The Dispatches On War: Part X re: bjkumar

Thank you for the kind words, but I am afraid those words are misplaced on one such as myself. :)

You were correct in assuming that I harbor a fascination for Henry Kissinger. I am a child of Nixonian foreign policy having come of age in a time, when the Nixon-Kissinger duo was making and influencing the affairs of the world. My fascination for Kissinger stems from his flawed nature in the sense that some times, it seems that if the old German wrestles with his demons and cannot quite admit that he lost his soul a long time ago. Kissinger is very much alive and occassionally, I still catch a glimpse of him on TV voicing his believes in a status quo that does not exist. Kissinger came to power at the twilight of American power, when the sun had already set but its shadows still lingered and it was in those lenghtening shadows that Kissinger plyed his reincarinated dreams of a nineteenth century balance of power.

Kissinger is one of those sad reminders of Bruce Springteen`s song ``Glory Days`` and he still believes that he is the star quarterback of the American foreign policy team and on his plays, the national foreign policy will stand vindicated and triumpant.

I miss the old man because he is a reminder of a time, when the United States` foreign policy was based on realism and not ideology. I still remember the words of my old college professor of American military history and American national security studies, who once remarked that Kissinger used to grade his staff`s policy recommendation papers as if he was grading students at Harvard; with As, Bs, Cs, Ds and Fs. The As and the Bs would make the cut and would be given as choices to Nixon and the world would turn a different way based on Nixon`s final choice. Given the ideological nature of the United States` foreign policy, I miss the realism of amoralism that used to characterize the American foreign policy from the support of Pinochet to Marcos to Pakistan to Iran.

Ideology makes for a poor subsitute for realism because as Cardinal Richelieu said once, politics has nothing to do with morality because in the real world of politics, morality only compounds the problem. Winston Churchill was anti-communist to the core and when Hitler invaded Russia, and Churchill was told of the invasion, he immediately cabled Stalin for an alliance against Hitler. When a friend reminded him of his past tirades against Stalin, Churchill replied if Hitler were to invade hell, the least he could do was make a favorable reference to the devil!

It is hard to resist the nostalgia of youth and of youth`s once cherished believes. :)

Ciao

The Dispatches On War: Part X re: Kamath # 25

Kamath, the ancient Romans had a saying called ``quo vadis``, a Latin phrase/question that asked ``where do we go from here?``

History is a journey of self-discovery and history is the attempt to learn about our present by understanding the past so that we may be able to fathom the reasons that will influence and shape our futures. The study of history is not about facts and dates, but is the psychology of human behaviour; human greed, lust and flaws and weakness. History, in my opinion, is not a collection of stories about great men or women doing great and noble things, but it is a reflection of their flaws and their weakness and history is a story that mirrors a Greek tragedy. History is a documented list of human weakness and the inability of great historic personages to resist their human prejudices and to fall prey to the expediencies of their emotion.

Every journey has a destination and an embarkation point and sometimes, the destination is not half as important as the manner of the travel or how we reach the final destination. At the start of every journey, we have to remember the point from where we started out and why we are sojourning the travails of a particular journey. You are absolutely right to ask the question about studying dead white men; my students have the same question. The ancient Greeks said the the past is the epilogue and those who forget it; not only do they forget from where they started out but in many ways, they are not sure where they are headed because they have no compass of a past experience to guide them to nearest horizon, and when the horizon turns out to be a mere mirage; they sullenly ask ``quo vadis``. In such cases, they have no future and they have no past and as a nation or peoples, they drift upon the sands of time without a purpose.

We study the story of dead white men and for that matter, history, to answer the question: quo vadis. History to me and why I study it is the reaffirmation of my past; a guide that tells me that despite the uncertainities of the contempory world, human nature has not changed. History, atleast to me, is not the sum of dates but is a catalyst of humanity and all its dreams because the people of the past also had their shares of dreams and failures and hopes and disappointments and in their unique ways, sought to create a more better world for themselves and their prosterity. History is the inspiration of the Aristotlean dictum that to sin is human, but to strive is divine and when we study the past, we hope to a capture a divinity within ourselves and maybe glimpse a better hope for the future.

