NOTE: This is a reprint from my Blogger account. I don’t know that anyone can get to the account anymore, s’why I am not linking here; but what follows is something published before www.sw-c.com.
After World War two, the United States took a very slanted objective of thwarting Communism. The result of this effort is known as the Cold War. Cold because there was no actually battle or war going on. It was, for the most part, a passive war where the operations were intelligence in nature, and the successes still remain behind locked doors and in locked files. I read, not to long ago, a book by Robert Littel (sp) called, “The Company” that pretty solidly outlined the history of the CIA from just after inception in post World War II America through a more modern approach to the ‘Company’ and what they do. It is fiction, but rather well done. At one point in the book one of the main characters is accused of being a mole, a spy, an Ivan, in the CIA and having had the successes he did because of his direct connection to the KGB and Communist Russia. The CIA arrest him. They put him in a prison. They abuse him. They remove all of his natural rights as a citizen. You know, life, liberty, the pursuit (not the actual possession of) happiness. He was denied these things until a friend came to his rescue (think Alias but better).
Our Cold war changed the way the world looked at us and the way in which we looked at the world. It is reported, and probably very true, that we spied on our closest allies, let alone our enemies (i.e. Communist Russia). On top of that we have become, in a very short period of time, the top of the world when it comes to finance, power, and authority. Remember back to your history classes where they speak of empires and think about those Ottomans. Who were they? What did they do? Moreover, what has taken place to take a once great collection of nations, nations of power, influence, scientific changes, etc., and made these nations poor, backward, not influential. Some people suggest that it is the rise of Christianity that has done it. Others suggest that it is poor decisions by generations of sheiks and kings. Who knows. I’ve read that the fall of national power is a cyclical thing that changes. The U.S. will eventually leave the national limelight and that may be sooner than we expect. Recently a report was put out by Goldman Saks (I need to verify the company – the report is at home in a pile of paperwork) stated that the United States, within 50 years, would be the only one of the current big six to still be one of the big six and that we would not be top dog (financially) any longer. China is projected to have that honor followed by India followed by the U.S. and then Brazil (if they can get some form of an act together). Germany, England, France, wouldn’t even be close contenders. They fall somewhere in the top 15, but nowhere near the top. Russia seems to play in the projections for the top six and I don’t remember which other nation rounds out the list. The point is that nations (speaking broadly and not of specifics like Saudi Arabia) have a tendency to lose stature and status.
Now project that backward a step or three and lets go into our biblical history. We have two groups of people that for five or six thousand years (probably less than five given 1000+ years of history for pre-flood and another 100-200 years of post flood history and keep in mind that Abraham was somewhere around 100 to 140 when he had Isaac who then begat Jacob. Abraham was NOT young when he had Ishmael who had twelve sons through different wives who also started the current Islamic nations). The growth of the Islamic nation mirrored the growth of the Jewish, or Israelitish, nation (Jewish is a generic term we now use to denote children of Israel from the tribe of Judah and Benjamin – the other ten tribes were lost into obscurity (interestingly, there are scholars that believe at least one tribe ended up in today’s British Isles and hence we have the old English phrase Anglo Saxon meaning Old English Sons of Isaac)).
Okay. So we have two nations originating in one father. Now, I don’t know about you but with my family I don’t always get along with my brothers (or sisters) and we argue. My father, the great patriarch that he is (there is a bit of sarcasm here), tries to make us get along. It doesn’t work. Currently Justin is not talking to Jared or Kim and apparently respects me because I do what I say – the other two (of eight) do not. Anyway, Abraham was required by Sarah to send Ishmael off into the wilderness. God told Abraham two things. One, Ishmael would be taken care of and two a great nation would come from those loins. However, Ishmael was not of the chosen lineage and the birthright went to Abraham’s first son from his first wife – which is how the birthright and lineage follow – Isaac. Isaac had two sons and his oldest son sold his birthright to Jacob (twins – go figure) for some food and then Jacob’s oldest son from his first wife lost the birthright for sleeping with his father’s concubine (sub-wife, not a prostitute) which then went to the oldest son of his second wife and still one of his youngest children Joseph.
