topped off” with a picture representing the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. In short this is a portrayal of Jesus that bears many of the hallmarks of traditional Christian thinking about Jesus at this time in history.

The second image is radically different and is the work of forensic scientist Richard Nieve. In 2001 the BBC ran a documentary on the historical Jesus and asked Nieve, via the appropriation of forensic tools, to form a hypothetical reconstruction of what the historical Jesus might have looked like. The result is strikingly non-fantastic. Nieve’s Jesus appears as a rather common looking Middle Eastern. His face is bearded, round-shaped, dark eyed, and olive-skinned. Also, Nieve’s reconstruction has none of the accompanying traditional material of the Maravaldo piece such as the Gospel narratives. Indeed, Nieve’s Jesus is amazingly plain. But this is precisely the point for Nieve was asked to reconstruct a portrait of the historical Jesus and not a traditional conception of the Christ of faith the assumption being that the two are in some manner distinct.

And it is precisely this (perceived) dichotomy between the Jesus of history and the Christ of Faith and its assumption that the two are not completely one and the same that is the point at issue with which we have been dealing with in this class. As we have learned, prior to the Enlightenment no distinction within the Church between a Jesus of history and a Christ of faith existed since the two were believed (and assumed) to be one and the same, i.e., the Jesus of history was/is the Christ of faith. But the Enlightenment and its emphasis on empirical rationalism caused a shift in thinking which emphasized to various levels of degree that the two could, indeed should, be separated. And the task that has essentially been assigned to us is to ask whether or not the separation is truly possible or, for that matter, even desirable.

Now there can be no doubt that the figure of Jesus has exerted a powerful influence in the world since Late Antiquity. And regardless of whether one is a believer or not our culture (i.e., Western culture) is permeated with this figure and the culture that was established in his name, namely, Christendom. Thus, I am appreciative of Dr. Pacini’s point that even our discourse about Jesus has become grammatically saturated by notions of the Christ of faith such that a separation of the two might not be possible.

My concern, though, is that this notion might be used as means of declaring the entire scholarly pursuit of the historical Jesus as a non-legitimate task precisely because the Christ of faith cannot be separated from the Jesus of history. My reflex as a historian and as someone who has spent the last several years engaged in such a task is to shout from the top of my lungs that the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith can be separated and that it is incumbent upon the historian and scholar to force that separation. Thus, my own bias in favor of historical research may be preventing me from seeing the impossibility of separating the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith.

Nevertheless, I believe that there are a few “reasoned” observations that can be made in favor of separating these two conceptions of the figure of Jesus. First, it appears that this unique problem only has the force it potentially has in that it serves more of a difficulty for those who are committed to some sort of “confessional” stance vis a vis the figure of Jesus. Now by confessional I do not necessarily mean “denominational”, rather, my usage of “confessional” here denotes anyone who believes that the figure of Jesus is somehow determinatively significant or important for their lives. In other words, those who have some sort of investment in a particular construction of the identity of Jesus as they believe it bears on their spiritual lives will inevitably reconstruct an historical Jesus which conforms to their conception of the Christ of faith. Therefore, the “confessional” individual will find it immensely difficult, and, in agreement with Dr. Pacini, probably impossible to separate the two conceptions of Jesus.[1]

It is then the individual who does not believe that Jesus has any significance for them in a “confessional” sense as defined above that I believe stands in a better position to separate the two. However, one could riposte with the assertion that anyone who deals with the figure of Jesus, whether a believer or not, does so with some sort of self-interest or stake in their particular conception or reconstruction of Jesus so that the non-confessional pursuer of a historical Jesus stands in no better relation in regards to the problem of separating the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith.[2] Furthermore, one could also retort that no individual who engages in attempting to reconstruct the Jesus of history does so from a dispassionate or disinterested perspective (otherwise why would they be attempting the task in the first place?) and thus can never achieve true objectivity with their subject matter.

I admit that these arguments have a certain powerful force to them. But they are problems that occur not just in regards to the question of the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith but are problems that take place within the larger philosophical discourse/debate concerning epistemology and its relation to history. It has become fashionable these days to take up the mantle of post-modernism with its emphasis on relativism, deconstructionism, structuralism, “new historicism”, and all the other “isms”, to conclude that there really is no “truth” out there or if there is it cannot be known in and of itself and that when one engages in an attempt to write history all they truly are doing is writing “fiction”. For my own part I am a bit old-fashioned in that I still adhere to a form of 18^th century positive historicism which believes there is a “truth” out there and that even though one can never completely ascertain it the historian can at the least come damn close. Therefore, granting that the believer and the non-believer both have problems when it comes to objectively studying the Jesus of history it is still my judgment that the latter has a better shot at separating the historical Jesus from the Christ of faith.

Secondly, even granting that separating the Christ of faith from the Jesus of history is an impossible task or at least extremely difficult I would still argue that attempting to do so is not only viable but a noble goal as well. In fact, the spirit of scholarship, which is ultimately concerned with the advancement of knowledge, demands it. To engage in history is to level the playing field in that whatever the subject matter is that is under scrutiny has to be treated in equal manner to every other subject matter that comes under investigation, no matter its significance or importance in the course of history.[3]

Therefore, just because the figure of Jesus cannot be easily separated from the Christ of faith (due to the massive permeation of Christendom in Western culture) does not give the Jesus of history a “get out of jail free” card. In other words, objective history (or at least the attempt at objective history) must attempt to “get at” the Jesus of history with little regard for the way he has been conceptualized by subsequent Christians. And perhaps in light of the very fact that this figure has exerted such a powerful influence over Western culture the task of separating the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith becomes all the more urgent. Indeed, history and the spirit of scholarship demand no less.

Lastly, I have been writing chiefly from the perspective of a historian and not that of a theologian and so my assessment of this question is admittedly prejudiced. My beginning point or axiom is “reason”. I am truly a (proud) child of the Enlightenment. And this gets to what I think is the heart of the matter in discussions about the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. Essentially, the sticking point is epistemological. In attempting to assess the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith one has to have a beginning point: either revelation or reason. If one takes revelation as axiomatic then the Christ of faith and the Jesus of history will be impossible to separate and probably not even desired. Yet, if reason is one’s foundation then necessarily an attempt will be made to separate the two because, I would argue, reason has to assume at least the possibility that the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith are distinct.

To sum up, though I believe that Dr. Pacini is correct to say that the Jesus of history can never be completely separated from the Christ of faith this should not be construed as a theological mandate that would prohibit any attempt to engage in the reconstruction of the historical Jesus. Just because the two are so intertwined within our culture (and our way of thinking and discoursing) does not take Jesus off the hook, so to speak, when it comes to critical, historical investigation. Therefore, speaking as a historian, I believe it is both possible and desirable to at the very least make an attempt to separate the two even if, in the end, one can never force a complete separation of the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith.

[1] There are to my knowledge at least three possible exceptions to this observation: John Meier’s A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (1991, 1994, 2001) series who is a Catholic priest; E.P. Sanders’ Jesus and Judaism 1985), and his more popular work The Historical Figure of Jesus (1993); Dale Allison’s Jesus the Millenarian Prophet (1997). The latter two describe themselves as liberal Protestants. However, I would probably hesitate in labeling E.P. Sanders a “Christian”. For example, see his intellectual autobiography at http://web.archive.org/web/20040617054306/www.duke.edu/religion/home/EP/Intel+autobiog+rev.pdf.

[2] The Jesus seminar could be adduced as a supporting example. However, most of the members of the Jesus seminar still believe themselves to be “Christian” in some sense and therefore, in my judgment, still engage in their scholarship from a particular “confessional” perspective.

[3] This of course forms part of Ernst Troeltsch’s famous tripartite method of historical reasoning.

Skepticism as the Default Position of the Historian

2011-09-02T00:59:00.008+04:30

As much as I love the study of history I am probably one of those few aspiring historians who is skeptical that we can accurately glean so-called transparent "lessons" from history. I was reminded of this by two things this week. First, I got into a marginal debate on a forum at Librarything.com because a couple of members glibly replied that had the United States and Britain more carefully studied the history of the Anglo-Afghan wars they probably would have been deterred from invading Afghanistan. (I've already briefly mentioned the mistaken interpretation many have regarding the Anglo-Afghan wars in another post [here, #11-13] so I'm not going to revisit that conflict in this one; I'm planning on a future post that will examine the Anglo-Afghan wars more comprehensively). Then I read a post at the National Interest blog that examined how the 1930s appeasement policies of Hitler tend to be misused (one could even argue, exploited). The major example in that article has to do with Libya and Qaddafi but many other examples abound such as Bush 41's reference to Saddam Hussein as a Middle East Hitler figure; in my mind a half-assed attempt to provide moral justification for the Gulf War.

Anyways, these two events this past week reminded me of how often policy makers, political pundits, journalists, historians, etc misappropriate history because many of them believe that history is (mostly) inherently didactic. Now I'm not saying that history can't or doesn't teach lessons. What I am saying however is that you are guaranteed to misinterpret historical events (and by extension misapply them) if you start with the premise that the principal purpose of history is to be some kind of "instructor". History is much too complex of an entity for simplification and so will almost always stymie attempts to extract clear cut principles from it.

Another matter that I want to mention in terms of historical methodology relates to an incident I had in one of my classes the other day (I enrolled in a local community college to take history courses to pad out my transcript for when I start applying to graduate schools this fall.). My history instructor briefly spoke about the various degrees of sources historians use in their task of writing and interpreting history. He of course emphasized the value of primary sources over secondary ones which I didn't have a problem with. All things being equal a primary source is usually going to convey more accurate information than a secondary one. My problem had to do with his additional comments that imparted a kind of infallibility to primary sources. As many historians have long come to realize primary sources don't always contain accurate historical information since many of them consist of things like political memoirs which were most certainly edited (and in some cases distorted) by many of the authors who were motivated to make such changes because they knew they were writing for posterity. An example of this is Winston Churchill's otherwise fine WWII memoirs in which he omits vital information from certain periods of the war (e.g., the summit at Yalta) that might have cast the great war leader in a less positive light. In other words, primary sources have to be given the same kind of scrutiny that we give to secondary sources.

The bottom line with everything that I have said is this: historians need to be more skeptical. Better yet, their default position should be one of skepticism. If there is one chief principle in the discipline of history this is it. Yes, I'm aware that this is epistemologically old fashioned, and yes, I'm aware that it's impossible for anyone to be wholly objective and impartial. But to my mind that doesn't mean we shouldn't try our damnedest to be. Simply put, I think a lot more humility is required from those of us who study history. And a reassertion of skepticism as the starting axiom of our studies would go a long way towards this goal.

Why the International Community Wants Qaddafi Gone

2011-08-24T01:00:00.007+04:30

The rebel alliance in Libya is now poised to assume full control of Tripoli, and perhaps all of Libya, having recently taken Qaddafi's compound (not surprisingly, the dictator was nowhere to be found). Now that the war in Libya is again front page news I feel compelled to finally make some remarks about this conflict. However, I want to narrowly focus on why since the very beginning of this war the International Community (hereafter IC), particularly Europe, have enthusiastically backed NATO operations in Libya. I should say first that when the revolution in Libya began and Qaddafi's unsurprisingly ruthless crackdown immediately followed I was struck by how quickly the IC backed the rebel factions in Libya. I was (and still am) especially baffled by Russia and China's signature of approval on UN Security Coucil Resolution 1970 after both had previously said they would veto any such resolution that might come before the UN Security Council in terms of the revolution in Libya (Note that Russia gave its approval only after securing a proviso which stated that NATO could not use the resolution as a pretext for an invasion of the country.).

To understand what I'm getting at you have to split Qaddafi's fourty-two year reign of power into two phases: Pre-Lockerbie Bombing Qaddafi and Post-Lockerbie Bombing Qaddafi. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Lockerbie bombing it was a terrorist act most likely sanctioned by Qaddafi that blew up flight Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland killing 213 passengers and 16 crew members. Now before this international incident Qaddafi had been a pain the ass for the IC (not to mention to his own people) ever since he assumed power after he initiated a successful military coup in 1969. He was behind countless terrorist operations that if accurately tallied might amount to many more deaths than that achieved by Al Qaeda on 9/11. Most of these were committed against Israel, a particularly loathesome entity in Qaddafi's foreign policy worldview. Indeed, no other foreign policy matter preoccupied Qaddafi so obsessively as did Israel's irritating existence in the Arab world. And though initially a rallying force in Africa, Qaddafi soon earned the ire of his African neighbors by continuously intervening in the domestic affairs of countries like Tunisia, Sudan, and especially Chad which eventually resulted in an all out war between those two countries with the result that Qaddafi suffered a humiliating defeat. Qaddafi even managed to alienate an important ally, Egypt, by consistently meddling in its affairs which also resulted in a war between the two. And of course most famously Qaddafi provoked Reagan's bombing of Libya in 1986, a response in large part to the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing that resulted in the death of three US servicemen and the injury of hundreds more.

There is much more that I'm leaving out in this narrative of Qaddafi's rule before Lockerbie but suffice it to say he was a menace to the IC. But of course he was tolerated, especially by Europe, because of an important asset his country had: oil. Things, however, finally changed after convincing evidence linked Qaddafi to the horrible Lockerbie bombing mentioned above. This tragedy ultimately convinced the IC to impose crippling economic sanctions on Libya that was instrumental in finally convincing Qaddafi to attempt a rapprochment with the West. The first major move Qaddafi made came in 1999 when, through the mediation of Nelson Mandela, he permitted the extradition of the two Libyans who had been convicted of the Lockerbie bombing after a thorough investigation of that tragic event. Subsequently in 2002, Qaddafi took formal responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing agreeing to a 2.7 billion compensation for the families of those killed in the bombing. Then in 2004 Qaddafi allowed UN inspectors into his country and followed this up by agreeing to dismantle his WMD progam (which he did). Furthermore, Qaddafi became a willing and important asset to the United States during the war on terror. Another conciliating move Qaddafi made was to relax many of his nationalization of Libyan oil policies that he had begun back in 1973. And lastly, as well as most surprisingly, Qaddafi significantly eased his hostility toward Israel even to a small degree participating in some of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. In short, whether out of a genuine repentance of mind (least likely) or from an instinctual need for survival (more likely), Qaddafi turned face and ceased conducting a reprehensible foreign policy vis a vis the IC.

