Iran Super Thread- Merged

[Edward Campbell]

...
I don't think most Arabs are any different to most Westerners.  They are what most radicals would define as apathetic.  They are too busy surviving to take up a life's mission of revolution. 

The mission remains what it has always been - to separate leaders from followers - to separate the radicals from the "apathetic" and protect the 'apathetic" so that they can carry on with their lives.

Right.  Just ask Abbie Hoffman  and Stokey Charmichael what sort of America they wanted back in the '60s.  (I know they're dead!)

Both mixed social and religious 'ideas' in their chaotic world views.

 

[kincanucks]

Chris,

You are stretching me back to my IG days- 11 years ago, but I'll take a shot at it.  (BTW, I forgot about the whole Skyguard/Skyguard thing- why can't arms manufacturers copyright friggin names like everyone else...).

Point Defence vs Area Defence:  As I dimly recall, the difference is this- An Area Defence System is one that possesses sufficient kinetic energy and lethality to intercept and destroy targets that are not essentially aimed at the launcher itself out to some distance X.  Obviously, closing targets can be engaged and defeated farther out; crossing targets must be engaged closer in. Area Defence systems do not necessarily have to be located near the defended object: the defended object just has to be within the Area Defence system's template. A Point defence system is essentially stationed on the defended object: it sort of becomes part of the target.  It can only (practically speaking) defend against weapons shot directly at it.

In Canadian Service, examples of Point Systems are/have been:

Javelin (The Air Defence Missile)
CIWS
Sea Sparrow

Area Systems are/have been:

Standard SM-2

Interestingly, a bunch of netted and properly sited ADATS could do an Area Defence, even though each system alone is only really a point defence missile.

Clear as mud?

Kincanucks can now come by and correct my errors/misrememberings  ;D

As good as a recent IG grad could give.  Just one addition.  ADATS was always an area defence system hence its being a Div resource.  Now we consider employing them in a point defence role whenever required but for a system that has never been deployed in a real scenario (G8 conferences don't count) who the hell knows what it can really do.  Skyshield, Skyguard, C-RAM, Skymuffin, whatever are designed for point defence (FOBs, etc).  Even SLAMRAAM when it comes on line is limited in range and is designed to replace Avenger.  There is another version of it that will be used for missile defence and that will have have a greater range.  Vital point defence is the flavour of the month for AD and AD system design given the COE we and others find ourselves in. With the Air Force required to provide the area defence with CAP.  This may bite us in the ass in the future when the COE is not the dominant factor and traditional combat returns with the invasion of the world by the Chinese.  Just my .02.  Cheers.

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks for the round up kincanucks.

Back to the original thesis.  This from Iraq The Model today:

Mr. Ahmadinejad told the foreign minister of France a year or so ago something like "The path to God has to go through chaos" and I'm positive that Mr. Ahmadinejad wasn't speaking of the "creative chaos" that some western leaders talk about. I believe he was speaking of the kind of chaos based on the religious myth which says the rise of the savior Imam could be accelerated by wars and destruction that engulf the region.

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

 

[Kirkhill]

I think this comes under the heading of  "Signs of Success".

From Bill Roggio's Fourth Rail "The Battle of Baqubah II"  http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/06/the_battle_of_baquba.php

The Battle of Baqubah II
 
The Baqubah region. Click map to view.

Major offensive in al Qaeda's so-called capital of the Islamic State of Iraq

The Diyala Campaign is underway. As part of major offensive operations throughout the belts regions of Baghdad, Iraqi and U.S. forces have launched a large scale operation in the city of Baqubah, the provincial capital of Diyala. Dubbed Operation Arrowhead Ripper, the offensive is massive. This is a division sized operation of "approximately 10,000 Soldiers, with a full complement of attack helicopters, close air support, Strykers and Bradley Fighting Vehicles." Over 30 al Qaeda operatives have been killed since the 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division kicked off the operation with a "quick-strike nighttime air assault." .....

Much more on the link and some of the comments include interesting sitreps for other provinces.

 

[Kirkhill]

http://thespiritofman.blogspot.com/2007/06/petrol-crisis.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6243644.stm

Rioting in Tehran as a result of gas rationing being imposed by surprise. Apparently the police are refusing to intervene.  Gas stations and cars being torched.

Also there is this:  An Arab mullah shot in Qom - Rafsanjani is pointing the finger at Arab separatists and Bin Laden.

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/06/iranian_regimes_heavyweight_gu.php  (apparently translated from the Iranian RASA news agency).

 

[a_majoor]

Of course our everlasting hope is that the people can make liberation a "self help" project, but history really isn't on our side with that one. The people of Zimbabwe are under a vast amount of provocation by their own government, but haven't brought down the house yet. Venezuela may yet evolve into a Cuba, with a vast repressive secret police apparatus (and how come the Cubans haven't overthrown Fidel yet?).

