In political theory, there's socialism, communism and capitalism--as if these are three competing theories, one of which is right; and the other two are wrong. I'm here to tell you (so long as I'm alive!) that they are all right and all wrong. From the practical world, each draws upon human experience as the foundation of its fundamental thesis. The trouble is they generalize too far--and when they do, they enter the world of absurdity, where nothing exists but fantasies! I recall sitting in on a lecture on Marxism. The lecturer was boldly stating without a smile on his face that, as Marx first stated, the world is inexorably headed toward a new era of never-ending peace once capitalism has been overthrown. No one need do anything to rid the world of capitalism, the forces of history will destroy it.
Now, there are instances when it's important to share equally one's wealth: after a physical catastrophe--a monstrous earthquake, a volcanic eruption of enormous proportions. Survivors help each other out of beneficence. So too, cooperatives emerge when people find that by pooling their assets, they can support a capital venture they could not afford and so could not benefit from--an "A" for socialism. And you can't motivate an individual to do something without giving him a reward--the old stimulus-response mechanism, the basic truth of capitalism. (As in the adage, work hard, and it will pay off in huge dividends!) So, every one of these theories is right--to a degree.
You may recall in chemistry or physics class, the mathematical equation of a law or principle was written on the board, and the professor expounded on its meaning. But the application made in the laboratory turned out to be a mere approximation of what was its precise meaning. In other words, a demonstration of a particular principle produces rarely the findings anticipated from its formula derivations. The "close enough" empirical, laboratory findings to the formula derivations are explained as variations due to the inability to sufficiently control the conditions of testing in the laboratory situation.
In other words, the world of thought, of intellectual perfectability is never that of the real, physical world. The chemist or physicist aims at producing findings in the laboratory that are only approximations, given the variances of testing conditions, to his theoretical expectations.
That same conclusion occurs in other contexts. For instance, interior home design. The interior decorator produces on his laptop a design of a room that contains the elements he wants to put in it at some physical location approximating what he believes are the home owner's expectations. But a property owner won't know if that's really the way he wants the room to look until he starts living in it! For instance, the interior designer may think the plasma TV will look great over the mantelpiece, distant from where the inhabitants will sit to see it; but in actuality, it's not in a location viewers will find comfortable to watch.
Similarly, computer system designers will schedule several re-iterations of coding based upon their dissatisfaction with how the programs actually mesh together into a coherent, systematic whole in practice. That is to say, systems design can't really achieved until it's beta-tested in various situations where it is to be used.
So, the perfect can't be a theoretical structure; but the physical, real instance of its application is by definition, perfect because it is real--which counters Plato's thesis of the real world being the ideal conceived in thought! Thought captures merely the repetitive elements of what occurs in reality. Another way of saying this, the practical world of physical things in interaction controls how we can change the world as we would want, our conceptions being sometimes no more what history can tell us regarding our past success in relating thought to action.
I think that's what I mean!
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Tea Partiers vs. High Rollers
Since the founding of the United States, there's always been an isolationist tendency. Europe and Asia are far away lands, so it's really difficult to think of the US as intimately tied to countries continents away. In today's politics, the Tea Party, to my mind, is of isolationist persuasion.
I am sympathetic to its message that the United States should be concerned with the ways it spends its monies. It ought not spend beyond its means of what it can afford. But here is the rub. Citizens think of the US economy in ways similar to their own financial situation. In a way, that can be a good thing: the bank where they put their money will tell them when they're overdrawn, the stores where they shop will tell them when they have exceeded their credit limit. The financial institution where they want to take out a loan for a house, boat, etc. will tell them how much they can borrow.
The point is it's not the family that decides what their financial limitations are--it's those with whom they seek additional financial resources, even if those be their own monies entrusted to some bank that provides them with a monthly statement of cash flow.
Now, it is the Tea Party who's proclaimed what the US' credit limits should be. Encouraged by sundry economists, to whom they turn for reassurance, and armed with their tried-and-true common sense (drawn from their limited financial experience), these would-be-do-gooders have judged that the US is spending too much, as if they really knew what the limits of credit are for the United States Government of America. I submit to these Tea Partiers who think the US has borrowed too much that they turn their attention to what our creditors think are its limits and to note what they believe when such limits have been exceeded, viz., when the US bonds are no longer in demand for purchase on the open market.
Contrast their knowledge of economics with that of the high rollers. These are the CEOs of giant corporations that deal on the international transactions on the open markets. They engage in investment speculation based on their empirical forecasts of the economic value of the good faith and credit of US on stock exchanges worldwide. They are betting that the worth of US assets is far greater than its debts. Accordingly, they, including banks around the globe, buy US treasury bonds for their portfolios; and more importantly, they exhibit confidence in the US ability to repay what it has borrowed. Now, if that confidence were found to be ill-founded, the markets where our bonds are exchanged would act much differently than they are: it's up to the markets to decide what are the limits to US credit; it's not for the Tea Party (despite their experiential knowledge base and the opinions of economists who advise them) to decide.
What the Tea-Party people don't take into account is what the US actually does on the international scene. It's as if the US government should aim to do solely what pleases the Tea Partiers! It should conform the US international and national transactions to their budgetary narrow interests and knowledge-base. So, no Obamacare--it's too expensive to save many more US citizen lives through a national health care program. So, bring the US military home; get rid of the nearly 1000 US military installations around the world and keep bases on home territory! That's the opinions, I would aver, the Tea Partiers would hold, if anybody were foolish enough to want to know what such opinions are, given the foundations. Well, the plain fact is that because of the US military presence around the world, we, globally, have entered an era where there is more peace and prosperity than heretofore witnessed on the planet. And, the President accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, as he said, on behalf of the US military for their much needed and appreciated endeavors around the world! That acknowledgement of US value in the world is translated, I believe, into economic confidence around the world that the US will pay off what it owes others, and specifically, will not default this month or at any future date.
So, what's this about the debt ceiling being debated in Congress? (a question posed in the style of John Stossel)
It seems that Congress would influence the interest rates on US Treasury bonds and notes by attempting to set its own "debt ceiling" and by, furthermore, instituting austerity measures as a coherent plan, such as the sequester, to give the impression to High Rollers that the US is reining in on US spending.
Nice try but no cigar! My bet is on the High Rollers, who through the marketplace exchanges will continue to determine the US credit limits for national and international transactions. Too bad, Tea Partiers; and too bad, US administration and Congress.