The point that I'm trying to make here is that it took an awful lot of effort from the IC to bring Qaddafi to the point he was before the Arab spring began. Thus, my genuine surprise as to the abrupt way in which the IC hastily gave its initial verbal support to the Libyan rebels. So what is going on here? The best that I can surmise is that the IC has always been nervous that Qaddafi might backslide to his former ways so that when the rebels looked like they were going to achieve a quick victory the IC jumped at the opportunity to back the group that they believed would quickly topple Qaddafi. But it soon became clear that the rebels were not going to achieve victory on their own. Worse still, it looked as if Qaddafi would be successful in crushing the rebellion. This probability I believe made the IC quick to intervene. Why? Because they realized that if Qaddafi regained complete control of his country he wouldn't forget how quickly the IC abandoned him. From Qaddafi's point of view there would no longer be any incentive for him not to support (and conduct) terrorism, to pursue WMDs, to completely renationalize Libya's oil, to return to a harsh position against Israel, etc. In other words, Qaddafi's foreign policy would once again become troublesome, if not more so. Of course, the ostensible reason the IC decided to militarily intervene in the Libyan civil war is because of a human rights issue, namely, Qaddafi's brutal crackdown of protesters (clearly they weren't going to secure a UN resolution otherwise hence the requisite human rights language). But I don't believe it's the real reason. Though it was denied again and again, even by President Obama, the goal has always been regime change. Because again, I think they realized their folly and in order to ensure Qaddafi wouldn't return to power and once again become a menace to them the IC decided to intervene in the conflict. To sum up, the fear of a return of a Pre-Lockerbie Bombing Qaddafi is the principal reason why the IC wants Qaddafi gone and not because he was in violation of the UN's human rights charter.

Don't get me wrong. It will be just fine by me if Qaddafi is removed from power. Nevertheless, I think this was a classic case in which the global community did not thoroughly consider its options before hand. The reality now is that Libya may be getting a new government. Most are hopeful that it will be a democratic one but given how little we know about the groups involved in the rebellion (in fact early intelligence indicated that some of the members were affiliated with Al Qaeda) there's no way to predict the future of a post-Qaddafi Libya. I for one am pessimistic that it will turn out in such a manner as the IC, especially the West, hopes.

Top Ten Foreign Policy Presidents: Part II

2011-08-19T23:27:00.009+04:30

And now the conclusion....

5.) James Polk: Another polarizing figure since many perceive him to be entirely culpable for igniting the Mexican-American War. Though this is true to some degree that war's origins are more complicated with Mexico bearing much of the blame as well. Nevertheless, you don't have the the SW territories (mostly due to the aforementioned war) or the Oregon Territory without the clever diplomacy of Polk, especially concerning the latter since Polk was constantly having to work around the schemes of his Secretary of State James Buchanan who at every turn attempted to subvert Polk's foreign policy objectives.

4.) Theodore Roosevelt: TR not only originated the saying "speak softly and carry a big stick" but embodied it as well. Among his many foreign policy achievements: a closer alignment with Britain (the US/British relationship had become significantly stagnated over the years); sending the Great White Fleet around the world in order to display the Naval might of the United States, being the force behind the building of the Panama Canal, and earning a Nobel Peace Prize for mediating an end to the 1905 Russo-Japanese war.

3.) Thomas Jefferson: During a time when Europe was being turned upside down by Napoleon, Jefferson deftly managed the foreign relations of the United States, especially tempering his prior Francophilia to maintain a healthy balance between US interests with France and Great Britain and carefully keeping the country out of their conflict but also taking advantage of it by purchasing, at an amazingly cheap price, the Louisiana Territory (Napoleon was in dire need of funds to keep his campaigns going) which made way for the successful Lewis and Clark expedition. Also, Jefferson achieved victory in the Barbary Wars chiefly by intensifying the construction of the US Navy (started by his predecessor John Adams during the Quasi War with France) that ultimately proved requisite for our "success" against the Royal Navy during the War of 1812.

2.) James Monroe (John Quincy Adams): The Monroe Doctrine was a watershed moment in the history of the foreign policy of the United States. It essentially stated that any attempts by the European powers to intervene in the affairs of the countries in the Western Hemisphere (meaning chiefly Latin America) would be viewed as an act of aggression. This astute move by Monroe was pivotal in ensuring two things that were essential for the future growth of the United States: economic advantage and national security. (I'm cheating here a bit by including John Quincy Adams with Monroe but the fact of the matter is that Adams deserves much of the credit for the Monroe Doctrine because he was one of its chief architects.)

1.) Franklin Delano Roosevelt: There should be no surprise here. Though not personally a fan of FDR I cannot doubt that at a time when the American populace was fiercely isolationist it is admirable how ingeniously FDR involved the US in WWII (thus it is no surprise that many conspiracy theories developed so quickly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor that suggested FDR either knew about the attack ahead of time or, more maliciously, orchestrated it himself). He achieved this by implementing such policies as the Lend-Lease Act which significantly aided Britain while the US was still "officially" not a participant in the war. I don't think any other President would have been able to juggle American isolationism with the pressing need to become more involved on the world stage. And for that FDR gets the top spot on my list.

Well, that's that. My top ten...for what it's worth. I know that many will disagree with some of my choices but at least it succeeds in being a much more comprehensive list than most I've seen. In summary, here's the complete list:

10.) George Washington

9.) Richard Nixon

8.) Abraham Lincoln

7.) Harry S. Truman

6.) George H.W. Bush

5.) James Polk

4.) Theodore Roosevelt

3.) Thomas Jefferson

2.) James Monroe (w/ John Quincy Adams)

1.) Franklin D. Roosevelt

Top Ten Foreign Policy Presidents: Part I

2011-08-11T02:27:00.008+04:30

Recently, Dr. Daniel Drezner of Foreign Policy.com cited a study done by The Atlantic in which Michael Cohen gave his list of the "Best and Worst Foreign Policy Presidents". When I read it I realized that the only Presidents listed were from the 20th Century (and none before Woodrow Wilson) which perturbed me greatly. Time to time I've seen this before where foreign policy analysts, academics, journalists, etc tend to ignore completely the foreign policy achievements/failures of Presidents prior to Wilson. Indeed, the standard narrative continues to be that for the end of the 18th century and through the 19th the United States was happily isolationist, concerned only with focusing on its own internal affairs and building itself into a proper nation until the occurrence of the "hinge" event, namely, the Spanish-American War. According to this narrative, it's this conflict with Spain that begins to turn America's interests towards quasi-imperial musings which then become intensified (and to a degree ratified) with Woodrow Wilson and the US entrance into World War I. So then in this standard narrative the United States doesn't really begin to conduct a robust foreign policy until the 20th century, particularly until Woodrow Wilson.

This is a very myopic take on the history of American foreign policy. Yes, of course the 20th century witnessed two World Wars and one cold one. But this doesn't mean that the 18th and 19th centuries were any less significant in terms of the impact of geopolitics on the United States. So to remedy the situation I offer my own, much more comprehensive top ten list of the best foreign policy Presidents with brief explanations:

Note: these aren't necessarily in any particular order of importance.

10.) George Washington: During a very vulnerable phase in the history of the United States Washington was able to keep the foreign policy of the newly formed Republic restrained, maintaining a healthy balance between France, its most recent ally, and Britain, its most recent foe. Furthermore, in his famous Farewell Address Washington exhorted the young country not to forge "entangling alliances" with the countries of Europe because he understood that a country as newborn as itself couldn't realistically maintain such alliances and would probably find itself quickly snuffed out from history if it did so.

9.) Richard Nixon: I know this one is going to raise many eyebrows but the fact remains that no matter how detestable Nixon's domestic politics were he was (with of course the aid of Henry Kissinger) a master at crafting foreign policy. His policy of Russian detente and rapprochement with Communist China are the most notable of his achievements though they are often, along with his Vietnam policy, heavily criticized. But the fact of the matter is that a policy of detente with the Russians and an opening with China were the right policies to pursue during a decade when the United States' prestige and power was at its nadir.

8.) Abraham Lincoln: Because of the massive importance of the Civil War, Lincoln's foreign policy often gets overlooked. In fact, of the tens of thousands of books that have been written about Lincoln and the Civil War I'm not aware of one that devotes itself to studying Lincoln's foreign policy (though I'm sure at least one must exist). But the fact of the matter is that Lincoln (along with his Secretary of State William Seward) had to tread very carefully in terms of his diplomacy with the European countries, especially Britain who at one point strongly considered backing the Confederates because at the time they were importing most of their cotton from the South. But Lincoln was able to keep Britain and other countries from intervening in the Civil War; in my mind a major foreign policy achievement.

7.) Harry S. Truman: Truman tends to be a rather polarizing figure among foreign policy buffs; many detest his policies and blame him for "starting" the Cold War while others fulsomely praise his approach to foreign affairs. I tend towards the latter, minus the fulsome praise. I think Truman was a very good foreign policy president especially when you consider that he was thrust into the role of world statesman upon the sudden death of FDR when, by his own admission, he had no prior foreign policy experience. Truman had to preside over the end of WW II, the beginnings of the Cold War, European reconstruction, the Berlin crisis, the creation of Israel, and many others. Of course he had his failures, among which I would include some of his miscues during the Korean War, but overall I believe Truman handled the foreign policy load that was abruptly heaped upon him with diplomatic finesse.

6.) George H.W. Bush: I was a little hesitant to put George Sr on here because I have many problems with his approach to the Gulf War but his overseeing of the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union was handled with diplomatic care and for this very simple but major reason I include him on the list.

To be continued with the final five next week, of the list that is and not the final five Cylons.

The Chicken or the....Dinosaur???

2011-08-03T01:52:00.013+04:30

I was about to turn 11 when I saw Jurassic Park for the first time. The experience is something that I vividly remember because I had always had a fascination with dinosaurs. In fact, my brother and I's room was typically scattered with all kinds of toys, many of which were dinosaurs of one sort or another, especially of the Tyrannosaurus Rex. And the earliest books that I recall reading were books about dinosaurs. Supposedly, according to many members of my family, my brother and I were experts often having to correct others on their mistaken identification of some dinosaur species. In addition, I watched as many movies and TV shows that I could at the time about dinosaurs. So naturally when I heard about Spielberg making a dinosaur movie called Jurassic Park I begged my mother to take us to opening night which she graciously did. I was of course awe struck by the entire film but specifically I remember being fascinated by Dr. Grant's implication early in the film that birds evolved from dinosaurs as well as the short discussion he had with Timmy about a book he wrote on the same topic. Now of course I didn't really have any idea what evolution was or how it worked then; nevertheless the mere suggestion that some dinosaurs became modern day birds captivated me.

The theory that birds originated from dinosaurs isn't all that novel having been proposed as far back as 1861 upon the discovery of Archaeopteryx, a winged and feathered dinosaur. However, it took time for the theory to gain any traction, partly because of the intense controversy it engendered among evolutionary biologists. But the hard to deny vast similarities between the bones of some dinosaurs (such as the Velociraptor) and that of modern day birds, the discovery of many more fossils linking the two such as the Chinese feathered dinosaurs, and advances in modern genetics has persuaded most of the viability of the theory. It's especially the advances in genetics that has convinced most. Amazingly, what geneticists are able to do today, while a chicken and/or bird is an embryo, is reactivate some of its atavistic genes to give it teeth, remove its feathers, and even grow it a tail among other modifications. (Note that this isn't just convincing proof that birds evolved from dinosaurs; it's compelling, indeed conclusive, evidence for the theory of evolution itself). I had stumbled upon this some time ago while watching a program on the Discovery Channel but had forgotten about it until I recently watched a TED video presented by famed paleontologist Jack Horner (who was actually partly the inspiration for the character of Alan Grant in Jurassic Park). I am thus compelled to share this video which does a good job summarizing the gains geneticists have made in "retro-engineering" a dinosaur from a chicken. Enjoy.

(For the impatient lot of you I would suggest starting at about 10 mins into the presentation.)

The Philosophy of "3:10 to Yuma" (Warning: Spoilers!)

2011-07-23T02:35:00.006+04:30

One of my favorite Westerns, as well as one of my favorite movies in general, is 3:10 to Yuma, i.e., the remake with Christian Bale and Russell Crowe (the original was made in 1957 which itself was adapted from a short story of the same name). It's a rather straightforward moral tale in which Dan Evans ( Bale), a one-legged Civil War veteran turned rancher agrees to help escort the notorious outlaw Ben Wade (Crowe) to the town of Contention in order to put him on the 3:10 train to Yuma prison all while trying to stay one step ahead of Wade's trailing gang. Along the way the group encounters many obstacles including their prisoner Ben Wade killing off some of their members but in the end Wade actually turns face and helps Evans put himself on the train as well as killing off his own gang after Charlie Prince (played brilliantly by Ben Foster) guns down Evans.

And any time that I hear that one of my friends hasn't seen the movie I'll promptly, unilaterally, clear their schedule so that the situation can be remedied as quickly as possible. I recently had to do this with a fellow co-worker. In fact, I've done this so many times now that it has effectively become an informal social experiment. The result? Well, it's strikingly right down the middle: half really like it, half really don't. For those who don't like the movie it comes down to one thing: Ben Wade's turn from the dark side; "Why would he do that; he's the villain, it doesn't make any sense for him to help Dan, kill his entire gang, and willingly get on the train!" are their typically exasperated replies. Furthermore, this revolt is usually ironclad for when I try to point out that Wade's volte face is actually consistent with the rest of the story (throughout the movie hints are dropped that Ben Wade isn't all bad even at one point having Dan's son, William, explicity suggest such) they refuse to budge from their entrenched position of incredulity at the film's turn of events.

But what is more fascinating to me is what most tend to say next, namely, that in "real life" Ben Wade would not have acted in such a righteous fashion, never mind the fact that most film is inherently otherworldly and so not intended as an authentic representation of reality. This is intriguing to me because of what these remonstrations and outcries suggest about the philosophical worldview of these viewers, namely, that they believe our natures are immutably fixed, that people don't really have the capacity to change. This is of course a strongly fatalistic notion and if you were to mention this to these viewers they might argue otherwise, maybe even vehemently so. I'm just surprised at the number of people predisposed towards a predestinarian/fatalistic view of reality who are not aware of such.

Because I've become progressively more cynical over the years I would have thought that by now I would have found such a strict fatalistic worldview appealing. And I suppose I do to some degree but the truth is, whether due to an atavistic trait leftover from my former pious Christian days or some other intangible reason, I still cling to the hope that people do have the ability to change their natures, though extremely difficult it may be. Moreover, I've always been fond of the redemption motif in film and literature which is essentially what changing from "bad" to "good" is all about. Indeed, most of my favorite movies contain a redemption theme to one degree or another, especially probably my all time favorite movie, Star Wars, which isn't really about Luke Skywalker as some mistakenly think but is rather about the ultimate redemption of his father, Anakin Skywalker.

I guess the bottom line is that no matter how cynical I become I'll probably never give up on the, perhaps futile, hope that people can change, that they can be redeemed. And for this reason I am moved every time by Ben Wade's actions at the end of the film. Thus, I'm happy to continue to claim 3:10 to Yuma as one of my all time favorite movies.

Discere Gratiā Discendī

2011-07-16T01:46:00.008+04:30

I realize there has been quite another lapse in blog entries, partly because I got a new job that has been keeping me quite busy, partly because I had to get moved into my new place, and partly, if not mostly, because of pure sloth. Anyways, I'm going to try to remedy the situation by blogging more often. And by that I mean committing to posting at least one blog entry a week.

