Like many people these days, I'm pretty absorbed in what's happening in Egypt right now. I've closely followed the news coverage, but I'm not really buying into the commentary, because I think its way too soon to predict what's going to come of all of it. My knee-jerk reaction is ideologically cosmopolitan - I support the idea of a democratic revolution in Egypt, even if it isn't in the best interests of my country. My hope is that democratic reform of some kind will bring at least some new freedoms to the Egyptian people, and I've been inspired by the political awakening and sense of community spirit as well as political responsibility that I've seen. I'd rather have a freer Egypt, even if we lose the country as an ally. Why? Because I regard myself as human before American, and there is no excuse to tacitly approve of human torture and repression just because it suits our narrow national interests (and all national interests, being nothing more than extensions of tribal interests, are narrow). People before politics, in other words.
Clearly, some would take this position to be naive, possibly making us ultimately less safe. Mubarak held back the Islamicists, one might say. Yes, but in doing so, he held back his own people. I personally think that the Religious Right in this country is a greater actual threat to my personal freedom than Al Qaeda, but I would defend their right to push their insane views and Dominionism, even as I might support their opponents and fight them tooth and nail. Islamicist parties in Egypt are inevitable in a democratic state, but is this a bad thing? For US strategic interests, no. For humanity ultimately, I'd say quite possibly yes. Not because they're right, but because they appear so damned wrong in an open society. Repress them, and they're at their best, because fanaticism thrives on adversity. At the same time, we in the West need to take a new approach to the excesses of Islam, and in my opinion Christianity as well. The proper response to events like the ridiculous Danish cartoon crisis seems to me to be solidarity with those who support freedom of speech, and rather than "sensitivity" to the tender eyes and ears of the fanatical, we should encourage shame. The real enemy is not Islam, Arabs, or Born-Again Christians, but fanatacism, narrow-mindedness, and absolutism in all its forms, be they patriotic and tribal, or religious and moral. Patriotism is just a nice way of saying Nationalism in the final analysis. These ideas which assume a single right way, a single righteous path, and specific infallible answers to questions that mankind has struggled with since it crawled out of the ooze, do not enlarge and sublimate our nature, but constrict it into a form that is base, unworthy, and animal.
A lot of ink has been spilled over the possibly negative consequences for Israel as well, and stability in the middle east should definitely be a concern. However, I think our instinctive reaction to hunger for stability can lead us down unfortunate roads. Clearly, if we sacrifice freedom for stability, we're making an uneven trade. Are you willing to sacrifice your freedom of speech for a little more safety or social stability? I'm not, that's for damned sure. Further, our conceptions of safety are usually sadly misinformed. You are far less likely to die from a terrorist attach than you are food poisoning in this country, but we're spending tremendous amounts on security, and doing little about the conflict of interest at the FDA. As for Israel, I understand that this is a sensitive topic, but I don't particularly value one country or people over another. Especially, when that country is only marginally more humane than the dictatorships which surround it. Back to nationalism, we must consider Zionism, the religion-based movement to reclaim lands bequeathed by God (held by both Christians and Jews), to ultimately be not much different than Pan-Islamism, which seeks to reclaim all lands previously held by the Caliphate (including Israel). Both assume a god-given right to a political kingdom on Earth, irrespective of the freedom, suffering, wills, or deaths of those they would displace or rule. There can be no answer to the question as to whether Israel has a "right" to exist, based either on history or religious claims. What matters only is that it currently exists (and to my mind, has a right to, so long as it is the product of popular will), and what its doing. The first is not a bad thing, the second is not necessarily a good thing. But if we're going to judge a nation or a people, it must be with the same standards. Again, it isn't a religion or a people that is the enemy, it is humanity's own worst instincts, its fanaticism, its brutality, and its narrowness of mind.
I've also been thinking a lot about the role of the military in the recent revolution in Tunisia and the on-going demonstrations in Egypt. In Tunisia's case, it was the army's refusal to fire on civilians, and its withdrawal from key positions in the capital that led to Ben Ali's flight. In Egypt, the rank-and-file's support for the protesters seems to be making things difficult for Mubarak. While the officers are part of the country's Mubarak-tied elite, the general make-up of the army is based on compulsory male service, unlike our all-volunteer military. It seems to me that if Mubarak is ousted it will be because the army thinks of itself as the people, because in a very real way it is the people.
This causes me some concern when I think of my own country. There have been indications that the culture of our armed forces is drifting further and further away from that of civilian culture. Our army is made of professional soldiers, for whom soldiering is a way of life, and these soldiers universally volunteer. The people who volunteer tend to be similar, from increasingly narrow sub-cultures. While on the one hand this creates a dangerous insulation from the effects of war for the vast majority of people who don't serve, there is a more worrisome possibility. What seems to me to be slowly happening is the emergence of a warrior-caste in this country, and this strikes me as extremely dangerous. Certain states (Texas, etc) show disproportionately high numbers of soldiers, while more liberal states like Massachusetts are disproportionately low compared to their population. There is increasing ideological unity of militarism and evangelical christianity, as evidenced by increasing harassment of cadets in the Air Force Academy, among other branches. Perhaps it wouldn't be possible today, but imagine that in 20 years the military is called in to quell protestors in New York, a city which they have been taught is full of Godless liberals and homosexuals. Do they refuse their President's order to fire on their fellow citizens?
The only solution to this problem is either a draft or a mandatory service requirement of some kind, something that at this point few would support. I continually find myself comparing the US to the late Roman Republic. Usually I'm talking about the religious ferment and multiculturalism of Rome here, but today I mean its military. When Gaius Marius reformed the army, making it up primarily of "Head Count" citizens (the poorest citizens) who were enticed by the wages, potential plunder and retirement promises, he took the first step to destroying the Republic. These soldiers became the professionals, serving for so long (often at least 12 years) that they no longer identified with the common people. Further, they were dependent on their Politician/Generals for their retirement settlements of land, and in many ways became more loyal to their generals than the Republic. These were the conditions that allowed Caesar to take his armies across the Rubicon. Now, while it isn't that bad yet, I wonder if we're heading in a similar direction, although clearly the two situations are far from identical. With our culture wars deepening, and congress becoming more and more mired and politicized, how long will it be before politicians begin to politicize the military. It may be argued to have begun already.
What do you make of all this? Egypt, the military, etc? I'd love to hear from my two or three loyal readers.
No comments:
Post a Comment