I am sympathetic to its message that the United States should be concerned with the ways it spends its monies. It ought not spend beyond its means of what it can afford. But here is the rub. Citizens think of the US economy in ways similar to their own financial situation. In a way, that can be a good thing: the bank where they put their money will tell them when they're overdrawn, the stores where they shop will tell them when they have exceeded their credit limit. The financial institution where they want to take out a loan for a house, boat, etc. will tell them how much they can borrow.
The point is it's not the family that decides what their financial limitations are--it's those with whom they seek additional financial resources, even if those be their own monies entrusted to some bank that provides them with a monthly statement of cash flow.
Now, it is the Tea Party who's proclaimed what the US' credit limits should be. Encouraged by sundry economists, to whom they turn for reassurance, and armed with their tried-and-true common sense (drawn from their limited financial experience), these would-be-do-gooders have judged that the US is spending too much, as if they really knew what the limits of credit are for the United States Government of America. I submit to these Tea Partiers who think the US has borrowed too much that they turn their attention to what our creditors think are its limits and to note what they believe when such limits have been exceeded, viz., when the US bonds are no longer in demand for purchase on the open market.
Contrast their knowledge of economics with that of the high rollers. These are the CEOs of giant corporations that deal on the international transactions on the open markets. They engage in investment speculation based on their empirical forecasts of the economic value of the good faith and credit of US on stock exchanges worldwide. They are betting that the worth of US assets is far greater than its debts. Accordingly, they, including banks around the globe, buy US treasury bonds for their portfolios; and more importantly, they exhibit confidence in the US ability to repay what it has borrowed. Now, if that confidence were found to be ill-founded, the markets where our bonds are exchanged would act much differently than they are: it's up to the markets to decide what are the limits to US credit; it's not for the Tea Party (despite their experiential knowledge base and the opinions of economists who advise them) to decide.
What the Tea-Party people don't take into account is what the US actually does on the international scene. It's as if the US government should aim to do solely what pleases the Tea Partiers! It should conform the US international and national transactions to their budgetary narrow interests and knowledge-base. So, no Obamacare--it's too expensive to save many more US citizen lives through a national health care program. So, bring the US military home; get rid of the nearly 1000 US military installations around the world and keep bases on home territory! That's the opinions, I would aver, the Tea Partiers would hold, if anybody were foolish enough to want to know what such opinions are, given the foundations. Well, the plain fact is that because of the US military presence around the world, we, globally, have entered an era where there is more peace and prosperity than heretofore witnessed on the planet. And, the President accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, as he said, on behalf of the US military for their much needed and appreciated endeavors around the world! That acknowledgement of US value in the world is translated, I believe, into economic confidence around the world that the US will pay off what it owes others, and specifically, will not default this month or at any future date.
So, what's this about the debt ceiling being debated in Congress? (a question posed in the style of John Stossel)
It seems that Congress would influence the interest rates on US Treasury bonds and notes by attempting to set its own "debt ceiling" and by, furthermore, instituting austerity measures as a coherent plan, such as the sequester, to give the impression to High Rollers that the US is reining in on US spending.
Nice try but no cigar! My bet is on the High Rollers, who through the marketplace exchanges will continue to determine the US credit limits for national and international transactions. Too bad, Tea Partiers; and too bad, US administration and Congress.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Israel vs. Iran
There are marked similarities between the two countries--Israel and Iran--as each strives for their own independent existence. For one thing, both are Middle-Eastern in orientation. For another, each lives in isolation in its neighborhood.
Israel's Isolation
I think it is right to say that, though the Jews who migrated to Israel were predominantly European, the country has still retained its historical, Middle-East roots; and because of this, Israelis should no longer be deemed Western culturally, anymore than the Afghans should be lumped in with the English to form a contrived, make-shift tradition. No, Israelis are vying with other peoples of the region for water rights, arable land and mega-city sites. Of course, they want West Bank settlements for their people, a growing population. Of course, they want Jerusalem as their nation's capital, because it is a thriving metropolis. Their interests and concerns are, since 1948, existentially and myopically zeroed-in to Middle-East locations. Nor have they shown interest that their country become an international power. It is not like Brazil, whose aspirations for power and prestige pervade the entire South American continent. The Israelis have made it clear; Israelis are self-absorbed with the land of Israel: they are developing a territory for their people--and; the world can go to hell! Moreover, it has made clear it does not take UN condemnation resolutions against Israeli actions seriously; nor has it shown any intention to join with other nations on matters of international concern, such as in signing the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons treaty, that several Middle-East nations have become a party to, including Iran in 1979.
Look, after the slaughter of 6 million Jews in Europe, their brothers and sisters, Jews are necessarily out for themselves! They have seen how others regard them. The Jews in Berlin prior to Hitler ingratiated themselves into the German Government; they wanted to be Germans first; Jews second. Look what it got them--a residence in some Nazi-run pogrom and ultimately, a place-name on one of the innumerable lists of Holocaust Victims.
This self-centered stance of the Israelis has caused isolation from their neighbors. Jordan is friendly, but that country is composed of Palestinians ousted from land now part of Israel. Who did the ousting is of no concern today; the point is, Jordan is not only Middle-Eastern but Islamic and Palestinian in sympathy.
Syria years ago attempted to develop nuclear capability and Israel bombed its nuclear site in 2007s. In fact, ever since 1967, when the neighboring Arab states lined up to throw Israelis into the Mediterranean sea--like any bullying nations gang up against some nation they perceive weak and undesirable--Israel has found good reason to live in isolation. Currently, it is trying to court weak African nations, e.g., Kenya and S. Sudan, who appear as beleaguered among stronghold leaders on the African Continent as Israel does amid the power forces in the Middle-East. It simply has no regionally friendly nations to cavort with. Turkey's out, since the 2010 fiasco in which Israel stopped humanitarian aid to flow to the Palestinians via Turkey ships. Eygpt is not against Israel, but nonetheless, Egyptians must look with horror at the treatment Palestinians are getting, because the Arab world as a block and Israel see little value in dealing with them. So, as things stand now, the Palestinians are low-men-on-the-Arab-totem-pole; and Israel's existence serves as an obnoxious reminder that the Arab states have not coalesced into a major political entity, and thus are not much better off than the Jewish state in the control over regional affairs, some affecting them.
Be it remembered, that the Zionists established Israel by double-crossing Great Britain, which had been given responsibility for the Sinai Peninsula by the major world powers. So from the start of their nation, the Israeli Jews have been turning off countries, who could help them, but who won't ever again.