Now that housekeeping matters have been taken care of I want to briefly discuss public education reform, a matter of which I've always been particularly passionate about. But it had been a while since I had actually thought about the variegated and controversial issues surrounding public education until I recently had a chance to watch David Guggenheim's documentary entitled Waiting for "Superman". It's a searing and disheartening look at the state of public education in the United States and the many factors that continually stymy attempts at genuine reform of the system such as the inequity that exists in terms of access to good schools, the near impossibility of firing bad teachers because of a well entrenched tenure system, staunch opposition from teacher's unions, the lack of uniformity in regulations across state and county lines, and more. In addition to explicating these roadblocks to PE reform the documentary also attempts to elucidate some potential solutions to the problem such as arguing for the creation of more charter schools. (Note that it is on the subject of charter schools where the documentary is least persuasive because it appears to have exaggerated some of its statistics concerning comparisons of rates of success with other schools. See this article for more.)

While I agreed with much the documentary had to say about PE I was disappointed that it didn't address the more fundamental, philosophical problems that have become systemic in our education system. What I'm thinking of particularly here is the failure to inculcate within our children at a young age the desire to learn for learning's sake, i.e., to think of acquiring knowledge as an end in itself instead of as a means towards an altogether different end. I propose that if we could at least modestly achieve such there would be better disciplined, better performing children in schools.

The problem though is that our society has always valued pragmatism over idealism, utility over abstraction (much of which is due to our philosophical inheritance but just as much to our history of characteristic rugged individualism). This bias then permeated our public education system with the reforms of the pragmatist philosopher and psychologist John Dewey during the early 20th century. Those of you who have studied or gotten your degree in the Humanities encounter this bias of utility all the time: "Oh, you're getting your degree in English. Well, what can you do with that?" We instinctively regard doctors, lawyers, scientists, and others with higher esteem than other professions because their contributions to society are more readily apparent. Now don't misunderstand I'm not trying to disparage this well ensconced American tradition but in my opinion it's precisely this exaggerated emphasis on the value of function that I think prevents us from seeing the value that can come from loving knowledge for knowledge's sake.

Again, I strongly believe that if you can instill within a child at a young age the desire to learn as an end in itself and more importantly, to love knowledge, then I think you can create a much larger group of children who are going to perform admirably both in school and society. Of course, I realize that without the reforms mentioned in the above documentary this proposal would not on its own fix the many problems in our public education system. Nevertheless, I think addressing the underlying philosophical problems is a must and this is something that the documentary fails to do.

So how do you plant the desire to learn for learning's sake within children at a young age? I admit that I'm less certain as to specifics here. But for my part I didn't start appreciating learning as an end in itself until I enrolled in an introductory philosophy course in my first year of college and I can certainly say that I was a better student all around afterwards for it. Now I'm not suggesting that we start having kindergartners read Descartes Discourse on Method in the original Latin and then submit their proposed solutions to the mind/body problem but I do think there may be a way one can present certain ideas within philosophy in a comprehensible way to young kids.

Another idea may be to resurrect the classical learning tradition where kids get a good dose of Latin, Greek, Ancient History and Literature, Logic, and others in addition to the more "practical" forms of learning such as math and science. There are some private schools that have begun to adopt this method but those have a strong Christian element which is obviously not something I'm advocating for public schools. Again, these are just some random ideas of mine that may or may not have any merit.

Regardless, it is clear that our public education system is in severe disrepair and, not withstanding its flaws, Guggenheim's documentary does well in presenting this unfortunate fact to the public. Do watch.

The Geopolitics of Zombies

2011-05-28T01:13:00.010+04:30

The last several years have seen a remarkable resurgence in popularity of the zombie genre. No longer a feature exclusive to horror films zombies now infest a range of pop culture media. They are a staple of video games (the Resident Evil games being perhaps the best example), revisionist classic literature (Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, e.g.), comic book spinoffs (Marvel Zombies), survival manuals for possible zombie outbreaks (Max Brooks' The Zombie Survival Guide), TV (AMC's The Walking Dead, based on the Robert Kirkman graphic novels which I devoured in Afghanistan), and more. And in recognition of this surge in zombie interest May has been designated Zombie Awareness month by the Zombie Research Society. I thus feel compelled to post something on the topic before the month is out. Hence, this zombie infested post.

Now generally within the zombie corpus the focus tends to be centered around a group (or groups) of people and their singular attempts at survival and the impact this has on their humanity (the classic example being George Romero's Night of the Living Dead). Rarely, is there an attempt to exhibit how modern nation states would initially react to a zombie outbreak and the subsequent policies they might initiate to counter such a threat (a delightfully notable exception to this is Max Brooks' World War Z which displays a surprisingly good grasp of current world politics). And so it was a pleasant surprise when I stumbled upon Dr. Daniel Drezner's website (he also has a great blog) where I learned that he had written a monograph on just such a topic entitled, quite appropriately, Theories of International Politics and Zombies.

The book is of course written tongue in cheek, but Drezner approaches the subject from an academic standpoint even doing such scholarly things as first engaging with the relevant zombie literature and devoting a chapter to defining the boundaries of what constitutes a true zombie (in other words bringing clarity to the topic, something which every scholar must do before proceeding with the subject that they are treating). The principal thrust of the work is to examine how traditional International Relations concepts would treat a zombie apocalypse. For example, during a discussion about realpolitik Drezner theorizes that states that operate from this IR framework would essentially view a zombie outbreak as no different than plagues of the past. Therefore, they wouldn't perceive any real change in the international order and would continue to act as they typically do, i.e., based on their perceived national security interests. They would thus be disinclined towards doing such things as forming grand alliances with other states to tackle a zombie infestation especially if they believed it would be against their own self-interests to do so.

In fact, Drezner further speculates that it is quite likely some nations would manipulate a zombie outbreak to their advantage by using it as a means of achieving long sought after geopolitical objectives (e.g., China might accuse Taiwan of failing to control their zombie infestation using this as an excuse to then occupy the island thus cementing their historic desire of uniting Taiwan with the mainland). In contrast, a country that operates within a liberalist IR worldview would more likely perceive a zombie outbreak as a uniquely global threat to the international world order and so would seek to create a United Nations like organization to combat the world menace. However, a likely consequence of the liberal position would be the development of distracting debates about zombie rights which could then undermine any unified alliance against a zombie outbreak. In addition to realism and liberalism, Drezner also engages with other lesser known IR theories but I don't want to spoil the rest of the book so if your interest has been piqued by this post then buy his book now!

In short, it is a very enjoyable work being both a source of entertainment as well as an ingenious means of teaching basic IR theories to the uninitiated. It is a fun and pleasant addition to our ever increasing fascination with all things zombies. Alright, that's my meager contribution for Zombie Awareness Month. I'll close by leaving you with a scene from one of my favorite zombie spoof movies, Sean of the Dead. Enjoy.

http://youtu.be/kKTf7CqQi8g

My Meeting at Vanderbilt

2011-05-20T01:51:00.009+04:30

Some of you know that I've been looking to go back to graduate school (but for history this time) and last week I took my first crucial step in this process by meeting up with Dr. Thomas Schwartz at Vanderbilt University. Vanderbilt is one of my top choices but being one of the southern "Ivy League" schools it is very difficult to get into (of 300 applicants last year only 8 were accepted into the Phd program), particularly for me since my undergraduate work was not in history. I've known that this is the biggest barrier that I'm going to face even though the programs I'm looking into don't require an applicant to have a BA in history in order to be considered for acceptance. But as Dr. Schwartz pointed out when it comes to getting into Phd programs having a solid background in history in your undergraduate work is usually a must because of how competitive these programs are.

Moreover, because there is a strong possibility that I could be deployed again within the next few years, Dr. Schwartz noted that even though by law they would have to hold my place in the program they are not required to pause my funding. In other words, I would lose a year of funding. And so because of these factors Dr. Schwartz suggested that the best approach might be to restrict my applications to terminal masters degree programs because requirements for admission aren't as strict, and I can of course gain significant experience in history with a MA which will then help me considerably when I later apply for Phd programs.

But besides advising me tactically about graduate school we discussed some of his work, especially concerning his work on Lyndon Johnson's foreign policy towards Europe (he published a book on the topic entitled Lyndon B. Johnson and Europe: In the Shadow of Vietnam) and his upcoming intellectual biography of Henry Kissinger, a topic of which I am very interested. I was delighted to learn that we share very similar views about Kissinger's role during the Vietnam War. In fact at the end of our meeting he gave me a copy of an essay about Kissinger that he had published in the British diplomatic history journal Diplomacy and Statecraft.

As much as I wanted to learn about Dr. Schwartz' past, present, and future scholarly activities he was just as eager to hear about my experiences in Afghanistan; specifically he wanted to gauge my views, i.e. a soldier's views, about the war there and my feelings about US policy in the region. And it was during my rant about how I had qualms about calling the conflict in Afghanistan a war since by traditional definitions the war came to a conclusion with the toppling of the Taliban (because that was the official, stated objective of the war) that Dr. Schwartz made a good point about the celebrations surrounding the death of Bin Laden (I had complained that some characteristics of the celebrations were silly and excessive) which was that since WWII and the signing of the official surrender of the Japanese empire on the U.S.S. Missouri Americans haven't had that kind of clear symbol of victory to produce such elation. The killing of Bin Laden has been the nearest thing to this which is why the reaction has been so strong, even farcical in some areas (the singing of 'nah, nah, nah, nah....hey, hey...goodbye' comes to mind).

Anyways, the meeting went well and was very beneficial. I will continue to update on here from time to time my progress in attempting to get back into graduate school.

Some Older Thoughts about V-E Day

2011-05-10T18:38:00.007+04:30

Two days ago marked the anniversary of V-E Day. Usually I try to write something at least peripherally about WWII on that day. However, I've just been caught up in too many things lately so I'm going to be a bit lazy and post something I wrote in my journal a couple of years ago about V-E Day. Bear in mind this is from my journal and thus is not as analytical as what you may have become accustomed to on this blog. I have made some minor revisions (such as updating the year, smoothing out some of the grammar, correction of spelling errors, and dropping the sordid details from the orgy of the previous night) and inserted a few editorial comments for clarification of some ideas and words (noted by the black lettering).

Today marks sixty-six years since the unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany and the official end of the European theater of conflict in WWII (it is the "official" end because the actual act of surrender from the German COs [Hitler committed suicide on April 25th] was proffered on the 7th of May but for geopolitical reasons Stalin insisted that the declaration be made on the following day). And so the official day that the German high command surrendered has become known as V-E Day or Victory in Europe Day. There is a particularly iconic image that represents much of the elation felt that day in which a sailor (spontaneously?) passionately embraces and kisses a nurse upon hearing the news.

Unfortunately, these ebullient feelings would be of short duration as the full extent of Axis' atrocities became revealed, particularly the horrors perpetrated by Hitler's Nazi Germany. This calls to mind one of my favorite episodes of Band of Brothers entitled "Why We Fight" which occurs during the events shortly after V-E Day. As the title of the episode indicates the soldiers start questioning why they have been involved in a war that seemed to be all about the affairs of countries other than their own; it is difficult for them to understand why they should be concerned with European geopolitics and its consequences/effects on the national security of the United States. And though they never quite resolve these political issues they are finally able to embrace a moral justification for the war when they stumble upon their first Jewish concentration camp and are given an answer to why they fight. Now though most nations knew fully well by at least 1942 about Hitler's attempts to exterminate the Jews (and other undesirables) with the purpose of making Europe Judenrein (free of Jews) most of the soldiers were unaware of these malevolent crimes against humanity until they began to liberate the concentration camps.

But as tragic as WWII was it is remarkable in that, to my mind at least, it is the one conflict of recent times that is difficult, perhaps impossible, to assert should never have happened. Of course there is a sense in which one could argue that no war should ever happen and I concede such. But after the appeasement at Munich in 1938 (and I would argue long before) the world was justified to stop Hitler by force. (Though there are fringe revisionist scholars who try to make the specious argument that WWII was not justified in any sense they remain so marginal that their effects on people's judgment about WWII is, thankfully, negligible. But that hasn't keep some from continuing to try and argue such. For example, see my series of posts about Pat Buchanan's view of the war starting here.) All other conflicts of recent time (Iraq I and II, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, etc) that the US has been directly involved in do not fare as well under the same kind of moral scrutiny.

Of course the truth of the matter is that the US did not get involved in WWII for any strictly moral reason (exemplified by the fact that it took nearly three years for the US to get into the war and when Roosevelt refused to do such morally 'necessary' actions as diverting bomber resources to destroy the various railroad networks that transported Jews and others to the gas chambers) but principally for geopolitical/national security reasons. In fact, this is ultimately why any nation state goes to war: security. And regardless of the new vogue ideas that arise in the field of International Relations, and the continuing utterance of platitudes that occur during meaningless discussions about 'idealism (or liberalism)' versus 'realism' the fact of the matter is that a nation state will be chiefly compelled to war when it perceives a threat to its own security (I am using 'security' here as a blanket designation covering the sum total of a country's national self-interests). Yet as much as I would like to believe that the US entered WWII because it felt morally compelled to do so the reality is that it did not get involved until its own national security was threatened, namely, by the bombing of Pearl Harbor (To be fair the reluctance to enter WWII did not originate from Roosevelt but rather from the very much ingrained isolationist thinking of the American populace). Nevertheless, the world is of course better off because the US did eventually enter the war ultimately turning the tide against Hitler and Nazi Germany bringing about the end of the European conflict of WWII on this day, Victory in Europe Day.

Rambling Thoughts on Bin Laden and Pakistan

2011-05-04T21:16:00.004+04:30

Well, after nearly ten years the mastermind of 9/11 Usama Bin Laden was finally killed by a Navy Seals team during a raid on a compound in Pakistan. This is of course a great victory for the US and the war on terrorism. Yet I think that its importance is probably more symbolic than anything else. Yes, Bin Laden was the official head of Al Qaeda but like most terrorist groups Al Qaeda lacks a rigid hierarchial structure being largely a collection of loose affiliations and so unfortunately it will probably be able to function just fine without Bin Laden. Nonetheless, on balance I think the world is much safer and better off without him.

However, what's of more interest to me about the situation is the role of Pakistan in all of this. Now it strains credulity to think that Pakistan had no knowledge that Bin Laden was hiding in their country especially when it turned out to be a city crawling with Pakistani Army regulars and more importantly the ISI, Pakistan's intelligence agency. Of course when you consider the role Islamabad has played during the war in Afghanistan this isn't too terribly surprising. Since the beginning of the war on terrorism Pakistan has made Bismark proud by playing both sides off one another, namely, on the one hand aiding the US by providing significant overflight of their territory, capturing some insurgents, and providing intel on others but on the other hand covertly aiding some of the insurgents and providing them a safe haven just inside their borders. (The unit that I was with in Afghanistan saw this up close when they were in the east where they would constantly be shot but could never pursue because the insurgents would ease right back into Pakistan. Also Pakistan's Janus face role has been known since the start of the war which is why the wikileaks fiasco didn't really reveal anything that wasn't already known about US-Pakistani relations before.)

On the surface this duplicitous action makes no sense: wouldn't Pakistan benefit from a strong, stable Afghanistan? Well, that's actually precisely what Pakistan does not want. To understand why you have to look at Pakistan's own security interests and concerns. One of these is the fact that Pakistan has a large Islamic fundamentalist demographic in its country that it wishes to keep subdued but the one that determines the direction of just about all of Pakistan's national security interests is centered on Islamabad's obsession with its mortal enemy India. Ever since the violent partition of British India in 1947 resulted in the formation of these states they have fought numerous military conflicts mostly over the region of Kashmir, even coming close to nuclear war a couple of times. One war (1971) even led to the formation of a new state, Bangladesh. (go here for more).

