Human kind is not well equipped to make rational strategic choices. We seem to rush into wars, marriages and investments without evaluating the consequences. And then we are unable to see our foolishness and carry on on our wrong path.
For instance, at the beginning of last century, heroin and other narcotics where freely available; at the same time a fairly recent invention, the motor car, was becoming popular. Even without the benefit of hindsight, it would have made sense to curtail consumption of the latter and not interfere with the consumption of the first. Instead people chose the opposite, with disastrous consequences: millions killed and tremendous financial flows redirected to criminal organisations.
And here is another example: Nassim Nicholas Taleb shows that the West is backing the wrong horse in the Middle East:
We are suckers for simplifications and categories. There is something I am missing in the current map of alliances. Take the following. From what I understand, for a Shiite Moslem, a Sunni is not an infidel –he is a pure Moslem “of another tradition”. A Jew and a Christian are “people of the book”, therefore not infidels, but non-Moslem “under the protection” of the Moslem law. But for a fundamentalist Sunni Moslem, a Shiite is an infidel that you can kill with impunity. A Christian is not an infidel (except for some Sunni branches that only accept as monotheists Christian Iconoclasts who refuse representations of Saints). A Jew, for a Sunni, is never an infidel, given the Jews’ staunch monotheistic credentials (El is Allah, or Eloh). Ironically, for a Sunni, a Jew is always more Kosher than a Catholic (you can see that in numerous Medieval Andalusians debates). In other words, theologically speaking, AlQaida is far more anti-Shiite than it is anti-Western. You can see evidence of that in Iraq.
Now when I look more closely (and less naively) at Islamic fundamentalism, it seems obvious that the Wahabist regime of Saudi Arabia resembles far more closely my nightmare (as a Westerner): Saudi Arabia finances fundamentalism across the world –and the nastiest brand at that. They propose the worst possible society I can think of. Woman cannot drive in Saudi Arabia. But they can run for office in Iran. The Shiites are far more a natural ally of the United States and the West –or at least something like the enemy of the enemy, that is terror-sponsoring Islamic fundamentalism. Furthermore, as a minority they own the oil fields of the Persian Gulf. To a Westerner, they are the lesser evil.
I do not understand politics at all. Either alliances do not necessarily have to be rational, effective, or natural, i.e., they are the result of inherited chance relationships, or there is something missing in the current understanding & discourse of the situation in the Moslem world. Nobody seems to realize the absurdity of current alliances.
Image by Kaitlyn
Well said. Send in the clowns.
Andrea, that’s one of the best posts you’ve ever had. Good stuff and thanks for the steer to NNT, whose writings I will look into.
I went to Iran on holiday in 2000 and was struck everywhere by the sophistication and slightly aloof welcome of the people. Oddly, it reminded me in feel of northern Italy – with veils and no wine! (ironic in Shiraz, of course).
Alliances are strange, but to cheer you up in the long term, may I recommend “After the Empire” by the French historian, Emmanuel Todd. It looks at America (and to a certain extent its allies) from a rather different viewpoint and turns conventional wisdom rather on its head. I’ve not yet met an American who found himself able to agree with it, yet the thinking ones have the good grace to look a little queasy at what it says.
[...] velorution » Absurd choices Interesting (tags: politics cycling opinion) [...]
Thanks for the book tip, Jolyon. But a minor objection to your comment – “the thinking ones have the grace to look a little queasy at what it says”. Actually, the thinking ones (as I think of myself) have left the country. :^)
Re: the comment “the thinking ones… have left the country.”
Actually, some, if not most, of the “thinking ones” have remained in their country to fight back against the stupidity and greed. Hard to believe that 150 years ago, Americans were crossing a continent in wagons, while today, at the first sign of trouble, they abandon what they perceive to be a sinking ship and hie off to somewhere else, far away from the front lines in the battle for the political and cultural future of this country. Sad, really.
Watch subject. Bush goes ballistic about other countries being evil and dangerous, because they have weapons of mass destruction. But, he insists on building up even a more deadly supply of nuclear arms right here in the US. What do you think? How does that work in a democracy again? How does being more threatening make us more likeable?Isn’t
the country with the most weapons the biggest threat to the rest of the world? When one country is the biggest threat to the rest of the world, isn’t that likely to be the most hated country?
Our country is in debt until forever, we don’t have jobs, and we live in fear. We have invaded a country and been responsible for thousands of deaths.
We have lost friends and influenced no one. No wonder most of the world thinks we suck. Thanks to what george bush has done to our country during the past three years, we do!
“we” don’t suck, the leadership of this country sucks. When the citizens of the US pin all their hopes on a national election
only to be disappointed, they give up. True political change in this country will never happen from such a top-down way of thinking. I refuse to even vote in the presidential election, because my contention is that ALL of these people have already been bought. To effect true change, you have to do it at the state and local levels – levels at which average citizens still have a chance to hold office.