The sad commentary on this lonely state among the Islamic countries surrounding it is the region could really benefit from Muslims intermingling with Jews! Israel could provide technical assistance in bringing the Sinai region into the 21st Century. Israel's prowess and expertese has been clearly demonstrated in all the wars it has waged with its neighbors; but what if they were not simply to dominate the region technologically and culturally but were to extend its influence--pouring goodwill beyond its borders to those it has defeated in battle many times since its inception? I think it shameful that after England had won the Falkand War, it let Argentina lie in rubble, rather than attempt to build friendship among those it had defeated, as the US did in Germany and Japan after World War II. Making allies out of combatant enemies is what the United States has accomplished--to its credit--revealing its exceptional character.
Remember too, that the United States, not China, initated trade agreements between the two countries, when China was existing as an international pariah. The Republicans at the time, I think, were really mad at President Nixon that he should seek out meetings in Beijing! And maybe, there would be no Republican support for him to remain in office after what Republicans believed was wrong for him to do in reaching out to China.
Finally, may I add a further comment that I believe, though can't prove, that the reason why Jews have been so badly isolated by neighboring Arabs is not so much because of Jewish insistence to make for themselves a comfortable home in the Middle-East (despite Islamic protestations and hostile actions); but I think the overarching reason is because it's the US Jews who made the Zionist cause succeed. Note that US support is not all that great, even if the US has provided Israel with nuclear capabilities, including the nuclear bomb. Have you seen American troops occupying Israeli soil or American military joining forces with the Israeli military in joint ventures? Has Israel become an Iraq or even a Philippines? Visible daily presence of American forces--like those present in Germany today--is what I consider championing a nation's existence that houses them. Rather, it appears to be that the US has simply given Israel's military toys to play with!
Iran's Isolation and its current attempts to break out
That the United States support for Israel is the real reason for the Islamic world's hatred of Israel may be open to debate, but there can be no debate that the United States' history of interference in the affairs of Iran has brought about Iran's present isolation. Indeed, many Congressmen and other politicians are right now calling for United States military action to overthrow the Iranian government and make another Iraq (but deleting aims involving becoming a nuclear power)! More nation-building in the offing?
Surrounding Iran are Afghanistan and Iraq--both invaded by United States troops, presumably to rid the area of Al Quaeda. Is Iran to be the next to experience US military occupation? Iranians might well think so.
Since the 1950s, the US has sent a clear message to Iran: the US will have a say in the Iranian affairs, even should that government be democratically elected. Why? Because Iran is an oil exporter. When Iran nationalized that industry, it effectively said goodby to the US and Britain big oil corporations, e.g., Gulf Oil, Socony-Mobil, Standard Oil of New Jersey, and Standard Oil of California. Iran was convinced at the time that those corporations were keeping up to 40% of profits for themselves from the newly state-created National Iranian Oil Company. It now sells oil to China, who already counts on 15% of its oil from Iranian wells. Moreover, China is benefitting from its entry into the Middle-East through Pakistan and Iran by inserting its own sphere of influence.
Russia continues to supply Iran with arms and in other ways, too, shows its support. So, though isolated by the contiguity of US-sponsored nation-states, Iran is aligning itself with powerful brokers that will enable it to remain existing independent despite attempts to topple its government, e.g., through sanctions. Some Arab states are concerned over Iran's current aggressive behavior in supporting Hezbollah and Syra.
Nevertheless, because the Arab world is so fractured, US corporations have held sway in controlling oil traffic through the US military predominant presence, particularly, that of the US navy.
Iran's Boldest Venture to Break Out of Multilateralism Isolation: Iraq
Al-Sadr, Iraqi Islamic leader, has recently returned from Iran. He sides with the Shiites, though is known to treat Sunnis fairly. Even as Al-Maliki turns up the heat for a Shiite-controlled national government without due representation of Shiites and Kurds, Al-Sadr in an Iraqi leadership role, to my mind, carries the interests of Iran onto Iraq's soil.
It has been said for years that certain members of the Iraqi government were beneficiaries of Iranian money in lieu of their promulgating policies favorable to Iran, but now with Al-Sadr back, I believe the Iranian dominance of the Shiite government will become even more pronounced and its support of local, terrorist Shiite-favored groups will become more visible.
We come now to the present state of affairs between Israel and Iran.
"Israel vs. Iran"
In occasional times of conflict between Islamic nations and Israel, Iran has sent its missiles onto Israeli soil--with little effect or harm. Iran for over 18 years has been attempting to develop nuclear capability, but the IAEA has just reported that Iran now has the technical know-how to make a nuclear bomb--after 18 years!
Be it noted that Iran is noted for its lack of hostile aggression over centuries of being tested and monitored!
The charge currently leveled against Iran's entry into the nuclear arena is that it would lead to proliferation of nuclear weaponry across the Arab world--with Saudis next in line to develop. I think it is necessary to admit who is really behind prohibiting Iran to develop nuclear capability that should enhance its prospects of self-automy: it's the big oil corporations with their sweet deals with oil-producing barons--the same oil corporations who are seeking, ever since the close of the Iraqi Awe-and-Shudder (I mean, Shock and Awe) War, to benefit from making deals with Iraq to control its oil production and distribution, along with the deals the Helliburton Corporation has been able to make there.
The United States is caught in a bind. It either makes good its threat to do all possible to prevent Iran from making nuclear weapons or it must be willing to give up on its American construct, its new Iraq. To be sure, should Romeny become President, the path becomes clear: He would promote American Big Business interests in the region (which sees more oil to profit from), and take on Iran, perhaps by bombing, perhaps by invading. He would curtail entitlements programs that aren't specified in the Constitution and carry on military campaigns for the sake of "security and protection," which are sanctioned in the Constitution. Be it observed that over the past 50 years, Big oil has manipulated the region's politics with the help of US military might and without much objection from home. American foreign policy in the Middle-East still is dictated by the oil giants.
No wonder the Arab world, including the Saudis, hate the US so! The US government has promoted the interests of Big Business at the expense of the citizenry in oil rich Arab countries!
Advocates of being tough with Iran frequently use the proliferation argument. If Iran were to develop nuclear capability, then other nations, such as Saudi Arabia, would follow its lead. This argument is the old domino theory applied to the Middle-East: If Vietnam were to fall to communism, the entire Asian continent would become communist, perhaps even the Philippines and Australia, too. There's nothing I know of that suggests every country--Egypt?--is anxious to become a nuclear power. Indeed, some have renounced such ambitions, already.
My personal take
I think the United States and other countries of the world can live with another nuclear power in the region. True, it might end Israel's monopoly, assuming that indeed France gave Israel the bomb in the 1960s, as is stated by some. Then too, nobody's shutting down North Korea, nor is intending to invade it. Of course, North Korea is not oil-producing and not of interest to major US corporations.