And the way that Afghanistan figures into the equation is because during the period between WWII and the Soviet invasion when they were relatively stable they quarreled with Pakistan over the Durand line (the artificial and somewhat arbitrary border composed by Great Britain during the Great Game against Russia in the 19th century which the Afghans do not recognize but which Pakistan does) and over the Pashtunistan and Balochistan issues (acquiring territory from the latter region would give Afghanistan access to a long sought after warm water port). Moreover, as a means of agitating Pakistan and strengthening their own hand Afghanistan increased its ties to India maintaining a strong and healthy relationship for sometime up until the Afghan Civil War (the Taliban when they gained control of most of the country promptly cut most ties with India and strengthened relations with Pakistan).

In short, Pakistan for several decades felt encircled by hostile powers and as any good student of international relations knows if a country feels it's surrounded by aggressive powers it will take whatever steps it deems necessary to relieve itself of feeling threatened. Thus, Pakistan has a major interest in maintaining the status quo in Afghanistan, i.e., keeping the country weak and wobbly so that it continues to remain focused on domestic issues like the insurgency. But at the same time it obviously doesn't want a failed state on its border and so the double game: supporting the US efforts just enough to keep Afghanistan from completely failing but aiding elements of the insurgency as well to keep Afghanistan weak and principally focused on its internal security situation. One thing Pakistan cannot abide is a strong Afghanistan for fear that it will one day again ally itself closely with India.

The events surrounding the death of Bin Laden continue to bear this out and it is no surprise that Pakistan most likely knew that Bin Laden was hiding out in their country. All of this just emphasizes how crucial resolving the Pakistan problem is to a comprehensive and successful solution to the war in Afghanistan.

Nevertheless, the US has gained an important symbolic victory with the death of Usama Bin Laden (and kudos to President Obama by the way; give credit where credit is due). And with that I've rambled on enough. I leave you with a song that paradoxically (because it's European) expresses my patriotic feelings at the moment:

God, Evolution....and the Clitoris? Or "An Inquiry into the Evolution of the Female Orgasm"

2011-04-27T02:02:00.015+04:30

A few times now I've mentioned my new found interest in biological evolution, particularly human evolution. This doesn't mean, however, that I've become an atheist which many believe (including both theologians and prominent evolutionary biologists) is requisite for belief in evolution, at least human evolution. No, I remain a theist and I don't believe these positions are mutually exclusive. But I just as strongly do not think any version(s) of "intelligent design" or ID should become a regular part of any public school's science curriculum (which is sadly where my State appears to be headed).

Nevertheless, in a sort of half jest I've pointed out to some of my ID friends that there are certain oddities with human physiology that appear to defy satisfactory explanation from an evolutionary perspective, thus perhaps directly pointing to an intelligent designer. My favorite one to reference is the clitoris: the seat of female orgasm. Now since time immemorial women have known that the chief area of stimulation for them to reach orgasm lies at/in their clitoris (unfortunately some men come upon this revelation much too late to the chagrin of their female mates). And though some women can achieve orgasm through vaginal intercourse most can only do so through direct or at least indirect stimulation of the clitoris. Furthermore, many studies have borne this out over the last half century or so. (Since I'm sure the majority of women can personally attest to what I've just said it may seem a bit odd that I'm about to back my claims with some scientific studies but hey I'm trying to be as academic about this topic as possible.)

There are three in particular worth mentioning briefly here. First, there was the Kinsey report of 1953, one of the first academic studies (aside from some of the eccentric studies done by Freud) dealing with human sexuality. In the volume released that dealt with female sexuality it reported that out of a sample of 8,000 women only about 15 percent could reach orgasm through means other than clitoral stimulation whether during masturbation and/or sexual intercourse. Likewise, Masters and Johnson's book of 1966 had similar results in its study and concluded that "female orgasms are identical in physiology and clitoral in origin." And lastly The Hite Report of 1976 found that out of a sample of 3,000 women less than 25 percent could reach orgasm without at least indirect stimulation of the clitoris leading Shere Hite to conclude that "not to have orgasm from intercourse is the experience of the majority of women."

But what bearing does any of this have on evolution and intelligent design? Well, if one assumes that evolution occurs because of the utility of a newly evolved trait (and its subsequent replication in a species) then the existence of the clitoris seems problematic for the theory of evolution. To make sense of this argument let's consider the reproductive organ of males: the penis. The evolution of the penis makes sense because the peak of sexual excitement in a male occurs during ejaculation which of course usually takes place during vaginal intercourse that then leads (usually) to the further propagation of the species. In other words on an evolutionary account the appearance and development of the penis makes perfect sense because of the immediate and direct function it has in promoting the continuation of a species. However, the same cannot be said for the clitoris because it doesn't appear to perform any direct function in the reproduction of the species. Another way to think about this is that one would expect the interior of the vagina to be the primary site of female orgasm because that is the site of reproduction but as mentioned above it clearly isn't. To the contrary, the clitoris is decidedly away from the primary site for reproduction. In a nutshell, the existence of the clitoris is difficult to explain on the basis of evolutionary theory because it doesn't appear to have a basis in utility. Thus, the origin of my half jest that all one need do is point to the clitoris as proof of God's existence.

Of course when you think you've hit upon an original insight it is almost always the case that someone else had already done so long before you did. And that was the case here because a couple of weeks ago I stumbled upon this very issue in an essay by the late paleo-biologist Stephen Jay Gould entitled "Male Nipples and Clitoral Ripples" (it can be found in a collection of natural history essays by Gould in Bully for Brontosaurus). In this essay he deals with the difficulty in explaining male nipples and, for our purposes, the clitoris in terms of evolution. (For those curious about male nipples I would encourage you to read the essay though as you will see in a moment the solution to this puzzle is the same for both) And to my surprise he offers what I think is a very satisfactory account for the evolution of the clitoris.

But before revealing this explanation it's best to point out a misunderstanding (or perhaps, better, incomplete understanding) many have about how evolution works (this included me until reading Gould's essay). This "incomplete" grasp of evolution has to do with what I stated above, namely, the belief that a trait/characteristic evolves solely because it performs some sort of direct function for a species. In other words, the explanation for why a certain trait/characteristic evolved and developed must necessarily be for an adaptive purpose. Or as Gould puts it, "many are committed to a 'pop' form of Darwinianism that adopts a principle of pervasive utility for all parts of all creatures." (126)

However, as Gould notes a proper, holistic grasp of evolutionary theory holds that traits in an organism can also evolve for "structural nonadaptive" reasons, i.e, evolution may produce a structure in an organism that at least initially doesn't serve any purpose. And as Gould emphasizes in his essay modern evolutionary theory operates from a synthesis of both functional and structural perspectives.

With this in mind the explanation for the evolution of the clitoris is actually rather simple and has to do with a structure produced by evolution, namely, the human embryo. Perhaps it's best to just let Gould elaborate at this point:

"Both sexes are variants upon a single ground plan, elaborated in later embryology...the external differences between male and female develop gradually from an early embryo so generalized that its sex cannot be easily determined. The clitoris and the penis are one and the same organ, identical in early form, but later enlarged in male fetuses through the action of testosterone." (127)

Thus:

"The reason for a clitoral site of orgasm is simple...the clitoris is the homologue of the penis-it is the same organ, endowed with the same anatomical organization and capacity of response." (129)

So then the clitoris and the penis are homologous structures and it is through subsequent sexual differentiation that the reproductive organs of the respective sexes appear; evolution having produced this structure or "ground plan" in the human organism. And there you have it: a satisfactory, evolutionary account of the origins of the clitoris. Sorry ID friends but I'm afraid that the clitoris is no longer proof that God exists.

*Note: the solution for male nipples is the same: the result of sexual differentiation from homologous structures. Also, Gould does note a few who actually try to account for the evolution of the clitoris from a purely adaptive perspective (e.g., as a means of pair bonding). He also takes on some of the ridiculous arguments of Freud concerning human female sexuality. For those interested I would encourage you to read the entire essay.

A Promise Broken and Another Promise Made

2011-04-22T22:24:00.006+04:30

Well, unfortunately I'm going to have to break my promise on blogging about Libya. Even after having read those few books I still don't feel informed enough to write a scholarly post about Libya and Qaddafi so I'm going to delay writing about the current events happening there until I've read more. However, I do have a post pretty much ready to be put up but because I'm going to be out of town this Easter weekend I'm not going to post it until Monday.

I decided to have some fun with the upcoming post since it will be my first substantial one since returning from Afghanistan. Plus, I've noticed that one of my most popular posts continues to be the masturbation and Seinfeld one because, I assume, of its sexual content. I therefore took advantage of the fact that sex still sells in composing the next post. However, since it is Good Friday I do want to leave you with something I wrote many years ago about the difficulty in determining when the historical Jesus actually died and its implications for biblical inerrancy. Beware though it is a bit lengthy. Here are the links. Enjoy.

1.) Introduction
2.) Part 1
3.) Part 2
4.) Part 3
5.) Excursus
6.) Part 4
7.) Part 5
8.) Conclusion

Still Here And Apologies

2011-04-03T03:52:00.004+04:30

I don't know that it matters a whole lot that I've not been blogging since most of my readership originates from Facebook; nevertheless apologies to those who do take the time to read this blog. I've been itching to blog about the events going on in Libya because I certainly have my opinions about the situation there. However, I decided to refrain from doing so for the moment because I wanted to better inform myself of the history of the geopolitics in that region which is what I have been doing by reading several books on the subject. Hopefully, I should be finished with the last two books that I need to read about the history of Libyan foreign policy in the next several days and so once this is done I will finally feel somewhat qualified to blog about the ongoing events there and thus, finally, have a new post up. So for those who have been eagerly awaiting a new blog post I give my apologies once again and promise to do my utmost to finally have a post up by week's end. Until then for those interested here's what I've been reading to prepare:

Libya: From Colony to Independence (2008); Ronald Bruce St John

Qaddafi's World Design: Libyan Foreign Policy, 1969-1987 (2001); Ronald Bruce St. John

Qaddafi, Terrorism, and the Origins of the US Attack on Libya (1990); Brian L. Davis

Jefferson's War: America's First War on Terror, 1801-1805 (2004); Joseph Wheelan

Redeployment Complete

2011-03-15T21:11:00.002+04:30

Well, I have safely made it back to the States. Thanks to all of you who have already welcomed me back. Unfortunately, because of the demands on my time from family and friends and the fact that I as of yet don't have regular access to the internet it may still be several days before I start posting again. So please be patient with me. But at least we are together again which gives me yet another reason to post a Muppet's video. Enjoy.

No Posts for A Couple of Weeks

2011-02-28T19:39:00.003+04:30

I'm going to be in transit for the next couple of weeks as I redeploy to the US which means I won't likely have much access to the internet so there probably won't be any posts until mid March. Thanks to all of you who have been taking the time to read this blog. I promise to post as soon as I am able.

The Myth of Afghan Invincibility

2011-02-27T07:58:00.016+04:30

Not too long ago during some significant downtime for the platoon I indulged in a Rambo movie marathon which of course included Rambo III whose events in the movie occur during the latter end of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It is easily the worst in the franchise (Rambo II remains my favorite even with its over the top, cartoonesque action sequences) for a number of cinematic reasons, but my principal problem with the film has to do with its simplistic portrayal of the Afghan people. Stallone's film falters for me because it engages in a gross romanticisation of the Afghans (the movie is in fact dedicated to them) by presenting them as a monolithic group of people who desire nothing more than to be left alone and to be free; honorable warriors who can do no wrong and who've never been defeated in war. It's this last emphasis on Afghan invincibility that I find particularly irksome and problematic historically.

However, this isn't a myth that's sui generis to Rambo III; rather it's a widespread belief held by the public and policy makers alike that has persisted since at least the 1980s and has been neatly packaged in such references to Afghanistan in popular thought as "the graveyard of empires". The narrative of the myth goes something like this: Alexander the Great had great difficulty in conquering this region as did the Muslims and Mongols; the British were defeated several times by the Afghans; the Soviets with its huge technological advantage were beaten by the Afghans by nothing more than WWI enfield rifles; and the United States is now finding that it too cannot conquer this country or its people. Now just to be clear I in no way wish to disparage the unique fighting ability of these people for they have indeed proven themselves on the battlefield repeatedly. Nevertheless, this notion that they have never been conquered or defeated is a myth and one that needs demolishing.

Unfortunately, there is a difficulty in attempting to survey a military history of Afghanistan because of the problem in pinpointing precisely when one can properly speak of a group of people called Afghans (even today this is problematic because you have a cluster of ethnic groups living in Afghanistan such as Pashtoons, Tajiks, Nuristanis, Uzbeks, et al.) because of its history of heavily mixed ethnic groups, tribal affiliations, and fluctuating borders. In addition, what we think of today as the political entity of Afghanistan didn't come into existence until the mid 19th century and even then its borders were essentially determined by British and Russian interests during their "Great Game" in Central Asia and not according to what would have been best demographically and/or geographically.

But for simplicity's sake let us assume that the Afghan people are those who have generally occupied the region that today encompasses the borders of modern Afghanistan since time immemorial. Given this condition an accurate military history of this region would run as follows:

1.) From what historians and archaeologists have been able to determine the region of modern day Afghanistan first came under subjugation during the conquests of Darius I and the Persian Empire circa 500 BCE.

2.) Alexander the Great defeated the Persian empire and subsequently, though with some difficulty, conquered this vast region c. 330 BCE. Upon his death the Macedonian empire split among several rulers, and Seleucus, a former Macedonian officer under Alexander, took it upon himself to govern the region that encompasses modern day Iran and Afghanistan.

3.) The Mauryan Empire (an ancient Indian empire) under Chandragupta defeated the remnants of Seleucus' dynasty and conquered most of Afghanistan in roughly 200 BCE.

4.) Sometime in the late 1st century BCE the Scythians, a Steppe peoples, migrated into Afghanistan and subdued the various tribal groups there.

5.) The Parthians, as part of their war with the remnants of the Seleucid dynasty, invaded and conquered Afghanistan (and India) and effectively maintained control of the region well into Late Antiquity. (Technically, it was the Indo-Parthians who ruled during this period, but historians consider them to be at least nominally a part of the larger Parthian empire.)

6.) Just prior to the middle ages another group from the Steppes, the White Huns, rolled into India and Afghanistan until a Hindu coalition pushed them out in 528 CE.

7.) In 642 CE the Arabs extended their conquest of the Middle East to Asia by subduing Afghanistan as well as introducing Islam to the area for the first time. For the next several hundred years rule of Afghanistan would vacillate between various Muslim and tribal leaders.

8.) In the 13th century the Mongols led by Genghis Khan invaded and conquered all of Central Asia and more. Khan and subsequent Mongol rulers maintained control of this region by a policy of depopulation.