The really successful revolutions are the ones where the leading role was taken by the middle class, who have the most to gain by changing the established order, and the most to loose under the current regime. (Poor people really have nothing left to loose, hence a peasant's revolt usually only leads to burning the manor house and chaos, while the rich have nothing to gain by changes, hence their resistance to reforms and change and support of repression).

Since the various societies in Dar-al-Islam (including Iran) haven't produced a large and prosperous middle class, I suspect we are going to watch a series of revolts and government crackdowns with the most ruthless side taking the prize rather than a real revolution.

A really speculative idea might be to harness the Arab diaspora, since they have been exposed to a working secular society and some of them have assimilated "our" values. The first order of business would be to ensure that the vast majority of people coming to the West are assimilated; their strength is added to our own and they can become our voice and example abroad.

 

[tomahawk6]

Gas rationing has begun in Iran sparking attacks on gas stations.Perhaps this may tip the people towards revolution ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/27/wiran127.xml

 

[Edward Campbell]

I apologize for a long, poorly edited ramble but I’m waaaay too lazy (and a bit too busy) to do a better job and bring this down to 10,000 words.

Part 1 of 2

I’m going to beat, yet again, upon an old familiar drum: Culture Matters!*

Caution: I’m going to make some ‘value’ laden statements.  I’m afraid that a few people may be offended and a few more will say my words are unnecessarily are provocative.  Apologies in advance: I’m certainly not trying to offend anyone and while I don’t mind being provocative my goal is only to inform.

What is culture?

The more or less standard definition is that culture is that mix of learned behaviours, values, attitudes and ‘tastes’ which condition our response to a wide variety of social, political and economic stimuli.

We each have a culture of our own.  I (and many others) would argue that each of us has one unique culture and while we can, and constantly do, modify it we cannot change it into another nor can we acquire another.  Thus, I was born with one of the subsets of the English-liberal culture; try as I might I cannot change myself into a person with a Mandarin Chinese-Confucian culture.

It is important to point out that culture ≠ race.

Race is the result of some very minor genetic variants amongst members of the human family – eye shape, hair colour, skin tone, etc.  In my experience†  people of all races are come in exactly the same proportions of smart to stupid, industrious to lazy and brave to craven.  There are honest, intelligent hard working people, in equal proportion, in Accra, Ghana, Beijing, China and Cambridge, Ontario.  The difference is that the honest, hardworking, intelligent person in Denmark is going to have a much better chance to exploit her attributes than is her counterpart in Egypt.  The difference, despite Jared Diamond, is not defined by geography or genetics.  If geography dictated outcome then Russia would rule the world and England would never have amounted to much; if genetics was the prime determinant then Africans would be ‘top of the heap.’  The determiningdifference is how our society supports or inhibits the ways we can and may exploit our own attributes – that’s culture.

While each culture is the result of an almost infinite variety of ‘drivers’ the three main ones, those which account for most of our cultural values are:

1. Language;

2. Religion; and

3. History.

The key linguistic issue is what is some call the ‘milk tongue’ – that is the language each of us learned at his mother’s breast.  Our ‘milk tongue’ can inculcate us some key cultural values.  Consider Mandarin Chinese.  As his mother’s breast a Chinese baby learns that he is ‘different’ from his sister; he learns that his dad’s mother has a different, slightly superior, designation than his mom’s mother and that his auntie on his mom’s side of the family is not quite the same, in ‘status,’ as his auntie on his dad’s side.  The ‘milk tongue’ teaches that even within the tightly knit family there is a well defined hierarchy; not surprisingly Chinese culture has a learned value of respecting hierarchies.  This  learned behaviour also exists, to a far lesser degree, in those born into the French or Spanish cultures which also have hierarchical languages.  It barely exists in the Dutch or English cultures – their languages did away with their hierarchical elements 300± years ago.  When did you last say ‘thee’ or ‘thou’ – other than in church?‡

Which brings us to religion.

Religion can be an immensely powerful cultural force.

Not all societies are especially religious and I think that societies which have failed to develop sophisticated religions might be those which have also failed to develop other important cultural institutions.  Monotheism, à la Christianity or Islam are not, necessarily, the most sophisticated or advanced religions.  I think early man developed religions to answer a small handful of specific questions: the big one being, “Why do bad things happen to good people?” or, put another way, “Why, despite all my hard work did the flood come and wash away my crop?”  I think most primitive animist religions were invented to address this question.  (The answer, by the way, is: “Because we failed to propitiate the river god.”

As societies grew more complex it became necessary to address more complex social, political and, indeed, economic questions and societies developed more complex gods, and pantheons of gods, to set and standards of behaviours.  Some polytheistic systems were, indeed still are quite successful at providing specific gods to whom one can turn for guidance on specific issues.

