George W.

[archenemy]

[mattp]

Hey Archie:

 

I was at a party last night and I spoke with a guy who kept repeating this "clash of civilizations" idea - insisting that it was the heart of what is going on in Iraq today and that if we don't address this issue, it is going to define our future for us.

 

The argument reminded me of your posts here, all the more so because he refused to acknowledge that control over oil and oil business had anything to do with it.

 

I said "OK, I am aware that Islam, which was in fact far more enlightened and tolerant that Europe for several hundred years, took a big right turn about a thousand years ago, and has since then tended much more toward restriction in areas related to civil rights and many religious and political leaders have in fact urged war upon the "infidels" of the West. However, you can't ignore the component of oil in our foreign policy as it relates to the mideast. Look at our history, both in actions and in written and spoken word for the last 100 years, starting with ... blah blah blah...."

 

This guy was pretty smart, and he knew a fair amount of history. This led me to wonder: is there an organized effort or a prestigious publication I am unaware of that is seeking to plant this overriding focus on the "clash of civilizations" in the American psyche? I know we've heard lots of speeches urging this view of events, but where is the meat of this idea coming from?

 

 

[archenemy]

Hey hey, I don't refuse that oil has anything to do with it. I think it is a multi faceted problem but that religion/culture takes primacy in the issue. Like most people, I am able to look at multiple variables and then decide which one I think is most weighty without dismissing the others.

 

And in my opinion, the meat of this idea is coming from the truth. There isn't a leaflet being handed out telling people to think this, rather, it is a plausible conclusion to arrive at after reading a fair amount of history.

[ZimZam]

Samuel Huntington

[mattp]

Clearly there are multiple factors, and this "clash of civilizations" does in fact exist, but when someone is presenting it as the primary reason for our current involvement in Iraq it really doesn't hold up - does it?

 

Consider that 19 of the 22 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, one of the most Islamic nations in the entire region. Osama was from Saudi Arabia. Yet our leaders, including virtually everyone in the Bush administration if not absolutely everyone in it, completely ignored the "Saudia Arabia" connection in all their post-911 rhetoric. By contrast, they have been going out of their way to suggest, and in the case of Cheney directly state over and over, that there was a connection between 911 and Saddam's Iraq. Also, Iraq was one of the more secular nations in the region. It is not a clash of religious influence that led us into Iraq.

[archenemy]

I am reading a book right now called "Crusaders and Pragmatists" that goes through presidents from Wilson on and talks about how their religious views impacted what they created/supported in their presidencies. I would recommend this book, especially the chapter on Wilson. There were so many parallels between Wilson and Bush that it was creepy. (PS the book was written pre-Bush)

[mattp]

The parallels in a nutshell?

[archenemy]

I think it is obvious our gov't doesn't mention S.A. b/c of our ties with them. This is a great example of where the religious overtones and the economic realities overlap and influence each other.

 

I don't think the religious aspect is as powerful of an argument in the Iraq issue b/c Iraq (as well as Iran pre-Shaw) were much more advanced socially than a number of the other Muslim countries. I don't know for sure, but I would be interested to find out at what point of fundamentalism we have interceeded or outright attached Middle East countries. In other words, when a country seems more moderate, are we less likely to have attacked them? And when fundamentalism goes through the country (as well as through our county I'll wager) are we more likely to invade?

[archenemy]

The post above is not the parallels, it is the answer to your previous post. I couldn't quote it, don't know why. Sorry for any confusion.

[mattp]

I think it is pretty clear that a systematic catalog of where we've invaded or intervened over the last sixty years (post WWII) has a lot closer relationship to where we have had economic interests at stake than it has had with the religious beliefs or internal politics or even the target government's political rhetoric, though clearly the bellicose leader like Saddam or the anti western Taliban is going to draw some extra attention.

[archenemy]

I'd agree that economic considerations are very, very important. But I wouldn't be surprised if the relgious/cultural tensions had a suspiciously close line. IOW: I'd be willing to wager that folks who are "more like us" we were more willing to bargain with rather than invade. Of course there will be exceptions--Nazi Germany comes to mind (of course, we did loan them money for WWI reparations payments, so we have a history of cooperating with Germany)

[JayB]

Hey Archie:

 

I was at a party last night and I spoke with a guy who kept repeating this "clash of civilizations" idea - insisting that it was the heart of what is going on in Iraq today and that if we don't address this issue, it is going to define our future for us.

 

The argument reminded me of your posts here, all the more so because he refused to acknowledge that control over oil and oil business had anything to do with it.

 

I said "OK, I am aware that Islam, which was in fact far more enlightened and tolerant that Europe for several hundred years, took a big right turn about a thousand years ago, and has since then tended much more toward restriction in areas related to civil rights and many religious and political leaders have in fact urged war upon the "infidels" of the West. However, you can't ignore the component of oil in our foreign policy as it relates to the mideast. Look at our history, both in actions and in written and spoken word for the last 100 years, starting with ... blah blah blah...."

 

This guy was pretty smart, and he knew a fair amount of history. This led me to wonder: is there an organized effort or a prestigious publication I am unaware of that is seeking to plant this overriding focus on the "clash of civilizations" in the American psyche? I know we've heard lots of speeches urging this view of events, but where is the meat of this idea coming from?

 

 

For starters....

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb

 

"A History of the Arab Peoples" by Albert Hourani might also be helpful.

 

 

.....

 

Japan has no oil whatsoever, and has been one of the world's leading economies for quite some time, yet they "control" all of the oil that they need to by using the resources that they do have to produce goods and services that they exchange for oil. Ditto for Europe. How is this possible without physical control over the resource?

 

We get very little of our oil from foreign territories that we have direct control over, much less that we have conquered millitarily.