9.) Following the collapse of the reigns of Tamerlane (or Timur) and then Babur, Afghanistan divided into three major areas; the Khanate of Bukhara ruled in the north, the Sunni Mughals in the east, and the Shi'a Safavids in the west from the 16th to the 18th century.

10.) Nadir Shah of the Ashfarid dynasty took advantage of the anarchy then enveloping Persia and successfully raised a military to defeat the Persians. He then marched his army into Afghanistan (and what was left of the Mughal empire in India) and defeated and deposed their rulers. But before he could consolidate his control over the region, he was assassinated in 1738 and following a loya jirga the soldier Ahmad Khan was elected to replace him. Ahmad Khan then moved quickly to complete the conquest of the Mughal empire (which at the time consisted of modern day India and Pakistan) and thereby established the Durrani Empire in 1747. (Most historians acknowledge the founding of the Durrani Empire as the birth of modern Afghanistan.)

11.) Dost Mohammad became emir of Afghanistan in 1836 and due to fear of Russian encroachment into Central Asia made overtures to the British. But diplomatic missteps between the two resulted in the First Anglo-Afghan war in which though they were initially successful in deposing Dost Mohammad, the British suffered humiliation by being pushed out and ultimately slaughtered by a fierce Afghan insurgency. But the British successfully retaliated, taking back the major cities of Kabul, Jalalabad, and Kandahar. However, a change in British government resulted in the withdrawal of the British Indian army from Afghanistan.

12.) In 1878 the then ruler of Afghanistan Sher Ali Khan (somewhat unwillingly) accepted a Russian envoy to Kabul but rebuffed a similar British diplomatic mission that eventually resulted in the Second Anglo-Afghan War. But this time the British were overwhelmingly successful in both their military and geopolitical aims and though eventually deciding to withdraw its troops they continued to maintain control over Afghan foreign policy.

13.) Though initially neutral during WWI the Afghans eventually rose up against British rule that led to the Third Anglo-Afghan War. And though Britain successfully crushed the revolt, its war fatigue caused them to agree, through the Treaty of Rawalpindi, to relinquish control of Afghan foreign policy (as well as discontinuing British subsidies to the country) thus effecting genuine Afghan independence in 1919.

14.) In order to "prop up" an unstable communist Afghan government the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979. But the mujahadeen with the covert aid of the CIA and other clandestine agencies defeated the Soviet Union which resulted in its withdrawal from the country in 1989. But Afghanistan quickly fell into a costly civil war that "concluded" with the Taliban gaining control of most of the country by 1996.

15.) The Taliban's refusal to hand over Osama Bin Laden led to NATO, headed by the United States, allying itself with the Northern Alliance; their combined forces successfully removed the Taliban from power and a few years later Hamid Karzai was elected president of Afghanistan. But rampant corruption in Karzai's government and a renewed Taliban led insurgency threaten to undo the progress made to date in Afghanistan.

This lengthy, broad overview of the history of Afghanistan should, I would hope, make clear that more often than not the history of the Afghan people has been one of conquest and domination; not one of military success.

I think part of the reason this myth persists as it does is because for Westerners the most recent memory of the Afghans is their seemingly miraculous defeat of the Soviets. This in turn ties into one of Western civilizations' enduring myths: the biblical story of David's defeat of Goliath. You see we glory in the thought of a simple primitive people armed mostly with WWI era weapons defeating the mighty and evil Soviet Empire with its vastly superior technological capabilities because we think it displays a bit of ourselves in them. In sum, their honor is our honor; their glory our glory. (The reality of course is that without our covert aid, especially the Stinger missiles we provided which were crucial in bringing down the Soviet Hind helicopters, the Afghan people would have been crushed by the Soviets.)

Of course there is a sense in which myths can be fruitful. For instance, myths have the power to inspire and sustain us through trying times and can be useful as a didactic tool. But in the case of this particular myth I think more harm than good has been caused by its overwhelming acceptance. In fact, I believe our foreign policy towards Afghanistan has been hampered and adversely affected by our belief in this myth. Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in crafting his military strategy at the onset of Operation Enduring Freedom referred time and time again to this myth as justification for his "light footprint" method which I believe is a central reason why the security situation deteriorated so rapidly in the subsequent years of the victory over the Taliban.

Sadly, even now I believe this myth continues to negatively affect our military as well as geopolitical objectives in regards to Afghanistan. Though it's a platitude often heard by the losing side of any conflict, if we do "lose" this "war" it will be because we put ourselves at an initial psychological disadvantage by our resolute belief in this myth of the unconquerable nature of Afghanistan and so will in the end have beaten ourselves. Therefore, I believe the first crucial step to success in Afghanistan begins with discarding this parasitic myth. But unfortunately, myths don't die easily and I don't see this one becoming extinct any time soon. However, until it does American foreign policy will continue to be indentured to this myth of Afghan invincibility.

My Oscar Picks

2011-02-25T08:20:00.010+04:30

For once I've actually seen all ten films that have been nominated for best picture this year at the 83rd Academy Awards so I just wanted to offer my opinion on how I believe the Oscars should pan out.

1.) Best Picture: Given my recent post about the film it probably comes as no surprise that my choice for Best Picture is The King's Speech. Now to be fair I might be a bit prejudiced on this one, but I still had several nominated films to watch after viewing The King's Speech and if anything I thought True Grit might unseat it but it didn't. 2nd Runner up would have to go to Toy Story 3 which I thought was superbly well done. Of course it'll still be a long time before the Oscar awards committee overcomes some of its prejudices so as to award Best Picture to an animated film (or a sci-fi one for that matter which is why the otherwise excellent Christopher Nolan film Inception won't win this year either).

2.) Best Director: No surprise here; Tom Hooper for The King's Speech. But honorable mention must go to Debra Granik (whom the Oscars did not nominate) for the very unsettling Winter's Bone.

3.) Best Actor: Maybe Javier Bardem did have an excellent performance in Biutiful but I haven't seen it so I'm going to have to pick Colin Firth for his role as King George VI in The King's Speech though Jeff Bridges stellar portrayal as Rooster Cogburn in True Grit made this a difficult choice. But since Bridges won last year I'm going to stick with Colin Firth.

4.) Best Actress: This was probably my hardest one to pick. I vacillated between Natalie Portman for Black Swan and Jennifer Lawrence for Winter's Bone for some time. And though not the most objective way to determine things, I flipped a coin; Natalie Portman won. (Okay, maybe my ever so slight crush on Natalie Portman tipped the balance in her favor.)

5.) Best Supporting Actor: Probably the easiest choice I had to make. Though he may be an asshole to work with and a jerk in his personal life, Christian Bale should win for his role as the real life Dicky Ecklund in The Fighter. Say what you will about Christian Bale; he is a very talented actor whose deserved Oscar is long overdue.

6.) Best Supporting Actress: Another fairly easy choice; Helena-Bonham Carter for The King's Speech. But of course special mention should be made for Hailee Steinfeld as the stubborn but wise beyond her years Mattie Ross in True Grit.

7.) Best Original Screenplay: I was inclined to give this one to The King's Speech yet it cannot be doubted that the most truly original is Christopher Nolan's Inception. So, Inception, it is. Plus, it's time Nolan received an Oscar especially given that he was snubbed at the 81st Academy Awards.

8.) Best Adapted Screenplay: This is the category I felt the least qualified to make an informed judgment about because I hadn't read any of the books these films are based on. However, a good friend of mine (who has his own excellent blog at Exceptional Mediocrity) assured me that Aaron Sorkin's adaptation of the book about the creation of Facebook, The Accidental Billionaires, was a brilliant one and given that I know how excellent Sorkin's film adaptations for other books that I have read have been (e.g., Charlie Wilson's War) I'm going to choose Aaron Sorkin for The Social Network.

Well, there you have it. For what it's worth, which I know is very little, these are my Oscar picks for the 83rd Academy Awards.

I promise that the next post will be a bit more substantial. Things here have still been pretty crazy as the company gets set to leave. This also includes me because apparently my transfer paperwork won't go through in time for me to extend. So it looks like I too will be home soon.

Brief Thoughts Concerning Darwin Day

2011-02-21T15:35:00.006+04:30

The 12th of this month was Darwin Day, i.e., the 202nd anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin (incidentally also the 202nd anniversary of Lincoln's birth) whose On the Origin of Species changed the study of biology forever. Having become a strong proponent of the biological doctrine of evolution over the last several years I've been meaning to get around to actually reading all of Darwin's works especially On the Origin of Species. And so I made one of my study goals for the year to do just that. However, I had read many times before that there were two works in particular which Darwin said greatly influenced his thought, and since I have a strong interest in the intellectual debt that writers/thinkers owe to those that have preceded them I decided it would be valuable to read these two works before reading Darwin.

The first of these was "An Essay on the Principle of Population" first published in 1798 and written by the famous political economist and demographer Thomas Malthus. Against the then dominant utopian visions of the time which emphasized the evolving perfectibility of human nature, Malthus in this work argues that the chief human paradigm is actually one of suffering because the relationship between food production and population growth is an inverse one. In other words, while food production is essentially geometric, population grows at an exponential rate which means that population at some point inevitably outgrows the rate of food production which in turn leads to certain miserable factors such as famine, pestilence, war, etc that must act as a check on population growth so as to preserve equilibrium in nature. So Malthus:

"The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world". (p. 61, 1st ed)

Here in this brutal notion of the inevitability of certain segments of the population dying out for the sake of population equilibrium lies the germ for Darwin's doctrine of the "survival of the fittest". In fact, on the influence of Malthus for his work Darwin wrote:

"In October 1838... I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population... it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species." (Autobiography, p. 128)

I was able to mostly finish Malthus' population essay some months ago and actually found it to be a rather easy and pleasant read except for some of the tedious chapters in which Malthus criticizes various utopian authors and their proposals for possible checks on population growth. I decided not to read his last few chapters in which he engages Adam Smith because one of my other study goals for the year is to read Smiths' works. Once this is accomplished I then plan to finish Malthus. But again this was a pretty enjoyable read.

I wish, however, I could say the same for the second book that I just recently finished that influenced Darwin's thought, namely, Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology (three volumes first published between 1830-33). Now ever since I read the abridged version of Les Miserables in high school and was confused as hell with the plot I've harbored an utter disdain for abridged works of any kind. But, admittedly, in this case I'm glad that I ended up with the abridged version of Lyell's mammoth three volume work on geology. It wasn't his prose that made the work a difficult read or anything like that but rather the tedious use of example after example to support his arguments.

And yet it is for this very reason that Lyell's work was so persuasive and basically closed the door on prior geological theories. Before Lyell the "discipline" of geology wasn't really a science per se in the sense of Newtonian mechanics at the time. It tended to be more of a philosophical system and prior as well as during Lyell's time the debate was essentially between catastrophists and uniformintarists. The former basically argued that the so-called "old" features of the earth could be attributed to cataclysmic fits of great upheavals and so could still fit with a young earth worldview. In contrast, the latter argued that the causes in the changes to the earth are essentially of a uniform, slow-moving nature and therefore are better explained by a theory that views the earth (and consequently the universe) as very old. It was this latter camp that Lyell eventually fell into being influenced by the works of James Hutton and John Playfair (the former more via the latter though according to the Penguin introduction).

Lyell's contribution made possible by his extensive travels and hands on work with the various geological features of the earth was to essentially popularize uniformintarianism and raise geology to the level of a proper scientific discipline as well as to greatly reduce the influence that the Anglican clergy had previously held in the realm of the sciences. And it was essentially Lyell's persuasive argument for the very ancient nature of the earth which influenced Darwin whom religiously read PG while traveling around the world aboard the H.M.S. Beagle.

But what was surprising to me as I read PG was a chapter Lyell devoted to arguing against what he termed "the theory of the progression of species" or in modern parlance, evolution. Many make the mistake of thinking that Darwin (and Alfred Russell Wallace) invented the notion of evolution when in fact the idea that species may change over time was actually a rather ancient one. Furthermore, in Lyell's day a popular view among biologists was the transmutation of species a doctrine having been advocated by the french naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck who argued that species transmutated over time into newer species and also inherited acquired characteristics of their parents. This "evolutionary" belief is what Lyell argues against in this chapter. I was of course puzzled by this until I read the Penguin introduction to PG. (I've developed the habit of delaying the reading of introductions until I've actually read the work in question). There it is explained that Lyell's reluctance to accept evolution was based more on moral and less on intellectual reasons. In fact it wouldn't be until late in life after he had developed a deep friendship with Darwin and after the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species that Lyell would (though still very reluctantly) accept the tenets of evolutionary theory. Eventually, this acceptance made it into the last few editions of PG Lyell published before his death. The Penguin abridged version retains the very 1st edition; hence my puzzlement.

Anyways, it's a good feeling to be done with these two books. Now I can finally proceed to read Charles Darwin on his own terms.

More on the Revolution in Egypt

2011-02-16T11:15:00.003+04:30

Some of the news reports and blogs that I have read have praised the so-called "success" of the revolution in Egypt in forcing Hosni Mubarak to step down. What many are failing to realize however is that thus far one cannot count this as a success for democracy because Mubarak simply handed power over to the Egyptian Armed Forces. Sure, the Egyptian military says it will rule for only six months and then attempt to form some sort of process that supposedly will lead to a democratic government but as history has shown time and time again it is indeed a rare event for a military in power to do such. Plus, again as history has demonstrated, revolutions have a way of transforming into reigns of terror and/or pure chaos. So a bit of restraint I think is called for before we start getting ahead of ourselves and proclaiming this a success for democracy in the Middle East. In addition, I've also seen many praising President Obama for his handling of this crisis when actually I think his vacillation has exhibited a lack of foreign policy experience that I was initially worried about when he was running for President. Now personally I like President Obama (plus he is technically my boss at the moment), but I don't think this has been one of his finest moments. The international historian Niall Ferguson elaborates on this further than I'm able to do at the moment:

The King's Speech: A Royal Pleasure

2011-02-14T09:35:00.011+04:30

Somewhat reluctantly I finally watched The King's Speech*. This initial reluctance originated with the buzz that I had heard about some of the historical inaccuracies in the film. But given that I'm a fan of historical period pieces and that the critical reviews have been overwhelmingly positive, I decided to take the plunge. And, wow, thank the Most High that I did. It is quite nearly a perfect film as well as easily the best of the Best Picture nominees that I've seen thus far.

For those who are not familiar with the movie it is about King George VI's (King of England during WWII and the father of the current reigning monarch, Queen Elizabeth II) struggle with a severe speech impediment and the somewhat unorthodox methods that speech therapist Lionel Logue (played by Geoffrey Rush) implements in order to help the King. Other notable actors in the film include Helena Bonham Carter as Queen Elizabeth. Now before this film I had never particularly cared for Helena Bonham Carter believing that she was getting work principally because she is Tim Burton's wife. However, she was great in this film with the result that my opinion of her acting abilities has changed significantly for the better. Also, Guy Pearce who hasn't been in too many films of late played Edward VIII and also did quite well. But it was of course Colin Firth's portrayal of King George VI which was the most remarkable and deservedly worthy of the Oscar nomination that he has received for the role.