You know, it is said that lobbyists write regulatory legislation in their particular fields of interest for their governments, that really regulation of industries is a joke. After the 2008 melt-down of banks and investment companies, which seemingly were subject to close regulation, one gives pause to wonder whether there's truth in the thought that just about any government is in the hands of the corporations who can afford to control it, e.g., by buying politicians and by curtailing the funding of regulatory governmental agencies. Maybe, the US is not really the democracy it looks like and avows to be.
Israel's Isolation
I think it is right to say that, though the Jews who migrated to Israel were predominantly European, the country has still retained its historical, Middle-East roots; and because of this, Israelis should no longer be deemed Western culturally, anymore than the Afghans should be lumped in with the English to form a contrived, make-shift tradition. No, Israelis are vying with other peoples of the region for water rights, arable land and mega-city sites. Of course, they want West Bank settlements for their people, a growing population. Of course, they want Jerusalem as their nation's capital, because it is a thriving metropolis. Their interests and concerns are, since 1948, existentially and myopically zeroed-in to Middle-East locations. Nor have they shown interest that their country become an international power. It is not like Brazil, whose aspirations for power and prestige pervade the entire South American continent. The Israelis have made it clear; Israelis are self-absorbed with the land of Israel: they are developing a territory for their people--and; the world can go to hell! Moreover, it has made clear it does not take UN condemnation resolutions against Israeli actions seriously; nor has it shown any intention to join with other nations on matters of international concern, such as in signing the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons treaty, that several Middle-East nations have become a party to, including Iran in 1979.
Look, after the slaughter of 6 million Jews in Europe, their brothers and sisters, Jews are necessarily out for themselves! They have seen how others regard them. The Jews in Berlin prior to Hitler ingratiated themselves into the German Government; they wanted to be Germans first; Jews second. Look what it got them--a residence in some Nazi-run pogrom and ultimately, a place-name on one of the innumerable lists of Holocaust Victims.
This self-centered stance of the Israelis has caused isolation from their neighbors. Jordan is friendly, but that country is composed of Palestinians ousted from land now part of Israel. Who did the ousting is of no concern today; the point is, Jordan is not only Middle-Eastern but Islamic and Palestinian in sympathy.
Syria years ago attempted to develop nuclear capability and Israel bombed its nuclear site in 2007s. In fact, ever since 1967, when the neighboring Arab states lined up to throw Israelis into the Mediterranean sea--like any bullying nations gang up against some nation they perceive weak and undesirable--Israel has found good reason to live in isolation. Currently, it is trying to court weak African nations, e.g., Kenya and S. Sudan, who appear as beleaguered among stronghold leaders on the African Continent as Israel does amid the power forces in the Middle-East. It simply has no regionally friendly nations to cavort with. Turkey's out, since the 2010 fiasco in which Israel stopped humanitarian aid to flow to the Palestinians via Turkey ships. Eygpt is not against Israel, but nonetheless, Egyptians must look with horror at the treatment Palestinians are getting, because the Arab world as a block and Israel see little value in dealing with them. So, as things stand now, the Palestinians are low-men-on-the-Arab-totem-pole; and Israel's existence serves as an obnoxious reminder that the Arab states have not coalesced into a major political entity, and thus are not much better off than the Jewish state in the control over regional affairs, some affecting them.
Be it remembered, that the Zionists established Israel by double-crossing Great Britain, which had been given responsibility for the Sinai Peninsula by the major world powers. So from the start of their nation, the Israeli Jews have been turning off countries, who could help them, but who won't ever again.
The sad commentary on this lonely state among the Islamic countries surrounding it is the region could really benefit from Muslims intermingling with Jews! Israel could provide technical assistance in bringing the Sinai region into the 21st Century. Israel's prowess and expertese has been clearly demonstrated in all the wars it has waged with its neighbors; but what if they were not simply to dominate the region technologically and culturally but were to extend its influence--pouring goodwill beyond its borders to those it has defeated in battle many times since its inception? I think it shameful that after England had won the Falkand War, it let Argentina lie in rubble, rather than attempt to build friendship among those it had defeated, as the US did in Germany and Japan after World War II. Making allies out of combatant enemies is what the United States has accomplished--to its credit--revealing its exceptional character.
Remember too, that the United States, not China, initated trade agreements between the two countries, when China was existing as an international pariah. The Republicans at the time, I think, were really mad at President Nixon that he should seek out meetings in Beijing! And maybe, there would be no Republican support for him to remain in office after what Republicans believed was wrong for him to do in reaching out to China.
Finally, may I add a further comment that I believe, though can't prove, that the reason why Jews have been so badly isolated by neighboring Arabs is not so much because of Jewish insistence to make for themselves a comfortable home in the Middle-East (despite Islamic protestations and hostile actions); but I think the overarching reason is because it's the US Jews who made the Zionist cause succeed. Note that US support is not all that great, even if the US has provided Israel with nuclear capabilities, including the nuclear bomb. Have you seen American troops occupying Israeli soil or American military joining forces with the Israeli military in joint ventures? Has Israel become an Iraq or even a Philippines? Visible daily presence of American forces--like those present in Germany today--is what I consider championing a nation's existence that houses them. Rather, it appears to be that the US has simply given Israel's military toys to play with!
Iran's Isolation and its current attempts to break out
That the United States support for Israel is the real reason for the Islamic world's hatred of Israel may be open to debate, but there can be no debate that the United States' history of interference in the affairs of Iran has brought about Iran's present isolation. Indeed, many Congressmen and other politicians are right now calling for United States military action to overthrow the Iranian government and make another Iraq (but deleting aims involving becoming a nuclear power)! More nation-building in the offing?
Surrounding Iran are Afghanistan and Iraq--both invaded by United States troops, presumably to rid the area of Al Quaeda. Is Iran to be the next to experience US military occupation? Iranians might well think so.
Since the 1950s, the US has sent a clear message to Iran: the US will have a say in the Iranian affairs, even should that government be democratically elected. Why? Because Iran is an oil exporter. When Iran nationalized that industry, it effectively said goodby to the US and Britain big oil corporations, e.g., Gulf Oil, Socony-Mobil, Standard Oil of New Jersey, and Standard Oil of California. Iran was convinced at the time that those corporations were keeping up to 40% of profits for themselves from the newly state-created National Iranian Oil Company. It now sells oil to China, who already counts on 15% of its oil from Iranian wells. Moreover, China is benefitting from its entry into the Middle-East through Pakistan and Iran by inserting its own sphere of influence.