Despite the beliefs of a small band of European Protestants, religion is, generally, a highly collective affair.  It tries to teach society – everyone – what to think (believe) and how to behave.  Insofar as it is a collective institution religion is also a very, very conservative force.  When, as is the case in some religions, it is taught that the religion also provides political (and even economic) rules which are, in and of themselves, sufficient for the whole people then the result is extreme conservatism.  But, in the case of those North European Protestants, and essentially conservative religion can be reshaped into a force for liberal social, political and economic development.

Which brings us to Max Weber.
 

The religious valuation of restless, continuous, systematic work in a worldly calling, as the highest means of asceticism, and at the same time the surest and most evident proof of rebirth and genuine faith, must have been the most powerful conceivable lever for the expansion of . . . the spirit of capitalism.

Max Weber
(Weber, Max, From Max Weber.  Translated and edited by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills.  New York, 1946).

Weber theorized that the Calvinists spawned a wholly unintended ‘revolution.’  They intended, he tells us, that, for the Calvinist, ” The world exists to serve the glorification of God and for that purpose alone. The elected Christian is in the world only to increase this glory of god by fulfilling His commandments to the best of his ability.  But God requires social achievement of the Christian because He will that social life shall be organized according to His commandments, in accordance with that purpose"  Thus, God required the strict Protestants of Northern Europe, including John Knox’s Presbyterians  to be more and more productive.  Now neither the Protestants nor the Scots and not even the Scots Protestants invented capitalism but their learned religious beliefs led them to redevelop capitalism into its modern form.

The obvious corollary to Weber’s Protestant work ethic is that other religious traditions or systems can inhibit economic development and the socio-political development which tends to accompany it.  Given the history of the 20th century it is not surprising that Weber’s theories remain popular.

Weber was concerned with societal organization (his is the father of modern sociology, after all) and he was fascinated by the contrast between rational and dysfunctional societies.  He noted that the most rational societies were also the most successful by 19th/20th century standards and that they were also, overwhelmingly, Protestant.  It’s a good think for Weber’s reputation that everyone understands that he couldn’t, in his time, study Asian societies in the same way he was able to study Europe.

Weber didn’t look deeply enough.  Religion, in and of itself, is insufficient to make the sorts of changes Weber observed.  It could only happen when the ‘new’ religious beliefs were firmly rooted in a historically liberal society.


Edit: sundry typos, throughout.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Part 2 of 2

Although not exact fits, the well documented histories of 11th century England and 11th century Normandy tend to mirror the histories of Britain and Scandinavia, on the one hand, and Romano-Europe (France, the Rhineland, Spain and Italy) on the other.  The two societal groups had very different social orders.

The Anglo-Saxon (and related) people were, in the main, of four classes: slaves, cottagers, villeins (vile or ordinary people) and thegns (thanes – but NOT the way Shakespeare used that word in Macbeth).  Of these the thanes were fewest, next were slaves while the overwhelming majority were cottagers and villeins.  The ratios were something like 1:2:5:20+ (thanes:slaves:cottagers:villeins).  It appears that, in Anglo-Saxon England, villeins were freemen; cottagers, on the other hand, were tied to the thane by stronger feudal duties.  Most of the obligatory military service in 11th century England was undertaken by the few thousand thegns who were (partially) trained and equipped fighting men and made up the fyrd.  It was rare (very rare?) for villains to be called up –armed, as they would be, with a few axes and rakes.  (It might have happened at Stamford Bridge when Harold (Godwinson) (England) defeated Harald (Hardrada) (Norway) who, like William of Normandy also made a claim to Harold’s throne.)   

In Normandy and France things were different.  Slaves, cottagers and villains existed but, while slaves were slaves – a pretty low condition anywhere – cottagers and villains were, quite clearly, serfs – some might have been called ‘free’ but their feudal ties were so strong as to make that terms senseless.  The French and Normans also had chivalry (chevalier – knight or mounted warrior) which added another layer to the nobility.  There was still a local ‘lord’ of the manor (manoir) (a proto seigneur), very much like the English thegn but above him was the mounted (expensive) knight – who had to be maintained by the serfs.

Normandy was ‘better’ organized (for war) and managed than England – because William was, essentially, an absolute monarch, unconstrained by anything like a Constitution.  He was very good at what he did: decisive, visionary, disciplined, ruthless, etc.  Harold Godwinson, on the other hand, had to answer to the witan a proto-council, for sure, maybe even a proto-parliament (one already existed in Iceland – the Althingi (established in 930 – it is inconceivable that England did not know of their Icelandic cousins political system.)  The witan elected Harold king – as was its right and duty to do.  English kings did not, unlike their Romano-European counterparts (including the French and Normans) inherit a divine right to rule – each king was elected by the witan, as they had been since the 7th century.