As for the historical inaccuracies they are there. However, they aren't as pronounced as I was led to believe. Mostly they have to do with the presentation of Winston Churchill (played by Timothy Spall) as having supported the abdication of Edward VIII (coerced out because he wanted to marry a woman who was about to be divorced for the second time; something that would have been too scandalous of an affair for the King of England since he was also head of the Anglican church; here for more) when he in fact resolutely advised Edward to remain king. Thus, the warm relationship portrayed in the film between King George VI and Churchill is anachronistic because in reality the King resented Churchill for some time for having supported his brother during the Abdication crisis. It wasn't until WWII that King George VI and Churchill became close friends. (For more about the inaccurate presentation of Churchill in the movie read Christopher Hitchen's fine review here.)

Another inaccuracy has to do with the film's perspective on King George VI's views concerning Hitler. For example there is a scene in which George VI, before he has become king and while his brother is still king, chastises his brother for his lackadaisical attitude toward the turmoil that is starting to envelop Europe to which Edward simply replies "Herr Hitler will sort them out" prompting George to retort "Yes, well, who will sort Herr Hitler out?". This is problematic because the actual views of King George VI towards Hitler are somewhat murkier than the film suggests. For instance, in his letters the King seems to speak somewhat favorably of Hitler and later gives his complete support to the appeasement policies of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain (of course one could argue that the King had to support these policies since he didn't have any real authority to alter them).

Along with these rather substantial alterations to history there are some minor ones which were clearly made for cinematic purposes such as condensing the actual time that Logue treated the King (the movie makes this appear to be a matter of a few years when it was actually more like twelve years or so). In the end I didn't really have a problem with any of these changes because they don't really affect the tone and/or purpose of the film. In fact, my only real grief with the movie was the depiction of Churchill by Timothy Spall which I thought was not particularly good. But I implore you not to let these minor deficiencies deter you from seeing this film. Trust me it is well worth it. (Some of you are are much more liberally disposed may have problems with the films apparent glorification of the now antiquated notions of royalty to which I can only say that if you give it a chance you'll still enjoy the film).

Anyways, I think I was already predisposed to love this movie because it deals with similar themes that another favorite movie of mine, namely, My Fair Lady does so perhaps you would be wholly justified in completely disregarding my opinion of The King's Speech. Regardless, this provides me with a nice segue into leaving you with one of my favorite scenes from My Fair Lady because after all it is Valentine's Day, a day when I tend to suffer from slightly misogynistic thoughts. Enjoy and happy Valentine's Day.

*Update: The King's Speech won the Best Film award at the 64th British Film Academy Awards.

A Reminder Concerning the Difficulties Involved in Attempting to Authenticate the Sayings Attributed to Jesus by the Gospel Writers

2011-02-12T15:02:00.015+04:30

I have a lot of blogs that I keep up with as anyone who has perused my links has surely observed. This means that I've been doing a lot of catching up on my reading of them in the last several days which is why I haven't really posted anything lately (in addition to having been on a mission). So as I was catching up on Loren Rosson's blog (still a favorite of mine that I've been following since 2005) I came across his post concerning Mk 9:1 and the historical Jesus which was a poignant reminder to me of the difficulty involved in the historian's task of determining with any degree of certainty what the historical Jesus actually said. Here's the (in)famous saying:

"I say to you that there are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God come in power." (Mk 9:1)

For historical Jesus scholars this has always been a particularly difficult passage because a reasonable case can be made for settling on any of the following options:

(a) concluding it to be an authentic saying of Jesus due to its implication that Jesus made a false prophecy which the early Church surely would have found embarrassing making it highly unlikely that this saying was created by the nascent Christian community (this being based on the so-called criterion of embarrassment)

(b) determining that the early Church in fact created this saying as a means of comforting those bereft with disappointment that the "end" had not yet come (Loren cites I Thess 4:13-18 and I Cor 15:51-53 as early examples of this within the developing Christian community)

(c) asserting some sort of synthesis of the above, e.g., that the historical Jesus said something in substance akin to this saying but that the early Church modified it to fit the context of what they were going through at the time, namely, disappointment that the "end" had not yet arrived. (In the comments Dr. Goodacre suggests this last option by noting how Matthew, uncomfortable with Mark's version, subtly alters this saying to “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” emphasis mine, MT 16: 28)

Loren converts, via arguments of John Meier, from (a) to (b) while Dr. Goodacre, writing in the comments section, supports (c). For my own part I'm not sure which solution is most satisfactory given the data at hand. Part of the problem here has to do with other factors which could influence how one determines the solution such as the dating of the gospel writers' works. For example, depending on how one dates Mark's gospel (the consensus is typically 70 CE or around the Second Jewish Temple's destruction) can influence significantly how one views the authenticity or inauthenticity of this saying. To elaborate further, if one determines that Mark is written late into the 1st century then it might make more sense to view this saying as a creation of the Church because of the increasing delay between the time of the historical Jesus and the expected coming of his kingdom by his followers. Likewise, the closer to the events of the historical Jesus that one believes Mark to have been written would incline one to think the saying to be more original because the expectation of the "end" wouldn't be as prominent among the early believers.

Anyways, if I had to choose one of the three I would probably elect (c). However, as I noted in the comments the more I study the historical Jesus (and its related issues such as the Synoptic Problem whose preferred solution could also affect how one determines the authenticity of this saying) the more skeptical and pessimistic I become in regards to determining which sayings attributed to Jesus by the gospel writers actually originated with the historical Jesus. And thus after all these years I still am persuaded that E.P. Sanders' emphasis on giving priority to studying the actions of Jesus attributed to him by the gospels over the sayings of Jesus is the superior method in reconstructing the historical Jesus (here for more). This I should say is in marked contrast to where I started out in my studying of the historical Jesus so many years ago, i.e., much more sanguine about what I thought could be attributed to the historical Jesus which in my former pious Christian days (and when I was a fan of NT Wright) was just about everyone of the sayings. But that is a story for another time.

Returned

2011-02-11T10:05:00.002+04:30

I got back from mission a couple of days ago. Things have been rush rush because the company I'm with is scheduled to leave country in the next few weeks. I am however trying to extend which means I'm both helping this company get ready to leave and trying to jump through hoops to get a four month extension with another company. Therefore, there may not be very many posts for the remainder of this month but I'm still going to try my best to post as often as I can. Anyways, I should have a post up within the next couple of days. Until then enjoy one of my favorite clips from the Muppet Show:

On Tolkien and the Creation of the "Lord of the Rings"

2011-02-05T16:15:00.012+04:30

I just recently finished Humphrey Carpenter's excellent biography of J.R.R. Tolkien and there were several things that struck me about Tolkien's life that I had not known before (or maybe had just forgotten for several years ago I did read Carpenter's book on the Inklings, an informal literary club that included C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, Warren Lewis, Hugo Dyson, Owen Barfield, and others at various times, for a research paper that I did on Lewis). For instance, though I recalled that Tolkien served in WWI I didn't know that he had actually experienced the horror that was trench warfare. Moreover, it was a pleasure to read about Tolkien's actual scholarship such as his translations of important medieval works like Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, his philological contributions to the Oxford English Dictionary, and his critical reflections on the epic poem Beowulf to name just a few.

But of course Tolkien is most famous for Lord of the Rings and what I discovered is that it was his philological acumen and interests that we have to thank for what is in my mind one of the greatest pieces of modern literature. You see one day Tolkien was reading Crist, an Old English Anglo-Saxon poem when he was struck by the following line:

"Hail Earendel, brightest of angels, over Middle-earth to men sent"

Here wrapped up in this tiny line was as Carpenter notes "the beginning of Tolkien's own mythology" for Tolkien was so intrigued by this obscure reference to Earendel (this later of course becoming Earendil in the LOR whose light aided Frodo in surviving the attacks of Shelob) that he felt it deserved to have its own language so Tolkien created one which he came to call Quenya (later to become one of the Elvin languages) complete with its own linguistic rules (grammar, syntax, phonology, etc). This language was essentially an amalgamation of the many languages Tolkien was familiar with but was in large part derived from Finnish which when Tolkien discovered this language said: "it was like discovering a complete wine-cellar filled with bottles of an amazing wine of a kind and flavour never tasted before. It quite intoxicated me." But as Tolkien continued to develop this language he soon realized that the language itself needed its own context or rather its own mythology. This mythology then became the basis for Tolkien's Silmarillion which is of course the mythological milieu of LOR. (Later in life Tolkien noted that another motivation for creating the Silmarillion was that he always felt England had lacked a proper mythology and so created his own "English" mythology as a means of correcting what was to his mind a severe cultural deficiency.)

The next component in the eventual creation of LOR occurred one day in the early 1930's when during another mundane round of grading student exams Tolkien abruptly wrote on a blank space in one of these exams "in a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit." This spontaneous notion combined with various elements from stories he had told his children over the years became the genesis of The Hobbit or There and Back Again. Interestingly, though Tolkien didn't necessarily intend The Hobbit to take place in the mythological world of the Silmarillion various references and allusions from his mythology slipped in (such as the character of the Necromancer for instance). Tolkien then published The Hobbit in 1937 to remarkable success such so that the publisher immediately requested a sequel to which Tolkien readily agreed.

However, Tolkien sent them a manuscript copy of his Silmarillion which due to a misunderstanding the publisher rejected which set Tolkien to work on "A Long Expected Party" the first chapter of what was supposed to be a sequel to The Hobbit. But the "sequel" quickly took on a life of its own becoming something altogether different, more complex, dark even. What also became apparent was that whereas The Hobbit had a smattering of references here and there to the Silmarillion this new work had as its subtext the mythology of the Silmarillion. (In fact Tolkien tried in vain to publish the Silmarillion along with the LOR believing it to be a necessary companion volume; unfortunately the Silmarillion was never published during Tolkien's lifetime to his great disappointment since he always considered it his best work.) Amazingly, Tolkien's publisher was truly long-suffering as it took him sixteen years to finally complete what became LOR. Unfortunately, the work's length prompted the publisher to force a division of the work into three parts which Tolkien reluctantly went along with. The result was the publication of The Fellowship of the Ring in 1954 to great critical success. The other two volumes followed shortly thereafter and were received likewise by both the public and critics alike.

Thus, thanks to Tolkien's skills and interests in philology we have been graced with this great piece of modern literature. And so that's my brief account of how LOR came to be. No posts for several days because when the military tells you it's your last mission it never is.

The Perfect Bad Movie?

2011-02-03T15:48:00.007+04:30

I tried. I really did. I wanted to at least like In the Name of the King if only for the sake of Jason Statham of whom I'm a fan. I mean there are so many reasons why I should have liked this movie. It has an excellent cast: Jason Statham, Ron Pearlman, Claire Forlani, John Rhys-Davies, et al. It has plenty of action which you can always count on when Statham is starring. And it is a fantasy flick. But the reality is that anything director Uwe Boll touches, and I'm sorry to use such unflattering language, turns to shit. And, unfortunately, it holds true for this movie. It's so terrible that it doesn't even deserve a proper, critical film review. Uwe Boll has become in my opinion the worst mainstream movie director living today and I just can't take any more of his filth. Henceforth I will never watch another of his movies even if by some miracle one of his future films garners a rating of above 50 percent on Rotten Tomatoes.

But watching this terrible movie wasn't a total waste for it did cause me to do a little thought experiment on what would constitute the perfect bad movie if only as a way of entertaining myself while I suffered through this monstrosity. Here's what I settled on; any movie composed with the following:

Director: Uwe Boll
Producer: Joel Schumacher
Executive Producer: John Travolta
Writer: Michael Bay
Stars: Paris Hilton and Paul Walker

Can you think of any other combination (the conditions being that the people chosen are mainstream film folk and living)?

Tauntaun and Wampa Sightings!

2011-02-01T13:42:00.004+04:30

There have been Tauntaun and Wampa sightings on the east coast! Don't believe me? Go here to see for yourself!

Concerning Israel's Anxiety About the Events Unfolding in Egypt

2011-01-31T10:14:00.005+04:30

The foreign policy blogo-sphere has been understandably abuzz with the potentially revolutionary events happening in Egypt. I hadn't really intended on commenting on this remarkable event except that many of the blogs that I've been reading have frustrated me by downplaying the repercussions a regime change in Egypt might have vis a vis Israel. For example, Greg Scoblete at RealClearWorld in the context of a discussion of whether or not American aid to an autocratic regime in Egypt still makes sense writes this about Israel:

The first of these rationales (i.e., aid to Egypt as an incentive for maintaining a peace with Israel) has long stopped making sense. Egypt has kept peace with Israel not out of an abundance of good will but because they understand the folly of trying to defeat them. American aid or no, it's quite difficult to imagine the Egyptian military getting it into their heads that a war with Israel would be a good thing to start in the 21st century. (for the entire post go here)

Now before addressing this statement it might be best to briefly recap the historical relationship between Israel and Egypt:

1.) Egypt, along with other Arab powers, attempted to snuff out the newborn existence of the Jewish state during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war but failed. Diplomat Ralph Bunche was instrumental in getting the parties involved to sign a ceasefire.

2.) Israel, in collusion with France and Britain during the 1956 Suez crisis, captured the Sinai delivering a devastating blow to the Egyptian Army. However, under intense diplomatic pressure from the United States and other countries Israel subsequently withdrew from the Sinai.

3.) Israel delivered an astonishing defeat to Egypt (and other Arab states) during the 1967 Six Day War capturing, once again, the Sinai. Israeli peace overtures following the war were rejected by the Arab states including Egypt at Khartoum where the (in)famous three 'nos' were uttered: "no peace, no recognition, no negotiation".

4.) The new leader of Egypt, Anwar Sadat, launched a surprise attack on Israel on their holiest day which initiated the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The Israeli's eventually drove back the Egyptians but Sadat's prestige was nonetheless bolstered throughout the Arab world following the war.

5.) Following upon his amazing unilateral visit to Jerusalem, Sadat and then Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin through the brokerage of President Jimmy Carter (see the Camp David Accords of 1979) signed a peace agreement that required Israel to give back the Sinai to Egypt, which it subsequently did, in return for the recognition of the existence of Israel which Egypt gave.

6.) In 1981 Anwar Sadat whose peacemaking with Israel was highly unpopular with both the Egyptian people and the Arab world was assassinated which brought the current Egyptian leader, Hosni Mubarak, to power.

7.) Surprisingly, Mubarak maintained an albeit cold peace with Israel even aiding them in the prevention of some weapons from entering the Gaza stri p.

So as you can see there exists a long mostly hostile history between the two countries even though Mubarak has kept a cold peace with Israel up til now. Therefore, a regime change no matter what its character would be of major concern to the Israelis. Moreover, this concern is less about the possibility of a conventional war with a new regime in Egypt and more about the consequences that could arise from an unstable regime change especially concerning the Egyptian/Gazan border. Israel cannot afford a regime that's unable and/or unwilling to help maintain the security on that volatile border. Instability at this border would mean more weapons for Hamas that could lead to another perhaps more devastating war between Israel and Hamas than that which occurred in 2008/09. My point is that Israeli anxiety about the ongoing events in Egypt is more about the potential consequences a revolution could have on the stability of the region and less about a fear that a regime change might lead to a future conventional war between the two countries. Therefore, Israel's angst is quite understandable and shouldn't be minimized.