Kamath, the most basic and enduring defination of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result and the historic past and its study offers us a way out of limitations of our self-imposed insanity. We study dead white men in the hopes that we may, still, be able to break out of the mayhem of insanity that we routinely create for ourselves by ignoring the lessons of the past and to remind ourselves not to make the same mistakes that our forefathers made and that in all honestly, the sins of the father shall not be visited upon the son if can learn the right lessons. The fact that we habitually fail in our efforts, does not mean that we should give up the fight to make a more beneign world, because study of history, in the words of the Greeks, means ``to go out and tame the savage nature of man and make gentle the life of the world``.

Why we study the past? The answer to that question lies with you and you will have to answer it for yourself.

What is the point of studying dead people?

What is the point of getting back on the bicycle after falling down or loving again after experiencing a doomed love affair? What is the point of excellence without understanding the measurement of excellence itself? What is the point of a life without pain or joy that does not make us feel alive and what is the significance of a dawn without the benefit of a long dark night?

I cannot answer your question; only you can answer the question of ``what is the point?``, but before answering this question, I hope you will be able to answer the question ``quo vadis``.

Ciao

The Dispatches On War: Part X Re: mantolives # 15

It will be a long wait. :)

I am fine as much as fine can be... ;)

Ciao

The Dispatches On War: Part X Re: bjkumar # 6


Yes, Kissenger was fascinated with Metternich and nineteenth century European power politics. Kissenger despite his admiration for Metternich and the balance of power, was more atuned to the Realpolitik of Bismarack. One glaring omission of Kissengerian politics from those of Metternich`s was that Metternich had a political principle in mind; the traditional stabilizing influence of European monarchies in European politics. Towards that end, he created the post-1815 European balance of power and why he objected to Greek independence.

Kissenger did not seem to have principle guiding his political machinations but his over-arching principle seems to have been that of a political opportunist, and while he was eager to constrain the Soviet Union within a status quo, he was also willing to maintain the United States` power/influence via isolating Soviet Union through a series of alliances and the maintance of surrogate client states. Incidently, Pakistan was a minor concern to the Americans because the main American client state was Iran and it was only after the loss of Iran in 1979 that the Americans started to pay attention to Pakistan as possible leverage for their own foreign policy aims. Kissenger`s tilt towards Pakistan in 1971 was motivated more by an angst of an increased Soviet influence in South Asia and not because Pakistan was a Cold War ally of the United States. Kissenger`s shifting political alliances, such as the volte-face from Taiwan to mainland China, was Bismarckian in its intent.

Metternichian system, had Kissenger followed it, would have suggested an alliance system that remained constant, because changing alliances and entering into new political agreements ``du jour`` would have led to political uncertainities. Metternich would not favored the dismissal of Taiwan for China because he would have feared the creation of a political precedent whereby other nations might have entered into what might be called as opportunistic politics. The most notable example of Metternichian political balance of power was in the example of George Bush, Sr.`s handing of the Iraq crisis in the 1990s; the creation of an international coalition to maintain the international status quo. The present Bush administration is Kissengerian and the only diffference is that this administration has replaced the Kissengerian fixation with a Cold War status quo with an ideological status quo.

Parentically speaking, this might be an explantion why the ``old guard`` of the Republican party seems to be complaining about the present administration`s foreign policy. The old guard of the Republican party, as suggested in the Baker-Hamilton Report, favored a political rapprochement with Iran and Syria, but it was rejected by the Bush administration. The reason being that the GOP is divided on its pursuit of a foreign policy, but are helped by the inability of the Democrats to define their own foreign policy vis-a-vis the GOP. Factually speaking, the first Bush administration created a status quo following a Metternichian approach that the second Bush Administration destroyed following a Kissengerian-Bismarckian diplomacy that was more unilateralist with the specific aim of increaing United States` ability to influence international affairs and not necessarily to preserve the status quo in international affairs.