Russia continues to supply Iran with arms and in other ways, too, shows its support. So, though isolated by the contiguity of US-sponsored nation-states, Iran is aligning itself with powerful brokers that will enable it to remain existing independent despite attempts to topple its government, e.g., through sanctions. Some Arab states are concerned over Iran's current aggressive behavior in supporting Hezbollah and Syra.
Nevertheless, because the Arab world is so fractured, US corporations have held sway in controlling oil traffic through the US military predominant presence, particularly, that of the US navy.
Iran's Boldest Venture to Break Out of Multilateralism Isolation: Iraq
Al-Sadr, Iraqi Islamic leader, has recently returned from Iran. He sides with the Shiites, though is known to treat Sunnis fairly. Even as Al-Maliki turns up the heat for a Shiite-controlled national government without due representation of Shiites and Kurds, Al-Sadr in an Iraqi leadership role, to my mind, carries the interests of Iran onto Iraq's soil.
It has been said for years that certain members of the Iraqi government were beneficiaries of Iranian money in lieu of their promulgating policies favorable to Iran, but now with Al-Sadr back, I believe the Iranian dominance of the Shiite government will become even more pronounced and its support of local, terrorist Shiite-favored groups will become more visible.
We come now to the present state of affairs between Israel and Iran.
"Israel vs. Iran"
In occasional times of conflict between Islamic nations and Israel, Iran has sent its missiles onto Israeli soil--with little effect or harm. Iran for over 18 years has been attempting to develop nuclear capability, but the IAEA has just reported that Iran now has the technical know-how to make a nuclear bomb--after 18 years!
Be it noted that Iran is noted for its lack of hostile aggression over centuries of being tested and monitored!
The charge currently leveled against Iran's entry into the nuclear arena is that it would lead to proliferation of nuclear weaponry across the Arab world--with Saudis next in line to develop. I think it is necessary to admit who is really behind prohibiting Iran to develop nuclear capability that should enhance its prospects of self-automy: it's the big oil corporations with their sweet deals with oil-producing barons--the same oil corporations who are seeking, ever since the close of the Iraqi Awe-and-Shudder (I mean, Shock and Awe) War, to benefit from making deals with Iraq to control its oil production and distribution, along with the deals the Helliburton Corporation has been able to make there.
The United States is caught in a bind. It either makes good its threat to do all possible to prevent Iran from making nuclear weapons or it must be willing to give up on its American construct, its new Iraq. To be sure, should Romeny become President, the path becomes clear: He would promote American Big Business interests in the region (which sees more oil to profit from), and take on Iran, perhaps by bombing, perhaps by invading. He would curtail entitlements programs that aren't specified in the Constitution and carry on military campaigns for the sake of "security and protection," which are sanctioned in the Constitution. Be it observed that over the past 50 years, Big oil has manipulated the region's politics with the help of US military might and without much objection from home. American foreign policy in the Middle-East still is dictated by the oil giants.
No wonder the Arab world, including the Saudis, hate the US so! The US government has promoted the interests of Big Business at the expense of the citizenry in oil rich Arab countries!
Advocates of being tough with Iran frequently use the proliferation argument. If Iran were to develop nuclear capability, then other nations, such as Saudi Arabia, would follow its lead. This argument is the old domino theory applied to the Middle-East: If Vietnam were to fall to communism, the entire Asian continent would become communist, perhaps even the Philippines and Australia, too. There's nothing I know of that suggests every country--Egypt?--is anxious to become a nuclear power. Indeed, some have renounced such ambitions, already.
My personal take
I think the United States and other countries of the world can live with another nuclear power in the region. True, it might end Israel's monopoly, assuming that indeed France gave Israel the bomb in the 1960s, as is stated by some. Then too, nobody's shutting down North Korea, nor is intending to invade it. Of course, North Korea is not oil-producing and not of interest to major US corporations.
You know, it is said that lobbyists write regulatory legislation in their particular fields of interest for their governments, that really regulation of industries is a joke. After the 2008 melt-down of banks and investment companies, which seemingly were subject to close regulation, one gives pause to wonder whether there's truth in the thought that just about any government is in the hands of the corporations who can afford to control it, e.g., by buying politicians and by curtailing the funding of regulatory governmental agencies. Maybe, the US is not really the democracy it looks like and avows to be.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Mentors and Teachers: Their Educative Roles
In my Social Contract series an item entitled "Mentor System of Education" dealt with how a social contract between mentor and student can be useful in structuring the educative process by which a learner can progress toward insinuating himself into a social milieu that will significantly benefit society. I want to amplify upon those methods and procedures of mentorship that lead to a binding continuity between the past and future of society not offered through the teaching situation.
I take it that teachers disburse bits of information and facts. These are clustered in a hierarchical structure of items known as concepts or topics. By discoursing upon concepts, facts and informational items (which answer the question, "Did you know that...?") become meaningful and understandable. Even a TV program like "Jeopardy" organizes its informational questions about topics. The program does not demand of contestants to ask a question "out of the blue" concerning some factual item presented in the half-hour show but in light of the topic under which an item is listed. In sum. teaching involves the interplay of teacher and student in a process of disseminating knowledge involving a subject matter, i.e., a concept.
Contrast that methodology, which I take to be the essence of teaching, to what is the methodology of mentorship. Mentors, using a serial approach to topics, demonstrate the value of what is learned in the classroom or in the field. They offer their learners recipes to solve problems and achieve tangible results in the world. They are responsible for their beleif that knowledge is power and they can prove it!
This paper details the steps involved in educating through the mentorship learning process, which I place in a contractual relationship between mentor and learner, e.g., a protege, a student. But the mentor must have organizational backing and certification for any learning experience he provides. He must not act alone without institutional commitment.
It does not mean that in emphasizing mentorship, teachers are passe, only that teaching must be placed in a greater context that mentorship provides. Let's enumerate the way mentorship ought to take place, in my opinion, to justify my claim that mentorship has greater importance to education than the mere teaching of concepts does, when at the moment of my writing this, teaching is deemed the major component in educating youth and those experiencing significant change in their lives in institutional settings.
Be it noted, that long before there were schools and cooperate learning centers, learners depended upon their parents; and experienced tradesmen were the mentors bent upon guiding the young toward a respected place in society. A learner still does. From one's mother a child is taught how to tie his shoe; a girl to cook and take care of the house; and from an established tradesman or expert, possibly his father, a boy is taught a trade, becoming first an apprentice.