Fortunately, there are other voices in the blogo-sphere that provide a more sound analysis of the revolutionary events going on in Egypt. For more read Daniel Drezner's insightful post here.

"Are You Master of Your Domain?" On Masturbation and Seinfeld

2011-01-30T09:06:00.008+04:30

Prior to deploying I had only seen a handful of Seinfeld episodes and though usually finding them funny to some degree I was never quite sold on the show. But I became a Larry David fan after seeing his performance in the Woody Allen film Whatever Works. Wanting to see more I briefly did some research (which usually entails perusing IMDB or Wikipedia) and discovered that Larry David was one of the co-creators along with Jerry Seinfeld of the eponymous Seinfeld. Thus, I decided that there was no better time than this deployment to give Seinfeld a shot. So I took a risk and bought the entire series after a failed attempt to download it. And thank the maker that I took this risk because I've enjoyed the show immensely.

But there's one episode in particular that I want to mention, namely, "The Contest". It's about masturbation. More specifically it's about the four main characters' attempts to win a contest to see who can refrain the longest from masturbating. It's one of the best and funniest episodes but it's also culturally important for tackling what was then still a very taboo subject to refer to on TV (even though most humans and animals engage in this act). In fact, Larry David in the "Inside Look" on the DVD for this episode talks about how he was afraid that Jerry and the network would never green light this episode because of its subject matter and so left this episode and its description out of his list of upcoming episodes that he normally had displayed on his work board. But to his surprise Jerry was on board thinking it not offensive at all though it was him that suggested using a white glove approach to the topic by never actually mentioning the word masturbation which just made it that much better. And, surprisingly, the network gave their go ahead with some reservations of course. The end result is one of the best episodes of Seinfeld and Larry David rightly won an Emmy for the script.

I think what makes Seinfeld work so well is that many, if not most, of the stories are based on actual events that happened to Larry, Jerry, and the writers (including this episode) and its sophisticated handling of potentially offensive subject matter. I'm now in the fifth season and can say for certain that the risk was well worth it. Anyways, enjoy this clip from this famous episode (the embed is disabled so you'll have to click on the link):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkklW7VEBHA

JFK and Decision Making During the Cuban Missile Crisis

2011-01-26T08:36:00.006+04:30

Dr. Albert Schweitzer's birthday is not the only anniversary that I've missed this month. January 20th was the 50th anniversary of JFK's famous inaugural address in which he told viewers to "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". Now personally I've never been a huge JFK fan believing that his glorification by historians and popular imagination has had more to do with his untimely death and a nation's wishful thinking about what could have been given the decline in American prestige due to the Vietnam War, Watergate, etc, that followed his assassination.

Yet he did blunder considerably in office especially with the Bay of Pigs fiasco which was just as unilateralist and interventionist a move as George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq though you never hear of such a comparison made (here I'm sympathetic with Nixon who often complained about the hypocrisy of the American public in willing to turn a blind eye to Kennedy's blatant lie to them about the Bay of Pigs but giving him no quarter after the revelation of the Cambodian incursion during the Vietnam War). Also I think that Kennedy could have done more diplomatically to prevent the erection of the Berlin Wall. And then there is Vietnam. While scholars are divided on the issue of whether or not Kennedy would have eventually committed US ground troops to Vietnam what is clear is that more than any of his predecessors Kennedy increased substantially our commitment to South Vietnam by sending thousands of military advisers. And of course there are his character flaws most notably his constant philandering. But this is not really a major issue for me since I wouldn't be surprised if 90 percent or more of those in power cheat on their spouses.

Nevertheless, I have gained a new appreciation of Kennedy after reading one of my books that has a selection on his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis in October of 1962. The book is entitled Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision Makers and is a an analysis of both successful and unsuccessful uses of history by those in a governing capacity. One of the models of success that the authors point out is Kennedy's successful diffusing of the missile crisis. Essentially, argue the authors, Kennedy was successful because of the following actions he took:

1.) Kennedy immediately formed a special committee, known as ExComm, in which in addition to his cabinet personnel he also included diplomatic veterans from the past including former Secretary of State Dean Acheson and former Russian diplomat Charles Bohlen.

2.) Kennedy successfully kept these meetings secret from the American public and the media so as not to be unduly influenced in his decision making.

3.) Kennedy was patient, refusing to be persuaded by some (e.g., General Maxwell Taylor) to pursue rash solutions such as immediately bombing the missile sites or invading Cuba. Instead, Kennedy continually asked for more options to be put on the table.

4.) Kennedy carefully weighed suggested historical analogies put forward to him such as the Suez Crisis and Pearl Harbor.

5.) Kennedy, after six days of meetings, made a decision that was neither weak nor excessively hostile, namely, to implement a blockade or "quarantine".

6.) Kennedy was willing to interact with the Kremlin on the assumption that Moscow wasn't monolithic in its policies but that there may be individuals within the organization who might be persuaded to come to a peaceful solution.

7.) Kennedy was flexible diplomatically, ultimately, albeit secretly, agreeing to remove US missiles from Turkey in exchange for the removal of the Cuban missiles.

The result of course is that a crisis with the potential more than any other Cold War crisis to bring about nuclear war was prevented. And yet the authors are quick to point out that "It may be that the only decision-making that mattered was Moscow's. The main American contribution may have been delay that allowed the Soviets to collect themselves" (p. 7). Nonetheless, irrespective of Moscow's decision making process it's clear to me that Kennedy handled this crisis with diplomatic finesse. This, in my opinion, was certainly his finest hour. And thus, admittedly, I'm able to appreciate his presidency slightly more though I still think too many give him a free pass because he was assassinated.

On an administrative note there probably won't be any posts for a few days. It appears that I have one final mission to go on. That's the military for you.

Brief Thoughts Concerning the 68th Golden Globes

2011-01-23T11:29:00.010+04:30

I missed the most recent 68th Golden Globes, but Peter Travers has provided an excellent summary of the top ten moments of the awards ceremony here. I'm very pleased with the outcome especially with the awards for best screenplay adaptation going to Aaron Sorkin, easily one of the best screenwriters in Hollywood today, for The Social Network, and to Steve Buscemi for best TV actor in this year's breathtaking new series from HBO, Boardwalk Empire. I downloaded and watched this new series here in Afghanistan and was immeasurably pleased with it especially by Buscemi's lead performance whose roles in the past usually have involved playing the goofy sidekick (e.g. Con Air) or the eccentric miscreant (e.g., Fargo). But here he terrifically plays the real life Prohibition Era Atlantic City criminal kingpin Enoch "Nucky" Johnson (though his name is slightly changed to Enoch Thompson for the show). Here's a brief preview clip:

The other big buzz from this year's Golden Globes awards ceremony centers around one of my favorite comedians, Ricky Gervais (known by most as the creator of the original The Office) who hosted the Golden Globes for the second year in a row. He's apparently catching some flak for his "no holds barred" routine (e.g., here). He especially made fun of Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie's The Tourist (based on the many reviews of this movie I've read Gervais' ridicule appears warranted in my opinion). What baffles me is why anyone is surprised by Gervais' antics. First, he warned several weeks ago that he would not "hold back" like he did when he hosted the Golden Globes last year, and, secondly, anyone familiar with any of his material, especially his stand up, knows this is perfectly consistent with his comic method. So you uptight Hollywood asses should just shut the "bloody hell up". Anyways, as a closing to this post enjoy this bit of Ricky Gervais stand up:

Happy Belated Birthday to Dr. Albert Schweitzer

2011-01-20T16:11:00.009+04:30

Dr. Mark Goodacre's entry on the 14th reminded me, shamefully, of the birthday of Dr. Albert Schweitzer. Most know Dr. Schweitzer either as the medical missionary who worked in the Congo or as the Noble Prize winning humanist who fought hard to ban nuclear testing. But he was also a renown philosopher, theologian, and biblical studies scholar. For my own part it's his work in religion, specifically concerning the historical Jesus that was of most importance to me when I was in undergrad. Most scholars in the few centuries prior to Schweitzer reconstructed the historical Jesus essentially according to their own individual inclinations at the time which with some variation usually entailed an emphasis on the ethics of Jesus with a rationalist explanation of the miracles attributed to him by the gospels (though some such as David Friedrich Strauss [1808-1874] went further and suggested that the miracles were simply mythical constructs).

Schweitzer basically demolished these previous studies in a published work entitled The Quest of the Historical Jesus which did two things: (1) exhibited how prior scholars had reconstructed the historical Jesus in their own image and (2) offered it's own interpretation and analysis with "late Jewish eschatology" as the essential paradigm in which to reconstruct the historical Jesus. Schweitzer's reconstruction of the historical Jesus resulted in a deluded apocalyptic fanatic who believed his preaching would bring about the "end". But when this failed Jesus thought he could then force the "end" to come by taking upon himself the Messianic woes (which according to some of the post-exilic Hebrew literature usually was thought to precede the end times) which took the form of being crucified. However, the "end" did not come and so in this sense Jesus' mission was a failure. But for Schweitzer, who remained very religious for the rest of his life, this did not mean that Jesus no longer had any significance for he famously concluded his reconstruction of the historical Jesus with the following:

"He comes to us as one unknown, without a name, as of old by the lakeside, he came to those men who knew him not. He speaks to us the same words, "Follow thou me!", and sets us to the tasks which he has to fulfill for our time. He commands. And to those who obey him, whether they be wise or simple, he will reveal himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which they shall pass through in his fellowship, and, as an ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience who he is." (The Quest of the Historical Jesus, p 403)

Now Schweitzer's reconstruction of the historical Jesus has many problems but its key component, namely, the emphasis on the Jewish eschatological (apocalyptic) milieu as the paradigm for any reconstruction of the historical Jesus remains, in my opinion, unassailable. Schweitzer's work on the historical Jesus would go on to influence generations of scholars including the likes of E.P. Sanders (on whose work I have blogged about here, here, here, and here), Dale Allison, NT Wright, John Meier, et al. But eventually, Schweitzer went on to abandon his scholarly ruminations on the historical Jesus (though he did continue to dabble from time to time in Pauline studies) to become the great humanist that most remember him. He was certainly a great man and though I don't want to disparage his humanist activities it is somewhat unfortunate that he never contributed further insights to the field of historical Jesus studies. The irony here is that I too, at least for an indefinite period of time, have abandoned my own original field of study, namely, biblical studies and specifically the historical Jesus to work on other historical interests. Regardless, Albert Schweitzer was an amazing figure of history whose impact will continue to be felt. It is his memory that I wish to, belatedly, celebrate today.

Back!

2011-01-19T10:11:00.003+04:30

After a grueling several days journey we've finally made it to Kabul, or rather to Bagram, just north of Kabul. It's a bit surreal to be posting this right now because I'm in a coffee shop far away from the threat of IEDs that I had been facing on a regular basis. Except for the occasional sounds of artillery in the night it doesn't even seem as if I'm in a war zone anymore. This is a pleasant reminder that I'm truly on the downward slope towards coming home. I'll begin resumption of posts either tomorrow or the next day. For now, it's time to relax.

No Posts For a Week or So

2011-01-14T18:41:00.004+04:30

Unfortunately there will not be any posts for at least a week. My unit is making a big move from Kandahar to Kabul. It's only supposed to be a three to four day trip but the snow and ice in the mountains is already delaying the other platoons that left ahead of us so my guess is that it'll be about a week. Anyways, until then enjoy my friend Brian Taylor's very carefully reasoned take on the Tuscon tragedy:

http://www.exceptionalmediocrity.com/2011/01/arizona-massacre-grammar-conspiracy.html

Some Reflections on Counterinsurgency

2011-01-12T10:32:00.005+04:30

The kind of strategy the United States Armed Forces is said to be using in Afghanistan is typically referred to as counterinsurgency or COIN for short. And a major emphasis in COIN doctrine is a focus on "winning hearts and minds" . But when you mention this to the average combat soldier here their response will usually involve the rolling of the eyes or something akin to that. Why? This is because most soldiers believe that this particular emphasis of COIN puts their lives unduly at risk. And in some ways this is true. For example, the command in charge of the area that I'm currently in has a ridiculous policy that does not permit an overwatch to engage with someone that they clearly see burying something into or onto the side of a road. Instead, they simply are to note the location on a grid for a Route Clearance unit (what I am a part of) to come and investigate at a later point. Similarly, the current ROE (rules of engagement) are very strict requiring extensive authorization to fire back when fired upon.

But I'm personally still receptive to the whole "hearts and minds" emphasis. Perhaps this is because I've not been here long enough or been shot at enough or nearly blown up enough. Regardless, I believe the doctrine has merit. Its internal logic makes sense: an insurgency will always have a resource from which to draw if a population is in general disaffected with their current government and/or occupiers hence the need to win the "hearts and minds" of the people so as to reduce (and hopefully eliminate) the influence of an insurgency upon the them. But there are problems: the theory doesn't always work out in practice and most often collides with other, usually security, interests.

For instance, most of the time I'm a rear gunner which entails, in addition to pulling rear security, being the "traffic control" for the convoy. My job is to keep rear vehicles from coming too close (usually within 50 meters) and to never permit one to pass us and break up the convoy. The same goes for when I'm pulling rear cordon security in the event that we are investigating and/or BIPing (blowing in place) an IED. No one is allowed past us which is for their safety and ours. The trouble here is that it would be nice if a simple hand gesture would do the trick of communicating to the Afghans what I need them to do, or rather, not do. But most often this doesn't work and it means resorting to more aggressive measures in order to ensure complicity. When I have to do this it is frustrating because I can see the fear and sometimes anger in their eyes. But of course, with the language barrier and the exigency of the situations we are in, there's no way to let the locals know that it is in their best interest to stay back. Unfortunately we represent a major disruption to their lives which can cause them to be receptive to influence from insurgents.

The challenge is to find a way to effectively balance genuine security interests with the goal of "winning hearts and minds". Often though the balance has to tip in favor of security interests. Such is the nature and complexity of COIN warfare. It makes one somewhat nostalgic for the days of conventional warfare when objectives were much clearer and more easily obtainable.

Buchanan and an Unnecessary War? (Conclusion)

2011-01-10T12:28:00.010+04:30

My last several posts attempted to critically examine Pat Buchanan's assertion that WWII was an unnecessary war. By way of summary I essentially argued the following:

1.) Hitler was obsessed with solving "the Jewish Question" and obtaining Lebensraum. These two themes saturated his writings and speeches.

2.) A major focus of Hitler's foreign policy aims was the acquisition of a major portion of Polish territory (beyond Danzig) towards at least a partial fulfillment of his obsession with Lebensraum.

3.) Polish stubbornness was not really a factor for even if the Polish leadership had given over Danzig Hitler would still have invaded the country.

4.) The invasion of Poland would have resulted in the incorporation of millions of more Jews into the Third Reich pressing upon Hitler the need to find an expedient solution to his "Jewish Problem".