If you should read Bismarck, you will realize that he was better role model for Kissenger, but however, Kissenger`s protege, Brezinski (sp) was Metternichian in his policy directions.

Ciao

The Dispatches On War: Part X Re: # 13

Your points/comments are noted and appreciated. The problem is that the topic is so vast that it needs to be ``pigeon holed`` into an specific area otherwise the inclusion of various details tends to obsecure the narration. For example, the topics of the Industrial Revolution and the social issues have to be addressed, but the general idea is that to provide the political parameters to establish the context and then to explain the economic and social factors within a period. It is for this reason that social and economic will discussed apart from the ``political-historic`` articles so that they can be rightly placed in the correct sequence of historic developments.

Ciao

The Dispatches On War: Part X Re: # 1

The next installment (Part XI) will cover the period from 1850 to 1875. It will include the period of Napoleon III and the process of Italian and German unifications.

Part XII will cover the period leading to the First World War; imperialism and nationalism.

Part XIII will be an article on the gensis of military theories, pertaining to Clausewitz and Jomini, which influenced the battle plans of European nations prior to the First World War.

Part XIV will an indepth look at the social and economic influences which have shaped Europe and will trace the focus back to 1500s and from there, draw comparsions leading up to the inter-war years (1919-1939). Due to the extensive nature of material covered, Part XIV will be divided into 3 or 4 parts itself.

Part XV will be an exclusive look at Nazi Germany and its policies and influences and as it was influenced by the ideas of Italian facism in the 1920s and how these influences shaped the politics of Europe before Second World War.

Part XVI will cover the development of military thought prior to the Second World War and how it influenced the concepts of Blitzkrieg and how the idea of strategic air bombing orginated and how it was implemented; the use of technology in war.

Part XVII will cover the Second World, but with an emphasis on the political and economic policies of the nations involved in the fighting in order to explain the non-military rationales of the war.

Part XVIII will cover the Cold War, from 1945 to 1989 in detail and this part will be further divided into 3 parts; 1945 to 1955, 1955 to 1975 and 1975 to 1989 in order to cover the events in a reasonable manner.

Part XIX will cover the period from 1990 to the present.

Realistically speaking, I am looking at another 2 to 3 years of writing the articles in this series and this series has been going on for the last 2 years. I am really thankful to the editors of Chowk for allowing a forum for these articles especially when the topics covered are of trival interest to most Chowk readers. Since the articles are supposed to help my AP European History students, they have to follow a certain guideline with a particular emphasis to an idea/explantion and thus, have to remain focused to an event and its antecedents and its consequences. The aim of the articles is to provide the students with an ``outside information``; an interpretation of an event for the betterment of their own understanding of the issues involved.

I will try to meet your expectations as much as possible, but will not make any promises! :)

Ciao

Huntington\'s Clash of Civilizations Thesis Re: # 113

Presto!

The world is not changing, which makes me wonder why are you tilting at windmills?

The world will be dominated by the ``elites`` regardless of the many crocodile tears shed for it. The elites, always a minority in one way or another, have always exploited the majority and though the classification of the elite may alter over the years, their basic dominance over power will remain constant. In order to end the dominance of the elites, we should certainly educated an awareness about them, but even more importantly; we should seriously consider what is/will be a viable replacement/subsitute to the ``elites``?

Professor sahib, identifying the source of the problem is the easy part, but coming up with a practical solution to the problem is what seperates the Einsteins from ordinary professors.

Karl Marx had a similar idea and he too wanted to get rid of the ``elites`` who in his day and age were identified as capitalists and industrialists. He wanted a classless society and he wrote his thesis in which he talked about the ``dictatorship of the proletriat``. He called it a phase towards pure communism, but it did not turn out to be a phase as much as it became a political reality. The people who made up the ``dictatorship of the proletariat`` in Russia became the political and economic elite of Russia and pure communism as envisioned by Marx never took roots in Russia.