So. From Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, to Joseph leaving Ishmael off somewhere in the desert. At the same time Abraham was promised, by God, the promised land or the Land of Canaan. Canaan is the modern day Middle East. There are so few times when the Islamists and the Israelites have ever gotten along. In fact, the Jews have fought tooth and nail against the Ishmaelites for more generations than we can count. The Jews, and the Muslims, have a couple of things in common. One we have established in parental heritage. The second, however, is in family tradition. Both can often trace their families back many generations. When Christ was born, and the New Testament (Greek translation is New Testimony) written it is important to the Jews – who were becoming Christians – to know the lineage of Christ from David. They already knew David’s lineage and this was, and is, an important aspect to the nature of who Christ was. According to my basic religion class (it’s been a few years) Christ, has he been born under the rule of the Kings, would have sat on the throne of David. So, there’s more significance to genealogy to these two peoples than we often give credit for. It is not a mistake that Abraham is the prescribed progenitor of two races of people.
Now, back to more modern times, in the post World War II world England in the 1950′s made a historic action and suggested that the world create a haven for the Jews. In essence, England proposed that the Holy Land (the Jews historical homeland) be returned. This as a form of reparation for the holocaust that took place in Germany, German occupied territories and in Italy. Germany had started a war, had moved the war into parts of the world that really had nothing to do with them (except historically – think the Romans and Alexander the Great) and as a long standing result of that decision the body of United Nations redrew political lines on a map and sent the Jews home. The Jewish people had a nation they could call their own.
This was a major feux paux on the parts of Westerners. It is like the criticisms the U.S. is receiving in our occupation of Iraq today. We are there with an idea of what we want to see happen but without any understanding of historical context as well as local and tribal contexts. We approach the situation as though Iraq is like Afghanistan or some other nation (say Germany) and we are trying to rebuild under our authority – however, the people there are Muslim and have very peculiar idiosyncrasy’s. In essence, what the British did was to open a can of worms that began wriggling and separating. On top of this the Muslims in the region were forcefully removed from their homes and many of them retained the keys to their homes because they would one day return.
(SIDE NOTE: What we as a nation lack is an understanding of LONG TERM political and social conditioning. We are a young nation. Not even relatively young. We are a young nation. European nations have existed for hundreds of years longer than us and Eastern nations, including Middle Eastern, have existed for even longer. Political lines change and names change but the overall tenure of the nations themselves have not. We do not really understand what it means to have a family live on the same piece of land for more generations than we can count or to have family members buy other family members pieces of land and inheritance. These concepts are foreign to an increasingly mobile nation more concerned with status and symbols of status than history and symbols of history.)
By supporting this action and encouraging these nations to fight against communist aggressors we began a cycle of violence. Remember those bunkers Al’Quaida were hiding in? We built them to help the Afghan fighters against the Russian insurgents. Russia attacked and attacked and attacked and lost every time because we not only helped the fighters, we encouraged them and funded them all in the name of Democracy and freedom. On top of that it could be said, and has been said, that the United States has created far more dictators and despots than might have existed had we not gotten involved. Whether that is true or not is up in the air and may never be answered. Historians of all ilks like to argue one way or another on the matter and that is fine. It makes for an interesting argument, but the point here is that we supported, enthusiastically, a decision to allow the Jewish people to return to their Holy Land. The problem is that the Jewish Holy Land is also a Muslim Holy Land and a Christian Holy Land.