5.) The question of a British declaration of war is irrelevant since Hitler would still have a limited war with Poland to provide him the "cover" for his subsequent crimes against humanity, especially the Holocaust.

6.) Therefore, WWII was a necessary war.

To conclude, the thrust of my position is that even if we grant most of Buchanan's chief assertions that Churchill was a warmonger or that the Treaty of Versailles was unjust, etc, I maintain that Hitler still would have invaded Poland with the result that the Holocaust still would have occurred. A most disturbing implication then of Buchanan's position is that had no one intervened to stop Hitler many more millions of lives might have been lost than eventually were during WWII. No, it was both morally right and necessary, at whatever cost, to stop Hitler who in the final analysis ultimately bears the responsibility for starting WWII...

Usually at some point or another soldiers will begin to question whether the war they are fighting is a necessary war. And for the soldiers of WWII it was no different. One of my favorite episodes from the acclaimed HBO series Band of Brothers is the appropriately titled "Why We Fight". In this episode soldiers of the 101st begin to question why they have gone through hell for what appears to them problems related exclusively to Europe. The answer is finally revealed to them as they liberate their first concentration camp. And it is with a clip from this episode that I'll end this series of posts.

Buchanan and an Unnecessary War? (Part III)

2011-01-08T12:27:00.009+04:30

Although Hitler began to initiate certain "crimes against humanity" long before WWII began I noted that for many this would probably not constitute a sufficient enough reason for waging war against Hitler because at that point it was still a domestic matter and even a good portion of non-isolationists would most likely be hesitate to advocate intervention then. So the sine qua non for maintaining the traditional argument of the necessity of WWII (or at least, minimally, of stopping Hitler) lies with Poland or more specifically with Hitler's geopolitical objectives concerning Poland. Recall that a major component of Buchanan's argument depends on the notion that Polish stubbornness in refusing to part with Danzig was a chief cause of the war. Thus to reiterate: according to Buchanan if Poland had simply acquiesced to Hitler's "just" demand to hand over Danzig he would have refrained from invading the country. (Remember the sequence here: no invasion of Poland, no British war declaration and therefore no war crimes).

But just as Buchanan failed to adequately take into account Hitler's obsession with the "Jewish Question" so too has his analysis of Hitler's foreign policy goals in regards to Poland been myopic. In addition to a preoccupation with the "Jewish Question" Hitler also consistently obsessed over Lebensraum or "living room (space)". This being the notion that Germany was in need of "breathing room" and that Eastern Europe, Poland in particular, would address this "need". (Incidentally this was not a theme exclusive to Hitler but formed a major part of German/Prussian thinking stretching as far back as the middle ages. Here then Hitler was, on this matter, in lockstep with traditional German foreign policy aims at the time.) But more importantly in relation to Poland, and I can't emphasize this enough, contrary to Buchanan Danzig was not really the issue, rather, it was the existence of Poland itself.

Historically, for the Germans/Prussians (and Russians) the existence of Poland was an abberation on the European continent (this is in fact what formed the backdrop to the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression pact signed in Aug of 1939 that divided Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union). The territory that now forms Poland was at varying times either a part of the Prussian empire or Tsarist empire (or both) from 1795, the last time Poland was properly a country, until after WWI when the treaty of Versailles made Polish independence a reality once more. So it wasn't just that the Treaty of Versailles took away Danzig from Germany but that it dissolved a major portion of Germany's eastern territory in order to (re)create Poland. And so German foreign policy even during the Weimar era before Hitler stressed a desire to eradicate this part of Versailles. Now what Hitler did was to appropriate this strong German desire, combine it with the historic concern for Lebensraum, and intensify it to eventually include extension beyond Poland and ultimately to the Soviet Union. Therefore, it is extremely improbable that had Danzig been given over to Hitler that this would have satiated his eastern territorial ambitions. No, as consistently expressed by Hitler since at least Mein Kampf only the elimination of Poland as a political entity would have sufficed.

And so having been emboldened by a series of appeasements culminating in the Munich Agreement, Hitler, I submit, most surely would have invaded Poland irrespective of the solution over Danzig. Furthermore, regardless of whether or not Britain declared war on Germany, Hitler would've at least had a limited war with Poland in which to further extend his "crimes against humanity". More importantly, invading Poland would have saddled Hitler with millions of more Jews (and undesirable Poles for that matter) which would have served to intensify his "Jewish problem". Eventually then Hitler would have been driven to the same "solution" that he was in WWII, namely, the extermination of the Jews (and others that Hitler deemed undesirable). (In fact it is conceivable that the Holocaust would have happened much sooner without a wider war because Hitler would not have had the luxury of briefly contemplating deportation as a possible solution to the "Jewish Problem".) In other words either a limited war with Poland or a wider, world war would have resulted in the Holocaust. And thus the world surely would have had a strong moral mandate to initiate war against Hitler to put a stop to his "crimes against humanity". It is in this sense then that WWII was a necessary war because either way Hitler's foreign policy objectives would have resulted in the Holocaust.

Alright, in the concluding post to this series I'll try to sum up Buchanan's position and my arguments against it.

A Noteworthy Quotation

2011-01-07T18:21:00.005+04:30

One of the books that I'm reading is Charles Lyell's classic Principles of Geology, and today I came across this quotation from Lyell that I felt was too good not to share:

An historian should, if possible, be at once profoundly acquainted with ethics, politics, jurisprudence, the military art, theology; in a word, with all branches of knowledge, whereby any insight into human affairs, or into the moral and intellectual nature of man, can be obtained. (p. 6, 1st ed)

Tomorrow I should have posted the third part to my series on "Buchanan and an Unnecessary War?".

Buchanan and an Unnecessary War? (Part II)

2011-01-06T14:18:00.034+04:30

Now on a narrow level Buchanan is correct: World War II was an unnecessary war. But this is only true in so far as all wars are in some abstract, general sense "unnecessary". War is a tragic event and so rightly should never happen. Yet they do, time and time again because war is an enduring characteristic of humankind, and where there exist nations with mutually exclusive interests, war will always be a distinct possibility. However, my major problem with Buchanan is not so much with his very flawed analysis of how WWII began (which will be touched on at a later point) but with the fact that he continues to emphasize in this program and in the parts of the book that I have read that when WWII did begin it still was an unnecessary war to fight and that the United States' security interests would have been better served by not intervening in the conflict. Now if Buchanan had been discussing WWI, the Korean War, Vietnam, Iraq I and II, Afghanistan, etc just maybe he might have something since I will concede (though not necessarily affirm) that it is possible to examine these conflicts much more skeptically in terms of threats to our national security interests.

But except for fringe revisionists like Buchanan most historians of American foreign policy admit that of all the wars that the United States has been in WWII is probably the one with the greatest amount of moral justification. Of course, nation states don't generally go to war for moralistic reasons but rather on the basis of perceived threats to their national security and as I intend to argue in a later post the United States was no exception when it came to WWII. But in terms of when the war began I and most other historians would assert that there was a strong moral component involved in defeating Hitler.

So then what's the moral basis for affirming WWII as a necessary war to fight? The answer: Hitler's atrocious crimes against humanity, particularly the Holocaust. Surely, stopping Hitler by means of war in order to halt his terrible crimes against humanity would justify describing WWII as a necessary war would it not? In fact, Buchanan was asked this very question on the program by a perceptive viewer. His reply was two fold:

1.) Though acknowledging the evilness of Hitler and the Holocaust, Buchanan stressed that these crimes against humanity were first and foremost war crimes, and so

2.) if British diplomatic missteps and Polish intransigence hadn't caused the war then these crimes of humanity would have never occurred.

Besides being an appalling means of shifting the blame for these terrible crimes against humanity from Nazi Germany and Hitler to Britain and Poland this argument ultimately fails because it does not take into account the consistent obsession of Hitler with the Judenfragen, i.e. the "Jewish Question". (Here we are touching on an aspect of the aims of Hitler which if you will recall Buchanan states that Hitler had no concrete foreign policy objectives. On this score Buchanan's thought is simply derivative of A.J.P. Taylor's scholarship and thus by no means original). The "Jewish Question" preoccupied Hitler probably ever since at least WWI forming a major part of his notorious political treatise Meinkampf and continuing to be an obsession throughout his rule.

(Note that there is a broader debate here on the matter of Hitler's policy towards the Jews which pivots on the question of whether Hitler was an "intentionalist", i.e, was his objective from the very beginning the annihilation of at least European Jewry or was he a "functionalist", namely, was he wanting to get rid of the Jews but not by necessarily killing them only to be "forced" into that solution by the events of WWII? My own take on this is that Hitler was probably in spirit always an intentionalist but believing it not to be a pragmatic option was a functionalist in practice until circumstances during WWII made this option feasible.)

In fact, immediately after Hitler abolished the Reichstag (German Parliament) which enabled him to make policy by fiat one of his first decrees was the infamous Nuremberg Laws. These essentially began the systematic persecution of German Jews which among other things stripped them of German citizenship. The point here is that Hitler was already beginning his crimes against humanity before WWII began. Of course on this score Buchanan's rebuttal would probably take the form of claiming that no matter how terrible these actions of Hitler were they were matters of domestic concerns of Germany only with no bearing on the rest of Europe or the United States for that matter. Therefore, we need to look more specifically at Hitler's designs on Poland to further augment the argument that WWII was a necessary war. This we'll do in the next post...

To be continued...

Buchanan and an Unnecessary War? (Part I)

2011-01-04T15:29:00.035+04:30

One of the programs that I enjoy the most on Booktv is "In Depth" in which an interviewer (usually CEO Brian Lamb or his son) spends three hours with a noted writer discussing their published works as well as permitting viewers to submit their own questions to the guest. Before deploying to Afghanistan I was able to catch the entirety of Pat Buchanan's appearance on "In Depth". For those unfamiliar with him, Buchanan is a conservative political commentator who twice sought the Republican nomination in 1992 and 1996 and ran for president in 2000 on the Reform Party ticket. Yet he is perhaps best known for having been one of the original hosts on CNN's now defunct political debate program Crossfire where he advocated a strongly conservative position. But additionally Buchanan has authored numerous books one of which is entitled Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost its Empire and the West Lost the World which is what I want to discuss in the next series of posts. But first here's a little snippet from the program where Buchanan talks about the book, specifically concerning Hitler and Churchill:

From what I can gather from the program the following is a summary view of Buchanan's position on WWII.

1.) Much, if not most, of the responsibility for causing the war lies with Winston Churchill and not, as it has traditionally been believed, with Adolf Hitler. Following the diplomatic historian A.J.P. Taylor Buchanan asserts that Hitler actually harbored no great war aims and any foreign policy "goals" that he might have had were limited to just some parts of eastern Europe, particularly Poland and the city of Danzig. Furthermore, relying again on Taylor, specifically The Origins of World War II (1967), Buchanan argues that Hitler was less a madman and/or evil fascist bent on conquering the world and more a shrewd opportunist who skillfully took advantage of the diplomatic blunders made by Great Britain (though it should be noted that Buchanan stated in the program that he does believe Hitler was Satanic and evil) . Churchill on the other hand was a warmonger whose battle rattling was a major factor in the diplomatic failures that led to WWII.

2.) The Versailles Treaty which brought an official end to WWI was excessively harsh in its treatment of Germany, especially with the additions of the so called "war guilt" and reparation clauses. These punitive measures resulted in a widespread sense of resentment among the Germans against the former allied powers which influenced the thinking of such people as Adolf Hitler. And so Hitler was quite justified in his desire to annex the predominately German speaking Sudetenland from Czechoslovokia and the city of Danzig from Poland which were unjustly taken from Germany via the Treaty of Versailles. (Additionally Buchanan asserts that Neville Chamberlain was right to "appease" Hitler at Munich.)

3.) Polish intransigence, especially over Danzig, was another major cause of WWII. Because Danzig is more demographically German and was acquired by Poland unjustly through the Treaty of Versailles the political and military leadership of Poland should have been willing to forgo Danzig since as was stated previously this was the extent of Hitler's territorial ambitions concerning Poland.

4.) Reminiscent of the statement, usually attributed to Bethmann-Hollweg, that Britain went to war in WWI over a 'scrap of paper' (Britain's treaty with Belgium) Buchanan similarly states that it was Britain's futile treaty guarantee to Poland that it would go to war to defend the country if it were ever attacked by Germany that was the proximate cause for WWII. Britain was not in a position to guarantee anything to Poland much less military assistance and so it was foolhardy for them to sign this treaty that ultimately led to the war. (Note that Buchanan also asserts that it was Britain's foolish guarantee that "bucked up" the Polish leadership which helped to cement their tough position on Danzig.)

To sum up, Buchanan's thesis is that everything under the sun except Hitler's foreign policy ambitions was the cause of WWII, i.e., Versailles, Churchill, Poland, and a foolish treaty were the the true architects of an unnecessary world war. Furthermore, states Buchanan on the program, the world would have been better off to have allowed Hitler to have his way with Europe once the war began and that the United States should have never intervened in what was purely a "European" conflict. (Another part of Buchanan's argument that I don't have space to deal with here has to do with the way British and American Asian policy steered Japan into the arms of the axis powers).

Now none of this is too terribly surprising coming from Pat Buchanan because when it comes to foreign policy he is a self described isolationist, i.e., he believes that the United States should stay out of world affairs as much as possible and focus purely on domestic concerns. (Isolationism echoes the views of some of the founding fathers who back then asserted that we should "avoid entangling alliances" [Washington] and refrain from "seeking monsters abroad to destroy"[John Quincy Adams]. This made sense then when we had two vast oceans separating us from the often tumultuous affairs of Europe but is in my opinion an antiquated and naive view to hold today. ) Therefore, Buchanan's foreign policy beliefs force him to view any engagement on an international level negatively and WWII is for him no exception.

But this isn't where I want to focus my criticisms nor do I wish to attempt to rebut point by point his arguments since I have not fully read the book. That would simply be unfair. Instead what I want to do in the next couple of posts is to focus on the question of the "necessity" of WWII by way of the Holocaust...

To be Continued...

A Review of Seth Jones' "In the Graveyard of Empires"

2011-01-02T14:25:00.006+04:30

Though I'm in Afghanistan I won't be able to blog on specific things that I'm doing here (OPSEC) but from time to time I'll try to offer some general observations on my time here. But first I thought it would be appropriate to link to a review (well less a review and more of a summary) that I wrote on one of the many books concerning Afghanistan that I read before deploying here, namely, Seth Jones' In the Graveyard of Empires. Here's the link:

My Librarything review of In the Graveyard of Empires

Prolegomena

2011-01-01T10:16:00.007+04:30

1.) This is my second go at a blog. The archives for my first one are to the left.

2.) I'm a former religious studies student and current soldier in Afghanistan.

3.) I was at one time pursuing a Phd in New Testament studies but left graduate school because my scholarly interests had since changed (evolved?). I now wish to do graduate work in history, specifically diplomatic and/or world history.

4.) This blog will reflect all of my interests including the banal ones. However, posts concerning history in one degree or another will probably constitute a good portion of the blog. Also, personal anecdotes will appear from time to time.

5.) This blog has a definite end point in mind.

Comments, so long as they are civil, are most welcome.