Castigating against an ``elite`` and wishing to end the system of ``elitism`` does not answer the question of what and how a society will exist when it is in the process of transition from an elitist control to a majority control. Who will lead this change and who will organize it? Will such a change, ironically, not create its own ``elites`` and whose who argue for such a solution, are they not also elites in a sense?

If the movement from an elitist control towards popularism requires leadership and organization and coherence of ideas/ideals, then it will create its own class of elites in order to necessiate such change. The alternative to this is anarchy and even nilihism if such a change is to be considered and implemented sans elitism without any organized leadership. The need/requirement of moving to a classless society from a class dominated society will require an intermediary phase and this phase will determine whether the transition will be successful or not in the final analysis. Just as the historic example of the ``dictatorship of the proletriat`` in Russia proved, the most beneign political intentions can be corrupted when tempted with absolute power and thus, there is no iron-clad surety that can gurantee the intermediary phase will not end up as the final outcome and create its own set of elites, who do not wish to give up their power over the society.

The solution to this problem is a gurantee that a society`s transition from an elitist system to a popularist system will not end up creating another elite group. The key ingredient in this is not the political machinations of the proposed change or its logistics, but the role of the human nature in faciliating such a change. Historically speaking, examples of political alturism have been rare to the point of being non-existent and to hope for one, while contemplating such a change, is simply making a request to open Pandora`s Box. In theory such a change might be laden with the possibilities of good, but in practice it will likey create circumtances of uncertainity that might be exploited and the people exploiting it will be ``elites`` who wish gain from such a situation.

There is a reason behind the saying ``fools rush in where angels fear to tread``. Without any compelling reason to believe that a replacement of one political-economic system will result in a positive result, it would be naive to even advocate such a change without framing/creating a replacement/subsitute to an intended system that is to be changed. Otherwise, it would be like discovering one`s self dealing with a flat tire in the middle of no where and finding out that there is no spare tire in the trunk.

Well, professor sahib, do have a spare tire in your trunk to change one that you claim is punctured? :)

Ciao

P.S.: I would like you to answer Ranjit`s comments about Muslim elites.

Huntington\'s Clash of Civilizations Thesis Re: # 94

The Roman Empire in western Europe ended due to many reasons and though religion and barbarian onslaughts played their part, they were not the only reasons. Political corruption, the involvement of the Roman army in politics, the failure to reform the Roman bureaucracy, the independence of Roman governors to question the writ of Rome, the inability to raise tax revenues were notable reasons that contributed to the decline of the Roman Empire.

Islam, or for that matter Muslims, did not play any role in the downfall of the Roman Empire. Roman Empire had started to politically decay after the death of Caesar Augustus in 14 AD and the only reason why it existed till 476 AD was the reforms of Diocletian, who divided the vast Roman territories into a western and an eastern half. It was a political decision to abandon Rome as the administrative center of the Empire and move it to the east, because it was becoming very difficult to defend Rome against barbarian attacks that started the process of lessening the Roman influence in the west. Hence, it was a political realization that Rome was becoming militarily undefendable, which accelerated the decline of the western half of the Roman Empire and not the defeat of the Roman legions by Muslims.

Muslims did cause the defeat of the Byzantine Empire in 1453 AD, but they cannot be credited with defeating or causing the defeat/decline of the western Roman Empire, because in 476 AD, there was no Islam or Muslims. Period.

The question is: how was it possible for the Muslims/Islam to defeat the Roman Empire in the west when neither the Muslims or Islam even exist as a political or a religious force in 476 AD?

The only way in which such a possibility might be even considered possible, would be for the Muslims to travel back in time, from the early seventh century back to the late fifth century, and defeat the Romans in western Europe!

Therefore, to claim that Muslims/Islam played a role or helped in ending the Roman Empire in western Europe is historically wrong.