The point of this long history, overfilled with Englisc words, is to point out that England was a becoming an inherently liberal society as Normandy, like most of Romano-Europe, was becoming more and more illiberal.  It is interesting to note that this liberalism existed prior to the 7th century, in e.g. the Celtic Church, and it survived the Norman conquest.  Henry II (100 years after William the Conqueror), whose English kingdom was far less rich and ‘important’ than his various French duchies (Anjou, Aquitaine, Gascony,  Nantes and Normandy), was able to introduces his system of standardized ‘courts’ in England – as he had to in order to pacify his English barons who wanted a return to trial by jury, but it came much slower and harder in his French (Angevin) ‘emprire.’  It was not the ‘jury’ which was novel – the French had that, it was the composition of the jury and the application of the King’s law in a standardized manner which mattered.  The French jury consisted of 12 knights – men who owed loyalty to the king.  The English assizes had a jury of 24 free men – a huge difference.

Thus, 1,000 years before Max Weber, and, in Iceland, before the arrival of Christianity, English, Icelandic and other North European peoples were developing the liberal base onto which the Calvinists and Presbyterians would graft their doctrine of productivity.  The result would be an increasing (still present, I think) gulf between Northern European liberal rationalism and Romano-European dysfunctional, illiberal statism.

What about China?

China’s political and social histories are at least as long and complex (arguably longer and more complex) than Europe’s.

The society is socially and politically conservative.

(Conservatism is at the opposite end of a political spectrum from liberalism.  Illiberal cultures do not appear in that spectrum.  Illiberal systems are just as foreign to conservative systems as they are to liberals ones.  We use illiberal because, thankfully, American political scientists Fareed Zakaria decided not to try to invent a word to describe authoritarian systems which poorly mirrored some of the aspects of conservative democracies.)
 
The society is also economically liberal.

The recent rise of the Red Dynasty has not interfered with innate conservatism in China.  In fact communism (like socialism) is a highly conservative political philosophy – placing, as it does, the w3elfare of the collective over the rights of the individual.  The problem, for the Chinese Communist Party, is that while the Chinese don’t mind a highly conservative, far less than democratic central government, they object – sometimes quite strenuously - to any government, central or local, which intrudes too much into the family’s affairs.

Chinese economic liberalism does not focus on the individual – it is tied to the family.  Individuals are expected to sacrifice for the sake of the family.  Sometimes even second cousins can make a powerful claim on family support.   This is in sharp contrast to our, European, view of liberalism.

So we have this potent mix: socio-political conservatism and economic liberalism, of a sort.  The outcome, for the Chinese, for 2,500 years, has been a relatively stable system in which a central government acquires a mandate – which is, de facto, not objected to by the people.  When, eventually, the government’s mandate is withdrawn there may be a brief interregnum but, as often as not a new mandate is acquired by a new dynasty – sometimes the new dynasty doesn’t last very long but it is replaced by a long-lived, stable dynasty.  China’s long history has made the people comfortable with this system – just as North Europeans were accustomed to liberalism before the Protestant Reformation and the rise of modern capitalism and just as Roman-Europeans were accustomed to illiberal governments long before e.g. the rise of the modern papacy.

It is economics more than socio-political issues which threaten the Chinese current Red Dynasty.  The people will accept strong, remote central governments so long as more local governments have more local, direct, popular (democratic) input and, more important, so long as all governments leave most people ‘free’ to pursue economic rationalism.  Socialism is not ‘natural’ for the Chinese – not above the family level, anyway.


Culture Matters!

I see the cultural ‘universe’ as being something akin to a rugby ball.  At the two ends we have to ‘ superior’ systems: English liberalism and Chinese Confucianism.  Moving towards the middle – but staying on the centre line – we find a range of progressively less liberal and less conservative systems.  When we get off the centre line, near the middle and out towards the ‘skin’ of the ball we find the vast array of illiberal socio-political and economic systems: the preferred systems of about 175+ of the UN’s 200± members.

Amongst the most illiberal regimes are those in which very conservative Islam religious values, equally conservative Arab/Persian social and linguistic values and valueless oligarchy based economic practices (governments practicing this are often referred to as kleptocracies).  Most North African, Middle Eastern and West and Central Asian governments fall into this category.  We cannot expect to impose anything like democracy, in any form, on them or even ‘lead’ them to experiment with democracy unless and until they all undergo a huge (probably long and bloody) religious reformation followed by a social-economic enlightenment.  Only then – maybe in 2050 – will some people in some of those countries begin to talk about democracy.  Right now they cannot because their culture does not permit it.

Africa is worse off.

Latin America is, relatively, well off.  It is more illiberal than Romano-Europe – maybe they are culturally close to the level of the Balkans and Russia, which is to say not quite hopeless.

Asia, broadly, is enlightened – and has been for 1,000 years.  Asia is also irreligious.  It is not that they lack religious values – far from it.  Being irreligious means that they are not slaves to imposed values – they are, essentially religious and economic liberals even as they are, otherwise, socially conservative.  I think this applies to India as well as to China.  Malaysia and Indonesia, being Muslim and The Philippines, being Christian, are less irreligious and, therefore, will have a harder time in adapting to 21st century globalization.