But with the advent of schools, historically emphasis was placed upon getting an education by learning facts and amassing knowledge through the deployment of concepts and was taken away from mentorship learning of how to solve problems in the real world and do things that make a contribution to society. The mentorship form of learning was relegated in the school curriculum to an area known as "vocational education." It is the purpose of this paper to restore mentorship to its proper place in the educative process, for after all, a learner's amassing knowledge of processes comes short of demonstrating the capability in knowing how to do things that make a difference for the social good.
I noticed when I was in Omaha last, the parents of delinquent or direction-less kids were looking to a program enlisting community volunteers to act as mentors, this program established in major cities across the country called the Cities of Service coalition. An established societal member identified as a mentor shares his success story and acts as an inspiration in other ways to motivate the troubled learner toward becoming a responsible citizen in his community. A major problem with such volunteer programs in my opinion is that there's no organizational involvement or backing behind the mentor's inspirational words and guidance. Hence, the need for a contract between mentor with organizational blessing and the learner, making clear what is being offered to the learner to engage in mentorship. I am aware that IBM has recently inaugurated a program for students that recognizes the need for organizational involvement: if a student passes a set of courses available in high school or college and meets other requirements of participation in their mentorship program, the student will have priority placement for jobs that become available at IBM.
So, I am proposing a plan of mentorship involving the social contract concept to take place in steps toward realizing an educative goal that the learner is desirous of pursuing. At the conclusion of each step in that process the learner will achieve greater awareness of his own personal identity, i.e., he will know who he is by virtue of what he can do! Incidentally, one of the egregious complaints a typical student makes is that though he has acquired much book knowledge, he still does not know who he is. That's because he has not acquired skills of applying his conceptual knowledge to real-life situations.
Steps in the Mentorship Educative Sequence
1. The learner must identify an organization he might be willing to join once he receives appropriate training. The organization, in turn, should identify an inhouse mentor who could detail what he needs to know in order to qualify for mentorship at the particular institution contacted. First contact in this step is the learner's visit to the institution of his interest, e.g., an agricultural school of a university he misht be willing to attend.
2. Next, knowing what would be required of him, the student should discuss with the school or the learning instiution he presently attends the training and coursework that will enable him to proceed one step further towaad his educative goal, e.g., the next institution he envisions attending. He starts the discussion by showing what his perspective mentor at such an institution would demand of him as learnerunder hiis tutelege.
3. The student engages in a tailored educative experience, meeting occasionally with the perspective mentor, acknowledged as such by an organizational symbol, e.g., the organization's letterhead, on correspondence confirming communications between the perspective mentor and his learner.
.
4. The perspective mentor even at an early stage of coming under the mentor's care must offer support and counsel useful to the learner. When the learner advances to the level where the perspective mentor becomes the mentor, e.g., is attending the institution where the mentor works or teaches, these discussions of intention now become conferences regarding performance and advancement.
5. Gradually, as the learner demonstrates skill acquisition and maturity in his field of endeavor the mentor should introduce the learner to new and exiciting opportunities awaiting his learner who is developing an even
greater repetoire of skills and abilities, indicating his achieving significant progress toward of his educative goal.
See W. Brad Johnson and Charles R. Ridley, The Elements of Mentoring (2004) for a further discussion of some of these steps.
What the Mentor Gets from his participation in the project
Obviously, there must be something in it for an individual professional businessperson to participate in a program of mentoring others who are designated as learners, even proteges. Such a list might include:
1. Professional recognition by publication or even by obtaining a job elsewhere. It is not uncommon for a learner who has set out on his own and done well to bring along his mentor to work for him or to recommend his mentor for hiring to someone he knows. Minimally, the company or university the mentor works for will usually acknowledge his contribution internally. Or, the mentor may reach sufficient status and reputation through his being a mentor to establish his own business, e.g., in sculpture; in painting.
2. The learner who has advanced to the stage of mentorship in which he is contractually under the mentor's
tutelege becomes the "eyes and ears" of the mentor in whatever capacity the learner is assigned. The mentor who has seveeral learners under his care might rightfully claim he knows what's going on where he works as much as his boss--his tentacles of mentorship reaching into all aspects of the organization.
3. He may also make social contacts through a protege, even one leading to marriage or intimate friendship. A mentor not limited, as are teachers', to a non-fraternizing ralationship--to my knowledge.
So, there's lots to be gained by being a mentor, if the individual plays it right!
Societal Benefit from Mentorship
Ever since the age of 23, I've worked on and off with gangs--the last being in Raleigh, North Carolina three or four years ago, when I worked with a gang of 50! Gangs rely on peer mentors to retain their cohesion. I understand there's been a dramatic increase in gangs in the country.
I believe mentorship involving insitutions and places of learning are an imporrtant way to overcome gang influence in society. A mentor having institutional backing to my mind can overweigh the effects of peer pressure, if the hopes instilled in the learner can come to fruition, i.e. are legitimate.
I take it that teachers disburse bits of information and facts. These are clustered in a hierarchical structure of items known as concepts or topics. By discoursing upon concepts, facts and informational items (which answer the question, "Did you know that...?") become meaningful and understandable. Even a TV program like "Jeopardy" organizes its informational questions about topics. The program does not demand of contestants to ask a question "out of the blue" concerning some factual item presented in the half-hour show but in light of the topic under which an item is listed. In sum. teaching involves the interplay of teacher and student in a process of disseminating knowledge involving a subject matter, i.e., a concept.
Contrast that methodology, which I take to be the essence of teaching, to what is the methodology of mentorship. Mentors, using a serial approach to topics, demonstrate the value of what is learned in the classroom or in the field. They offer their learners recipes to solve problems and achieve tangible results in the world. They are responsible for their beleif that knowledge is power and they can prove it!
This paper details the steps involved in educating through the mentorship learning process, which I place in a contractual relationship between mentor and learner, e.g., a protege, a student. But the mentor must have organizational backing and certification for any learning experience he provides. He must not act alone without institutional commitment.
It does not mean that in emphasizing mentorship, teachers are passe, only that teaching must be placed in a greater context that mentorship provides. Let's enumerate the way mentorship ought to take place, in my opinion, to justify my claim that mentorship has greater importance to education than the mere teaching of concepts does, when at the moment of my writing this, teaching is deemed the major component in educating youth and those experiencing significant change in their lives in institutional settings.
Be it noted, that long before there were schools and cooperate learning centers, learners depended upon their parents; and experienced tradesmen were the mentors bent upon guiding the young toward a respected place in society. A learner still does. From one's mother a child is taught how to tie his shoe; a girl to cook and take care of the house; and from an established tradesman or expert, possibly his father, a boy is taught a trade, becoming first an apprentice.