Ciao

Huntington\'s Clash of Civilizations Thesis Re: # 87

Four major European powers/empires ended after the First World War in 1918 and not three.

1- Welhelmine German Empire
2- Tsarist Russia
3- Ottoman Turkey
4- Austria-Hungary

Ciao

Huntington\'s Clash of Civilizations Thesis Re: # 109

This was a re-hash of your old articles. There was nothing new in this article. Calling me ignorant will not solve the problem and neither will prove any thesis of yours. Other than revising your previous articles, do you have anything new to state?

A simple ``yes`` or ``no`` would just fine.

Ciao

Huntington\'s Clash of Civilizations Thesis Re: # 104

The western Roman Empire collapsed in 476 AD and in fact, it was the total lack of administrative order in western Europe falling the defeat of Rome and the inability of the Visigoths to politically organize themselves, which significantly helped the Muslims in their conquest of Spain.

In fact, had the Roman Empire continued to exist and had there been political stability in western Europe around the time of Muslims invasions, there would have been a marked resistence to Islamic conquests and the Muslims might not have even reached Tours in France.

Ciao

Huntington\'s Clash of Civilizations Thesis ``Let us direct our efforts towards challenging their projected perceptions of reality, looking past the official distractions and untruths, only then can consciousness be cultivated and peace and development achieved.``

Noble sentiments!

My question is, other than an idealistic expectation, do you have a practical solution which can be considered as a tangible anti-thesis to Sam Huntington`s argument?

Most of your article was a summary critique of Huntington`s thesis, but no where did you offer an alternative to that thesis. Critique for the sake of a critique is generally a non-productive gimmick. I have nothing against the cultivation of consciousness, but I am not sure how a consciousness can be cultivated by an anti-thesis against a thesis that does not lend itself to a synthesis of the two arguments for a mutually beneficial understanding and a possible resolution to the problem.

I might be in the minority on this issue, but my understanding is that what the world needs are solutions to its problems and not the affixation of the blame.

I do not have the solutions for ending global problems but I am willing to listen to those who have ideas for solving the world`s problems but I do not have the patience to listen to people, whose idea of solving the world`s problems is to practice an intellectual version of a ``blame game``.

Ciao

Last Gasp of the Imperial Misadventure There can be no last gasp of imperialism as long as history lasts because that would be the end of the history itself.

The American imperialism in Iraq is the most recent edition of an old story and this story will continue in a different context and in a different manner with different observers, listeners, and narrators long after we have ceased to echo our opinions upon the passions of our times.

Ciao

India, Pakistan and the Kashmir dispute re: Ranjit

The answer to your questions is very difficult because the situation inside Pakistan does not lend itself to any firm conclusions.

Politically speaking, there is movement towards liberalization, but the opposition is coming from the conservative wing of the PML-Q, which opposes all ideas of a government rapprochment with PPP. The government will not oppose an alliance with PPP, but the condition is that Benazir Bhutto will have to give up the prime minister`s chair. MMA is fragmented over the issue of Women Protection Bill and Musharraf is seeking new alliances minus MMA.

The situation is too fluid to make any long lasting conclusions and it will remain as such till the next elections scheduled for the end of 2007.

Ciao

India, Pakistan and the Kashmir dispute Re: # 45

I am not supporting the insurgency against India or the people who support it, if that is what you assumed.

I was merely stating the reality of political power in Pakistan.

Ciao

India, Pakistan and the Kashmir dispute Re: # 8

Once the army is convinced, you have convinced the politicans in Pakistan.

The Islamic minded parties are around 3-5 percent of Pakistani politics and granted, they might be a nusiance, but they will never control the foreign policy because that is the preserve of the military in Pakistani politics and has been since the 1950s.

Politicans in Pakistan are not interested in foreign policy; they are interested in powers of privelege and perks. As the saying goes, the army has them by the short and the curly and once they army decides, the hearts and the minds of the politicans will gladly follow. :)

Ciao