The biggest and most immediate cultural problem for us, the American led, democratic West, is unreformed Islam – which sees itself as both/simultaneously a religion and a system of government.  There are other problems on the horizon.  Africa cannot be sustained in it current social, cultural, political or economic forms.  I have no idea how to solve Africa’s many, HUGE problems but some smart people need to bring some ideas forward or unreformed Islam will take over, magnifying our existing problem.

Latin America and Asia can, in the case of Asia, must be left to their own devices without too much danger to us.

The bottom line.

Culture matters.  Military solutions to cultural problems are possible – but only if we understand that culture drives people’s social, political and economic values.  If we ignore cultural we will fail.  If we misunderstand culture we will fail.  If we try to impose our cultural values on another we will fail.

To win we must understand other cultures.  That does not mean we need to support or even condone some cultural values.  We should not tolerate slavery or female genital mutilation or women being treated as property.  But we must understand why it happens and we must understand that only ‘they’ – the people who hold such values – can change those values.

Most Western politicians and the leaders of most NGOs are on a course headed towards failure in Africa and Asia.  Soldiers will end up paying the price.

 

----------
* And see the book of the same name (New York, 2000) edited by Lawrence E Harrison and Samuel P Huntington.  It ought to be required reading at our Staff College and for all senior officials in DFAIT.

† Comprising 65+ years, a goodly proportion spent living and working in a large handful of countries on several continents and archipelagos – working with people from different races and cultures.

‡ Maybe, it’s not one of the languages I can speak much beyond ordering beer, one would use the formal ‘u’ rather than the less formal but far more common ’ji’to address a superior in the army.

 

[Kirkhill]

Somethings just can't be said in less than 10,000 words Edward.  Great piece.

I have a minor quibble on the Normans and their cultural affinities.  Rollo, their founder, who secured Normandy from Charles the Simple of Paris on the same terms as the Danelaw was secured in England, was a Viking.  Harold, Harald and William were all members of the same ruling clan. As for that matter so was Henry II and the Angevins who were related to Hugh Capet - sire of the Bourbon line.

Just to expand on your thoughts a little to see if I am tracking you here.

One of the more interesting aspects of the Reformation, and the Wars of Religion, was the way in which the Huguenots, the French Protestants, were most strongly represented in two separate cultures: the coastal culture and the "Burgundian" culture.

The coastal culture - based between La Rochelle and St-Malo - incorporating Normandy, Brittany, Perche and Poitou - was dominated by a merchant class.  Curiously this class was the driving force behind the Canadian colonies.  Their success and wealth were what both attracted and threatened Cardinal Richelieu and the Florence-Paris axis, leading to the imposition on strict controls on belief.

The other culture - the "Burgundian" culture, also defined as the Visigothic culture of Iberia and Aquitaine, and still having resonance in the Provencale and Occitane cultures - was typified by a loose, confederational style of governance, typical of the Holy Roman Empire. 

These two cultures also contributed to the Grand Alliance that opposed the Divinely apppointed Capetians of Paris and Stewarts of Edinburgh.  Many of the foreign regiments that Britain raised were formed from Huguenots and from the Palatines of the Rhine, the Savoyards of the Piedmont and also from Portugal.  Areas that were harried by the centralists.  They fought in British colours for two to three centuries. They also shaped the British economy and American society - Faneuil Hall in Boston and New Rochelle in New York are two of their more well known legacies.

Interestingly the Visigoths and Burgundians both had their roots in the Baltic sea area.

By contrast the Franks, which also came from the same area as the Frisians, Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Lombards - essentially Hamburg and Denmark - and generated Clovis, Charlemagne, Hugh Capet and the Bourbons, seem to have succumbed to the centralizing tendency.  Perhaps it had to do with their strong association with the horse cultures (the ruling class claimed to be descended from the Scythians and so did that of the Scots and Irish).  Perhaps it is because they found themselves trying to dominate a land-based, neolithic, agricultural community that could trace its roots back to Anatolia and Sumer.   

In Britain no place is more than 40 miles from salt water.  It is entirely coastal.  Although it adopted neolithic ways it could never be anything but a coastal, maritime culture looking to the constantly changing sea rather than the permanence of land.

As you said - cultures are varied, and highly individualized.  But you can't devise a culture without input.

In William Johnson's translation of the Nemni's "Young Trudeau" ".....almost all the students (at Trudeau's alma mater St-Jean de Brebeuf), including Trudeau, ended up with identical values with respect to Catholicism and French-Canadian nationalism.  And they were convinced that they reached these values of their own free will.  How did the Jesuits of Brebeuf succeed in putting their distinctive imprint on students like Pierre Trudeau?.......The school libraries were notable above all for the important works of literature that, censored by the Church, were missing from the shelves.  To bring any book into the college premises required written approval by the college authority, unless the book was on the program.  Any book without that approval was confiscated.  "The bad book: that was enemy number one," recalled Georges-Emile Lapalme, who in 1961 would become Quebec's first minister of culture."  pp 48-49.