But with the advent of schools, historically emphasis was placed upon getting an education by learning facts and amassing knowledge through the deployment of concepts and was taken away from mentorship learning of how to solve problems in the real world and do things that make a contribution to society. The mentorship form of learning was relegated in the school curriculum to an area known as "vocational education." It is the purpose of this paper to restore mentorship to its proper place in the educative process, for after all, a learner's amassing knowledge of processes comes short of demonstrating the capability in knowing how to do things that make a difference for the social good.
I noticed when I was in Omaha last, the parents of delinquent or direction-less kids were looking to a program enlisting community volunteers to act as mentors, this program established in major cities across the country called the Cities of Service coalition. An established societal member identified as a mentor shares his success story and acts as an inspiration in other ways to motivate the troubled learner toward becoming a responsible citizen in his community. A major problem with such volunteer programs in my opinion is that there's no organizational involvement or backing behind the mentor's inspirational words and guidance. Hence, the need for a contract between mentor with organizational blessing and the learner, making clear what is being offered to the learner to engage in mentorship. I am aware that IBM has recently inaugurated a program for students that recognizes the need for organizational involvement: if a student passes a set of courses available in high school or college and meets other requirements of participation in their mentorship program, the student will have priority placement for jobs that become available at IBM.
So, I am proposing a plan of mentorship involving the social contract concept to take place in steps toward realizing an educative goal that the learner is desirous of pursuing. At the conclusion of each step in that process the learner will achieve greater awareness of his own personal identity, i.e., he will know who he is by virtue of what he can do! Incidentally, one of the egregious complaints a typical student makes is that though he has acquired much book knowledge, he still does not know who he is. That's because he has not acquired skills of applying his conceptual knowledge to real-life situations.
Steps in the Mentorship Educative Sequence
1. The learner must identify an organization he might be willing to join once he receives appropriate training. The organization, in turn, should identify an inhouse mentor who could detail what he needs to know in order to qualify for mentorship at the particular institution contacted. First contact in this step is the learner's visit to the institution of his interest, e.g., an agricultural school of a university he misht be willing to attend.
2. Next, knowing what would be required of him, the student should discuss with the school or the learning instiution he presently attends the training and coursework that will enable him to proceed one step further towaad his educative goal, e.g., the next institution he envisions attending. He starts the discussion by showing what his perspective mentor at such an institution would demand of him as learnerunder hiis tutelege.
3. The student engages in a tailored educative experience, meeting occasionally with the perspective mentor, acknowledged as such by an organizational symbol, e.g., the organization's letterhead, on correspondence confirming communications between the perspective mentor and his learner.
.
4. The perspective mentor even at an early stage of coming under the mentor's care must offer support and counsel useful to the learner. When the learner advances to the level where the perspective mentor becomes the mentor, e.g., is attending the institution where the mentor works or teaches, these discussions of intention now become conferences regarding performance and advancement.
5. Gradually, as the learner demonstrates skill acquisition and maturity in his field of endeavor the mentor should introduce the learner to new and exiciting opportunities awaiting his learner who is developing an even
greater repetoire of skills and abilities, indicating his achieving significant progress toward of his educative goal.
See W. Brad Johnson and Charles R. Ridley, The Elements of Mentoring (2004) for a further discussion of some of these steps.
What the Mentor Gets from his participation in the project
Obviously, there must be something in it for an individual professional businessperson to participate in a program of mentoring others who are designated as learners, even proteges. Such a list might include:
1. Professional recognition by publication or even by obtaining a job elsewhere. It is not uncommon for a learner who has set out on his own and done well to bring along his mentor to work for him or to recommend his mentor for hiring to someone he knows. Minimally, the company or university the mentor works for will usually acknowledge his contribution internally. Or, the mentor may reach sufficient status and reputation through his being a mentor to establish his own business, e.g., in sculpture; in painting.
2. The learner who has advanced to the stage of mentorship in which he is contractually under the mentor's
tutelege becomes the "eyes and ears" of the mentor in whatever capacity the learner is assigned. The mentor who has seveeral learners under his care might rightfully claim he knows what's going on where he works as much as his boss--his tentacles of mentorship reaching into all aspects of the organization.
3. He may also make social contacts through a protege, even one leading to marriage or intimate friendship. A mentor not limited, as are teachers', to a non-fraternizing ralationship--to my knowledge.
So, there's lots to be gained by being a mentor, if the individual plays it right!
Societal Benefit from Mentorship
Ever since the age of 23, I've worked on and off with gangs--the last being in Raleigh, North Carolina three or four years ago, when I worked with a gang of 50! Gangs rely on peer mentors to retain their cohesion. I understand there's been a dramatic increase in gangs in the country.
I believe mentorship involving insitutions and places of learning are an imporrtant way to overcome gang influence in society. A mentor having institutional backing to my mind can overweigh the effects of peer pressure, if the hopes instilled in the learner can come to fruition, i.e. are legitimate.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Turkey: Military and Government
I think there are important lessons to be learned from the interplay between the government of Turkey and its military. I believe this interplay is both unique in the history of the World and phenomenal, lasting over many centuries. I will provide only my impressions of this interplay, impressions I have gained from just about 20 years of being apprised of it; and I do not attribute these impressions to anyone else (even if he shares them), including anyone in Turkey. However, to enable me to refresh my memory, I have referred as resource to the somewhat recent book The New Turkey (2005) by Chris Morris.
The military and the government have been at odds now and again, and the military generals upon occasion have seized the rule of the country for a period of time, before relinquishing control back to the civilians. I believe that the military through the years has maintained its own governmental structure through what at times has been called The National Security Council. To my mind, The Council is a "shadow government," with its own guiding principles. For example, the military is committed to a secular form of government, despite the apparent fact that the civilian government hires mostly Moslems. Moreover, the military decries corruption and favoritism whenever the ruling government has notoriously engaged in such practices.
Today, the Turkish Parliament is deemed the country's supreme authority, but it may well be that the military, by means of its own "parallel government," stilll exerts tremendous influence on the affairs of state, though not conspicuously so. Nonetheless, over the years, the generals have spoken out emphatically on matters of education, politics, religious influences upon the country, and of, course, foreign policy. Indeed, it is difficult for me to imagine that the country would have recently sent a flotilla of ships to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza to bring non-military aid, e.g., medicines and food, to the Palestinians without firm backing from the Turkish military. I understand Turkey has solicited encouragement and support from other Moslem countries and is planning an even larger flotilla by year's end.