Take a step back for a moment and look at the Dark Ages of Christian history (commonly referred to as the Dark Ages) where European monarchs, under the direction of the Roman Catholic church, sent armies to reclaim the Holy Land from the infidel. Yeah, the term isn’t just a Muslim term for non-Muslims. We wanted the place where Christ was born and many of our ancestors were sent to reclaim it. Think today’s wars are bloody? They don’t even compare. Kings, princess, men, children lost their lives in the name of religion. The big question was who was right? The answer: Rome wanted to control Europe and when that control began to wan they sent monarchs to war to extend the control. Great theory. But that’s all it is.
So, in our modern, post World War II history, we have accumulated some pretty nasty enemies. People who are taught that dying for a cause is the best way to die. The Muslims aren’t the only people to believe this way. Historically the farther east Asian nations have all believed this as well. It is what you do in this life that determines the outcome in the life to come or within your next reincarnation. And in China wars were fought to the crown and not until one side decided enough blood had been shed. You either gave up your life or you GAVE UP YOUR LIFE. It was actually common for entire dynasties to die out simply from a feudal war between two large factions because you fought to the crown and not until one side gave up. The pride this history instills in people is indicative in China today with SARS and AIDS and the way they interact with the West. There are changes, but they are slow coming.
Muslims are not that different. They have fought wars to the crown. They have fought over water, over land, over cattle (meaning sheep here), over wives, over concubines, over lots of things. They have always been a warring race and that is, in part, bred into them and in another part it is taught. There are no mistakes that the Muslim world feels a little dumped upon. They are fierce warriors with a long history and very real tradition.
Heck, try getting someone to change the way they celebrate Christmas, Easter, New Years, or even the Fourth of July and you will begin to see what is being suggested.
On top of that tradition is the ‘law’ (actually more tradition) that puts a death warrant on the head of any Muslim who changes religion. In most Christian faiths you are born, you are raised, and at some point you make the pointed decision whether or not to be a member of that faith. In the Muslim and Jewish worlds you are born into the faith and you die in the faith. In the Jewish world you are lost to the family. In the Muslim world you are lost to life and sent to hell where you will be killed many times over for your treachery. At least that is the faith. Others can join the religion but you cannot leave it.
So, we have a short history of attacking the Holy Land in the name of religion, of supporting the redistributing of the Holy Land in the name of religion, and a series of nations (England, France, Germany, the U.S.) that are predominantly Christian in nature with Christian beliefs and tenants going for them. This can be construed as counter to the beliefs and tenants of the Muslim faith. So, we become an aggressor simply by support of a decision and we become an aggressor by supporting and encouraging wars against communism, some of which were fought in Muslim countries over oil. We need it, they have it, so it’s a marriage of financial convenience. However, the grandchildren of the men who made the deals have enough money and enough time to think about the consequences of the west to their countries and what westernization has done to their people, and add one plus one gives you a sum of forty-two (Douglas Adams’ answer to life the universe and everything) with the big dog (the United States) coming out as the ultimate aggressor.
However, it wasn’t the U.S., with the best natural border, that was the first targets of attack. It was France, Germany, England, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, and Israel that were the first recipients of the attacks. I believe, when history is through with all this, that we will discover that the USSR funded these terrorist operations and started the terrorist war during the height, and toward the end, of the Cold War. But we don’t know that yet. We used every means at hand, without actually starting a war, to attack the other side and we did it extremely well. The natural first recipients of the terrorist attacks were the nations in which there were larger numbers of Arab’s (Muslims) living in communities. Where money and opulence, of sorts, had come into existence, and where history was being taught in publicly funded schools and augmented by parents and grandparents at home. I almost believe that we are the only nation that would move a husband and wife (and children) and leave the rest of the family behind. Other nations (non-English speaking mostly) won’t think of moving without taking everyone with them or sending for them later.