I particularly like this book for the insight that it gives into the culture of Quebec as much as what it says about Trudeau.  It defines "the other side of the hill" for someone that was brought up in a Scots Protestant household.  It gives me insight into the culture of Quebec, and by extension the later stages of the Reformation wars which concluded, in my view with Pope John 23, the 2nd Vatican Council and the election of President Kennedy.  Wars which continued to play out as sub-text in World Wars 1 and 2.

We use books to transmit culture and to learn about other cultures.  The knowledge that we acquire, from books, lecture or experience, drives our own individual culture.  That we pass on. 

Trudeau and Quebecois generally, had fewer cultural inputs in order to influence their own individual cultures.  Hence their identities hewed closer together and were more in line with the culture of their parents.

Adam Smith was one of the authors denied to Trudeau.  His teacher quoted the "necessary" paragraphs.  Trudeau ultimately had to request permission of his priest and even the Pope to read authors like Smith.  He was only authorised if it was deemed that he was a sufficiently trustworthy individual who wouldn't promulgate the wrong message.

The fewer inputs we have the more likely it is that our culture will remain unchanged.  Central authorities do their best to control both the environment of their subjects  - limiting their exposure to "challenges" that would require an adaptational change - and the information that their subjects receive - limiting their exposure to other ideas would might encourage their subjects to want to change just because it looked like a good idea.  The conservative wishes to conserve the status quo at all costs.  This drives them to look for order, impose one if they can't find it, and then seek to maintain it at all costs.   This imposed order is characteristic of all the agricultural based city states that dot the foothills of the mountain ridge that extends from Lisbon to Seoul.

These city-states are dominated by the notion of permanence and securiy and Hammorabi's Code carved into rock (or Moses 10 commandments).

They have had trouble learning to live with people on the fringes of their society - hill people, sailors and the horsemen of the plains.  These peoples are more likely to eschew order and security, accept things as they come. 

Because their "rulers" can't impose order in the same way - the subjects are not tied to the community for survival, they can always walk to the next valley, or head off by sea or on horseback - then there is both a greater sense of individualism and self-reliance and a greater need for consensus and confederation.  This, in my opinion, results in a more liberal, not to mention freebooting, culture.

My sense is that the conservative Sumerian view of Paris and Beijing, founded on permanence and order, and a view held by the Constitutionally inclined US and the EU, is struggling with a chaotic and disordered world.  They are having more trouble dealing with accepting that the liberal views of the Anglo-Saxons might be the only solution to disorder because, from their point of view, liberal order is no order at all.

Our Conservatives wish to conserve the liberal order of accomodation and trade.  Our Liberals and socialists wish to conserve the conservative order of order.  Their version of progress is the progressive imposition of order.

To take this back to Dar-al-Islam.  Sumer is dead.  Catastrophes, wars and global warming killed it.  Although some people fled the area (to places like France and possibly China, definitely India) many more stayed and had to adapt to the changes.  I am inclined to believe that after many cycles of changes, and many attempts by many wise people over the millenia to protect society and order from all of the above their is a tendency towards acceptance of the inevitable - fatalism - and a determination that the only thing you can rely on is yourself and the only duty you have is towards your family.  China, with its long memory of disasters probably sees the world in the same terms - giving rise to the off quoted mid-east expression "my tribe against the world, my family against my tribe, me and my brother against my family, me against my brother."

I believe it will be very difficult to get Dar-al-Islam to accept the imposition of a Franco-Sumerian order.  They might be more willing to accept the more liberal order of the Anglo-Saxons in the same way that the Indians have.

Dar-al-Islam is a land of many tribes and few cities.

 

[a_majoor]

In regards to Western culture, I will stand with Victor Davis Hansen and say the roots go all the way back to classical Greece, with the combination of property rights, Individual rights and the Rule of Law being the foundation of everything we believe about Western culture.

The argument is fairly straightforward; small landholders in Greece had farms of about the same size (since a family could only muster up enough labour to cultivate a certain amount of land. These equal landholders learned to band together in mass formations to defeat the predatory aristocrats (who were rich pastoralists and fought mounted with javelins and other missile weapons) and the poor (who could not close with armed and armoured farmers) who tried to take their land. As equals in war and peace, they also acted as equals when it came to administering their society, hence the growth of assemblies and jury trials.

The grave danger to us is not so much external forces (even in the Middle Ages, it was the Saracens who had to worry about Normans, Franks and Englishmen invading, not the other way around) as our own abandonment of the fundamental factors of Western culture. The displacement of individual rights by the concept of "group rights", the predatory powers of the State used to take property from owners and the arbitrary use of the law to selectively aid or punish various groups are attacks on the very concepts that make the West a strong cultural unit. We had best work to mend the foundations of our own house, before it comes crashing down upon us.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I don't think you can use conservative to describe Québec – not 20th century Québec, anyway.