 

How does one who insists that physical control over a territory is the sole, or even the optimal, means by which to obtain the resources in the said territory reconcile this theory with these empirical realities.

[JayB]

I think it is pretty clear that a systematic catalog of where we've invaded or intervened over the last sixty years (post WWII) has a lot closer relationship to where we have had economic interests at stake than it has had with the religious beliefs or internal politics or even the target government's political rhetoric, though clearly the bellicose leader like Saddam or the anti western Taliban is going to draw some extra attention.

 

Yes, the Cold War was a minor footnote that had little or no influence these things.

 

Kosovo/Serbia, Haiti, Somalia, etc - all fit into this hypothesis pretty well.

 

 

[mattp]

For the most part, Jay, we have tended to prop up "friendly" ones and topple "unfriendly" governments so that "freedom" can take hold much more than actively invading. I'm sure you are quite aware of this.

[JayB]

"I think it is pretty clear that a systematic catalog of where we've invaded or intervened over the last sixty years (post WWII) has a lot closer relationship to where we have had economic interests at stake than it has had with the religious beliefs or internal politics or even the target government's political rhetoric.."

 

Love those scare quotes.

 

Seems like your last reply is an attempt to dodge the fact that no sane or rational explanation of US interventions around the world over the past sixty years is consistent with the thesis that you've put forward in this statement.

 

When you get around to it, it would be interesting to see if you can reconcile how Japan, Europe, Canada, Korea, Taiwain, Australia, etc have managed to get their hands on all of the commodities that they need without seizing the lands that contain the greatest concentrations of the same by force, and how it is that you manage to get your hands on the coffee that you drink every morning without sending a private army to the Colombian highlands to physically seize it for you.

 

 

[mattp]

Certainly the cold war was a big factor in our thinking post WWII, but even still I think most of the invasions/coups/assasinations had as much to do with economic interest as the Commies. Many of the cases where we ousted or undermined a "communist" just happened to be places where the nationailzed or threatened to nationalize something we were invested in or made deals with the bad guys that happened to be harmful to American business - this was the case in conflict after conflict throughout Latin America, the Carribean, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.

 

Like the "clash of civilizations" (religion), the "clash of civilizations" (economic theory) has certainly been a factor - but U.S. economic interest is virtually always at stake - though I'm not sure it was in Somalia or Tibet. However, what about Cuba, Guatemala, Panama, Venezuela, Chile, Angola, Congo, Iraq, Iran, Indonesia, Philippines, .... ? Sudan and Libya? I don't really know. Lebanon?

 

 

[archenemy]

the religious and economic theories as the impetus for invasion need not be mutually exclusive.One may dominate in one situation and the other in a different situation.

[mattp]

For sure, the various motivations or greed, world power, religion, oil, whatever it is, are not mutually exclusive. However, you wrote that you felt the religious motive was primary - and I assume you were talking about Iraq?

 

And although I do see this war as being characterized by religious/social disagreement, I also see man other things that impact this conflict: oil, money, territory, soveignty, dick size, retribution, etc etc. But when I look at the whole picture, I can't help but think that the fundamental difference in our basic belief systems fuel this conflict more than anything else. I can't stand up and say that is how it is, but I certainly can say that is the explaination that makes the most sense to me and carries more weight than the other contributing factors.

 

I just don't think that stands up as a good explanation as to why we attacked Saddam: I don't think it was #1 religion, and #2 economic interest. Dick size? That may have something to do with it but I think that is a pretty poor explanation as well. GW may well have felt the need to make up for his, erh, shortcomings, but he had to talk an awfully lot of people into going along with him and surely not ALL of them were insecure about their genitalia.

[archenemy]

loosen up a little.

[Seahawks]

For sure, the various motivations or greed, world power, religion, oil, whatever it is, are not mutually exclusive. However, you wrote that you felt the religious motive was primary - and I assume you were talking about Iraq?

 

And although I do see this war as being characterized by religious/social disagreement, I also see man other things that impact this conflict: oil, money, territory, soveignty, dick size, retribution, etc etc. But when I look at the whole picture, I can't help but think that the fundamental difference in our basic belief systems fuel this conflict more than anything else. I can't stand up and say that is how it is, but I certainly can say that is the explaination that makes the most sense to me and carries more weight than the other contributing factors.

 

I just don't think that stands up as a good explanation as to why we attacked Saddam: I don't think it was #1 religion, and #2 economic interest. Dick size? That may have something to do with it but I think that is a pretty poor explanation as well. GW may well have felt the need to make up for his, erh, shortcomings, but he had to talk an awfully lot of people into going along with him and surely not ALL of them were insecure about their genitalia.

 

Hey maybe it was what everyone thought was the best at the time. Hell Hillary Clinton did,

 

"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm’s way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade…

 

And the very difficult question for all of us is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment if not an obsession with weapons of mass destruction. And I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn’t believe should be in any way a part this decision.

 

And it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we not only had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein and a willingness on his part to disarm and account for his chemical and biological storehouses, but that if we had a much broader alliance and coalition.

 

But we are in a very difficult position right now…

 

With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein. I just do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for the United States leadership.

 

 

I am willing to take a very difficult step for me to say we have to disarm this man"

[jjd]

This led me to wonder: is there an organized effort or a prestigious publication I am unaware of that is seeking to plant this overriding focus on the "clash of civilizations" in the American psyche? I know we've heard lots of speeches urging this view of events, but where is the meat of this idea coming from?

 

These aren't necessarily "prestigious publications," but they do expound this idea quite vociferously:

 

American Spectator

Weekly Standard

Mark Steyn

Christopher Hitchens

 

Plenty of others.

[mattp]

I'm not surprised that the American Spectator and Weekly Standard would make such arguments. Uggh.