Historically, the Turkish people have rallied around the military, even when it took over rule of the land. I look upon the intervening actions of the military as a check upon the civilian regime. The military is a-political, at least in appearance in the eyes of the Turks. (I might be naive about this, but certainly, its power does not stem from the political realm.) The Turks admire the military's dedication to honor and duty: "As a nation, we love our soldiers!" admit scores of Turkish citizens. It tries to keep the country unified through military action against those who would split it asunder, e.g., the Kurdish movement toward independence within its borders and in northern Iraq.
I think the Turks are committed to making their nation great and influential in the region. Turkey has attempted to join the EU and would be the largest nation in that organization. It has a large military, obviously, with many planes (supplied over the years by the US) and its soldiers are known the world-over for their organizational prowess. But the meta-political issue that has led to the interplay of government and military I find most interesting: namely, how to control the excesses and evils inherent in a political structure due to the power and prestige any government amasses by virtue of control over the citizenry.
Consider concrete instances in the United States politics. After 9/11, whatever the government deemed necessary to strike at the individuals and organizations deemed its perpetrators were granted by a complicit Congress. As Commander-in-Chief of the military the US President affects military plans and dictates military strategy. The US military is under the political arm of the US President, who commands the generals; and the President, with consent of Congress, appoints military leaders including the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs. In this way, the military succumbs to political pressures. Indeed, recently on the some TV talk shows it has been stated that General Petraeus has become aligned with the policies enunciated by the "Neo-Cons," the Right Wing Conservatives of the Republican Party, and thus might deal harshly with the Taliban, possibly refusing to seek negotiations as part of a political win strategy in Afghanistan. The point is, the US, in placing the military under political control, makes it a dependent entity, subject to political pressures, while Turkey has sought to maintain an independent role for its military in affairs of state. So, while in Turkey the military can legitimately act as a check upon the civilian government, in the US, the military can occupy no such contravening posture.
Be it acknowledged, that in the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church, headed by the Pope in Rome, attempted to be an "honest broker" among the nations of the Christian World. In the Old Testament times, the Jews, standing for the ethics and precepts of the 10 Commandments, offered their religious stance as that of an "honest broker." To some extent, the nations of the contemporary world think of the United Nations in this capacity, too. However, none of these entities can talk "tough" to governments, since they have no military might nor policing power to back up any of their edicts and charges. In this regard, the Turkish interplay of government and military is unique. The military does indeed serve as the conscience of Turkey's political realm; and the Turks support them in this mission. It need not be beholden to the country's civilian governmental entities.
In that currently Moslem countries are peculiarly being singled out for hostile actions and strong criticism against them, I think the presence of a strong and influential Turkey military in the area is essential for the maintenance of peace.
The military and the government have been at odds now and again, and the military generals upon occasion have seized the rule of the country for a period of time, before relinquishing control back to the civilians. I believe that the military through the years has maintained its own governmental structure through what at times has been called The National Security Council. To my mind, The Council is a "shadow government," with its own guiding principles. For example, the military is committed to a secular form of government, despite the apparent fact that the civilian government hires mostly Moslems. Moreover, the military decries corruption and favoritism whenever the ruling government has notoriously engaged in such practices.
Today, the Turkish Parliament is deemed the country's supreme authority, but it may well be that the military, by means of its own "parallel government," stilll exerts tremendous influence on the affairs of state, though not conspicuously so. Nonetheless, over the years, the generals have spoken out emphatically on matters of education, politics, religious influences upon the country, and of, course, foreign policy. Indeed, it is difficult for me to imagine that the country would have recently sent a flotilla of ships to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza to bring non-military aid, e.g., medicines and food, to the Palestinians without firm backing from the Turkish military. I understand Turkey has solicited encouragement and support from other Moslem countries and is planning an even larger flotilla by year's end.
Historically, the Turkish people have rallied around the military, even when it took over rule of the land. I look upon the intervening actions of the military as a check upon the civilian regime. The military is a-political, at least in appearance in the eyes of the Turks. (I might be naive about this, but certainly, its power does not stem from the political realm.) The Turks admire the military's dedication to honor and duty: "As a nation, we love our soldiers!" admit scores of Turkish citizens. It tries to keep the country unified through military action against those who would split it asunder, e.g., the Kurdish movement toward independence within its borders and in northern Iraq.
I think the Turks are committed to making their nation great and influential in the region. Turkey has attempted to join the EU and would be the largest nation in that organization. It has a large military, obviously, with many planes (supplied over the years by the US) and its soldiers are known the world-over for their organizational prowess. But the meta-political issue that has led to the interplay of government and military I find most interesting: namely, how to control the excesses and evils inherent in a political structure due to the power and prestige any government amasses by virtue of control over the citizenry.
Consider concrete instances in the United States politics. After 9/11, whatever the government deemed necessary to strike at the individuals and organizations deemed its perpetrators were granted by a complicit Congress. As Commander-in-Chief of the military the US President affects military plans and dictates military strategy. The US military is under the political arm of the US President, who commands the generals; and the President, with consent of Congress, appoints military leaders including the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs. In this way, the military succumbs to political pressures. Indeed, recently on the some TV talk shows it has been stated that General Petraeus has become aligned with the policies enunciated by the "Neo-Cons," the Right Wing Conservatives of the Republican Party, and thus might deal harshly with the Taliban, possibly refusing to seek negotiations as part of a political win strategy in Afghanistan. The point is, the US, in placing the military under political control, makes it a dependent entity, subject to political pressures, while Turkey has sought to maintain an independent role for its military in affairs of state. So, while in Turkey the military can legitimately act as a check upon the civilian government, in the US, the military can occupy no such contravening posture.
Be it acknowledged, that in the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church, headed by the Pope in Rome, attempted to be an "honest broker" among the nations of the Christian World. In the Old Testament times, the Jews, standing for the ethics and precepts of the 10 Commandments, offered their religious stance as that of an "honest broker." To some extent, the nations of the contemporary world think of the United Nations in this capacity, too. However, none of these entities can talk "tough" to governments, since they have no military might nor policing power to back up any of their edicts and charges. In this regard, the Turkish interplay of government and military is unique. The military does indeed serve as the conscience of Turkey's political realm; and the Turks support them in this mission. It need not be beholden to the country's civilian governmental entities.
In that currently Moslem countries are peculiarly being singled out for hostile actions and strong criticism against them, I think the presence of a strong and influential Turkey military in the area is essential for the maintenance of peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)