It is, to me, the classic illiberal society: backward, stunted, slow and unimaginative.  The normal end result of illiberal values is some sort of oligarchy, or worse; Duplessis fits the bill.

The Chinese are conservative, ditto the Japanese and Malaysians – that’s why Malaysia can have a functioning democracy in an Islamic state: its conservative cultural values are stronger than the sort of illiberalism which any and all (I think) religion based governments must engender.

I have a simpler theory of why England worked: rich people and poor kings.  We can thank that idiot Richard for that – he frittered away his empire and left good old John in charge.  John was so inept that he freed the English from French influence by the simple expedient of losing the bits Richard left to him.  Thanks the gods for John Lackland!

English kings were forced back to the country’s liberal traditions – traditions which never existed on most of the continent South of Schleswig Holstein.

By the time of the War of the Roses it was pretty much established that princes were contesting for a ‘managed’ throne – Elizabeth understood, clearly I think, that she ‘ruled’ as part of a compact with her people, an idea beyond the ken of any French or Spanish  king, ever.

 

[Kirkhill]

I am afraid that I am still having trouble with illiberal concept.  I can conceive of a spectrum with liberal at one end and illiberal at the other.  I can even conceive of conservatives as being a species of illiberals.  I am having difficulty putting the three together. 

To my mind a conservative society is one that is easy prey to the autocrat and the oligarchs because they want somebody to tell them there is a solution to all their ills (liberal or otherwise).  Any instability is a cause of fear and trepidation.  Anyone that promises stability is likely to be seen as a saviour. I see Quebec and the rest of Piux XII's favourite societies as conservative cultures ruled by an oligarchy or oligarchies that certainly could be described, I think, as illiberal, if not anti-liberal.

I'll come back to this later - but in the mean time I ran across this from Arthur's buddy Victor Davis Hanson.  It seems appropriate to the "success amidst chaos" meme. 

Hmm maybe that is our cultural advantage.  Do liberals handle chaos better than conservatives (classic definitions - not Canadian party designations).

Our Enemy’s Attrition
Reasons to reexamine the Middle East’s negative prognosis.

By Victor Davis Hanson

The majority opinion is that the occupation in Iraq has been so bungled that the blowback has ruined American efforts at promoting positive change throughout the Middle East.

Perhaps. But for all the justifiable criticism of the Iraqi reconstruction, two truths still remain — the United States is taking an enormous toll on jihadists, and despite the terrible cost in blood and treasure, has not given up on a constitutional government in Iraq.

The Sunni front-line states, who subsidized jihadists and still enjoy our misery in Iraq , , but they are now terrified that these killers, in league with the Iranians, will turn on them. The net result is not just that some Sunnis are helping us in Iraq, but that they are being urged to for the first time by those in the Arab world, who would prefer to see the Iraqi government, rather than the terrorists, succeed. And if Iraq is still a terrible disappointment, Kurdistan is emerging as a success few envisioned, refuting some conventional wisdom about the incompatibility of capitalism and constitutional government with Middle Eastern Islam.
... more on link

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDNhNGQ4MzBlMzk3ZWMzNzRkZDY2ZjkxNGE3NzI0NGM=

Other NRO articles on the same theme -
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWEwYzEyMmE4YjFjNDM5YjQ4NGNjODRjZWUwZWZjOTA=
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGE5YmU4OTkxYzBlZDczMDk0ODAyNDQ3MDhmMGJlYjI=

And one from the Weekly Standard
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/769bdqeo.asp

All links courtesy of Iraq the Model comments and The Tank.

 

[a_majoor]

I think what Edward is talking about resembles an inverted Bell Curve, with the "Liberal" and "Conservative" positions being the far left and right of the graph. This is a good analogy since it takes effort to maintain positions on the high ends of this curve, while the "minimum effort" position is down in the weeds with Thomas Hobbes ("Nasty, Brutish and Short"). If you want to add more shades, look at this like one of those 3D diagrams of a gravity well. Well organized societies can exist higher up the gravity well (with various degrees of Liberality or Conservatism), but once the organizing prnciples become corrupted the society can get sucked deeper into the gravity well (Failed States and anarchy represent the singularity at the centre of a political Black Hole).

Liberal equates to "Classical Liberal" with the emphasis on individual human rights, property rights and rule of law, while the Conservative position is based on a broad based and formalized hierarchical society with well understood rules (unlike a Kleptocracy where the hierarchy can be upset by movements of various strongmen).

 

[Edward Campbell]

The inverted curve, maybe a hyperbolic curve as in a gravity well, is a better analog than my rugby ball (see: Culture does Matter!  ) but let's put a hole in the bottom.