Anyway, the Muslim world saw several infractions on their borders and began to fight against them. When the Berlin wall came down in ’87 it changed the dynamic. When the Soviet Union pulled out of Afghanistan, it changed the dynamic. When the U.S. didn’t finish the job in ’91, it changed the dynamic. It allowed people like Saddam Hussein to come into a form of power and to recruit young men (and now women) to fight the battles. To wage terror. To do what they have been doing for decades now. We created poverty in a nation rather than tumble the power, in ’91, in the hopes that the people would eventually rise up and fight against the symbol of that power, Saddam Hussein. But again, we can go back to history and learn that it wasn’t likely to happen. Saddam was savvy and is still pretty good at what he is doing. He’s changed tactics and is now fighting a grass roots campaign against an obvious interloper – the United States.
Once again, we have invaded a Muslim nation. This time not in the name of Christianity (or Judaism) but in the name of Democracy. Democracy is a sacrosanct notion that was built out of Christianity. Christianity is the antithesis to Islam and Islam wants to be a world power. They want the historical status and honor that they once had and they want it back now. Unfortunately, someone convinced the young people of the Muslim world that the only way to fight against the interlopers is to do it under guerilla warfare. Maybe these men took a leaf from the lessons learned in Korea and Viet Nam. Fight dirty. Fight hard. And kill your own when you have to but make the enemy look bad to the enemy and you have won.
We were disgraced in Viet Nam because we didn’t understand the Vietnamese people. We didn’t understand their history, their needs, their wants, or how to win. Sure, given head, the generals could’ve won the ground war and destroyed the other armies, but Viet Nam wasn’t Germany. Iraq is not Germany. NPR, yesterday, had a description of why we were successful in Germany. We were successful because Germany started the war and were bombed, for years, because of it. They had killed millions. Fought on all fronts. Lost millions. And many of the people were tired of the fight. Germany was divided, the losers were broken, and the winners were there to help them recover. At the same time Communism hit the world stage and we had allies to depend upon. Allies that we all had something in common with December 7th, 1941. We fought a war that extended into Communism and we were successful because the German people wanted democracy, were already Christian, and were afraid of the Russians if they over ran them (remember that Russia lots 20 million plus people in that war defending against the Germans). We had a common goal. Another article suggested that with the fall of the wall in ’87 our goals changed and the date of importance to the U.S. is September 11th, 2001 and not 1987. Europe is trying to build allies and the United States is trying to build security.
However, in Iraq we are the infidel at the doorstep. We are the aggressor. And we are wrong. This is a part of the history of the Islamic faith and Muslim people. They don’t want what history has given them and they certainly don’t want us telling them what is right. If they adopt democracy it will be on their terms (Afghan announced that the first draft of their constitution upholds a form of Muslim law but does not make it the law). It will be according to the desires and wishes of their people and not because we are an invading force.
Our leaving the World Stage won’t immediately fix the problem. We are still a target. But the smaller the target we become, in actions, the less likely we are to be hit. I heard a newscaster say once that symbolism is important to these people. Maybe that’s true. It is true. Hitting the biggest country right where it eats (the stock exchange) is very symbolic and was supposed to destroy us, emotionally. It did not. However, the less of an active approach we take in making sure that everyone else gets along the smaller our target becomes.
As for Israel and Palestine. The war has been going on a long time. In this day and age I honestly believe there is no solution to the problem. One is always going to fight against the other. Remove Israel, the Jews, from the Middle East and you only move the problem. The Jewish people still want to live in and around Jerusalem and they will fight until it is theirs. Personally, I think there almost has to be a major battle between the two peoples to resolve the issue and I believe it would resolve the issue. But, as a world we won’t allow that to happen. President Bush will suggest summits and plans as will every other nations. Politicians will pander and lives will still be lost on both sides. Truth told, I believe that someday the world will be forced to stand against Israel because of their actions and the ‘cleansing’ they want to take place. That is just my opinion.
The outcome is that history and tradition are the ruling factors and when the organizations were large enough and defined enough the organizations (terrorist) attacked the United States. It’s not the last. It wasn’t the first. For thirty or forty years they have been building up to it.