Next: Let's put 'English liberalism' and Chinese Confucianism' (neither of which exist in anything like a pure form, of course) very near the top of the 'well' but at opposite ends - maybe we can use Norway, Iceland or Australia as (Nos 1, 2 and 3 on the 2006 UN Human Development Index and, surprise, surprise countries with deeply rooted liberal democratic traditions) as examples of 'English liberalism.'  We might use and Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore (all well above 0.9 in the Index) as our 'Chinese Confucian' examples.

Then: Let's, just for the sake of argument, put Niger at the bottom.  It is at the bottom of the 2006 UN index.  Niger 'developed' (if we can call it that) under the tutelage of the French.  It is a classic example of what Zakariah was talking about in the oft cited (by me) November/December 1997 Foreign Affairs article: The Rise of Illiberal Democracy.  (His 2003 book, The Future of Freedom was an expansion of the article - much as Samuel Huntington expanded his Clash of Civilizations article (also in Foreign Affairs) into a book.)

Niger is, I think, in danger of collapsing.  I don't know what happens when a country 'collapses' and drops through the hole in the bottom of the curve.  Will the UN revive some sort of 'trusteeship' system? - hardly likely, in my view.  Will (a) neighbour(s) take over and form a new, larger, failing state?  Will China step in and offer massive aid programmes and projects including 'help' with government and administration?
 

 

[a_majoor]

I think we have seen the singularity ourselves; Somalia, Rwanda, and Zimbabwe in Africa, Afghanistan and "Palestine" in SW Asia, and the disintegrating remains of Yugoslavia in the 1990's.

Farther in the past was the immolation of Lebanon in the 1970's,  "Killing Fields" period of Cambodia, and the spasms of the "Red Guards" in the PRC; China during the "warlords" period in the 1920's and 30's, the Russian Civil War in the 'teens and 1920's and the end period of Weirmar Germany.....

Based on just recent history, the "gravitational attraction" at the bottom of the political gravity well is very powerful indeed.

 

[Kirkhill]

And coming soon to a television near you...... Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe.

Current activity - giving away tractors to non-farmers, slapping on price controls, nationalizing the mines (I wonder how that will go down with the Chinese.  Don't they already own the mines?)

 

[Trinity]

Just watching CNN.  Apparently Iran is having their own fair share of gas problems.
CNN quoted it being approximately .38 cents a gallon and people are very upset about that.

This makes Iran either that much more vulnerable and/or that much more dangerous!?!?!?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/28/world/middleeast/28iran.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

TEHRAN, June 27 — Angry drivers set fire to at least two gas stations overnight in Tehran after the government announced that gasoline rationing would begin Wednesday just after midnight.

The state television news said Wednesday that “several gas stations and public places had been attacked by vandals.” While there were some reports that a large number of gas stations had been set on fire, only two fires were confirmed.

The government had been planning for a year to put rationing into effect but held off because of concerns that it could cause unrest. Some officials indicated it might have been started now because of the threat of stronger economic sanctions by the United Nations over Iran’s nuclear program.

Iran contends that its nuclear enrichment program is for civilian energy purposes, while the United States and some other Western nations contend that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Under the new regulations announced by the Oil Ministry on Tuesday evening, private cars will be able to buy a maximum of 26 gallons of gasoline a month at the subsidized price of 34 cents per gallon. Taxis will be allowed 211 gallons a month. Parliament would have to determine whether individuals would be allowed to buy more at market rates.

There were long lines at gas stations in Tehran on Wednesday, causing traffic jams, and the police moved in to control the lines.

Iran is OPEC’s second-largest exporter of oil. But it needs to import half of its gasoline — at a cost of $5 billion a year — because of high consumption and low refining capabilities.

Inflation in Iran had already been high, as a result of a combination of economic factors and government decisions. The price of dairy products like milk, butter and yogurt increased this week by at least 20 percent.

Analysts had warned that the decision could have a direct impact on inflation.

It was unclear what would happen to many unemployed people who use their private cars as taxis.

The daily Ham-Mihan, a reformist newspaper, wrote on Wednesday that because of the many ambiguities in the new regulations, the decision could have a major effect on the economy and on people’s lives.

Parliament met behind closed doors with the ministers of oil and intelligence on Wednesday to examine the consequences of the decision.

The speaker of Parliament, Gholamali Hadad Adel, told reporters after the meeting that Parliament was determined to back the government.

“The rationing can help reduce consumption,” he said, according to Parliament’s Web site. “It can also make us more independent and become less vulnerable in the international community against world powers.”
More Articles in International »

 

[Mike Baker]

Hmm, I think that they are more dangerous now then in previous weeks. We will just have to waite an see what, if anything, will happen.

 

[1feral1]

Ya, we got this on the news yesterday.

Thats about 10 cents a litre! Here right now its about 1.10 a litre.



Cheers,

Wes