Syrian War

[Bob Butler 54]

(04-11-2017, 10:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-11-2017, 06:42 PM)Mikebert Wrote: The reason I am curious is a chemical attack of this sort by the Syrian government makes no sense to me.  It appears to offer no benefit to Assad while making Putin look bad and turning a neutral Trump administration into a belligerent. On the other hand it seems to make sense for regime opponents.

Given the possibility that we jumped the gun last time (which might be why Obama never carried out any airstrikes after Russia granted him a face-saving way to back down) I am not so quick to just accept our government's word that Assad was definitely responsible.

It seems to me there is a way to test this.  If it really was a regime opponent who had the chemical munitions, we should see more of this.

Yes. I suspect however that where Assad is concerned, "making sense" is not something on his mind. Only cruelty and oppression has ever made sense to him. Nothing he has done makes any sense.

It might make more sense from an Agricultural Age perspective.  In the old days, the elite class has a quite functional monopoly on the use of force and a set of ethics that allows use of terror to maintain peace by intimidation.  Think of Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Khan and the rest of Cynic Hero's Great Heroes of authoritarian thinking and governance.  The path to greatness is through obedience of the people.  The path to obedience is through terror.

An Industrial Age people, steeped in the values of the Enlightenment, would not be apt to tolerate the sort of oppression used regularly by monarchies, dictatorships, fascists, communists, etc...  Much of the Middle East is just learning how to rebel against terror.  Syria is a crucible as various cultures are attempting to learn.  They seemed to be figuring out rejecting tyrants.  The tricky subtle part is learning to tolerate and coexist with those who are different.  It is also easier to learn to fight a tyrant than it is to learn to rule without being a tyrant.

Remember Kinser's point that humans form tribes and the conscience of an individual does not apply well to those outside of the tribe? It is OK to barrel bomb, gas and otherwise kill and terrorize civilians so long as they are not in one's own tribe.  Such a narrow tribal conscience, where it is OK to commit blatantly evil acts upon those outside one's tribe, is repugnant to many with Enlightenment touched morals.  A lack of morality regarding those outside the tribe is common to those lacking Enlightenment morals.

It might also be a question of expanding one's tribe, of not thinking one is part of a narrow group.  If one thinks one is a Kurd, or a Shiite, or a member of a Turkish tribe, or whatever of the many groups striving in the region, it can be easy to do awful things to those who are not part of one's own tribe.  The direction to move in is trying to live well and coexist with any who will let one's self live and coexist as well.  That is obvious, necessary, naive, and really really hard to do when it is not part of one's culture. Think of trying to convince Cynic that one's tribe shouldn't overrun all other tribes, or convincing Kinser that the poor ought to have health insurance, and those two are products of American culture. The Middle East has been no where near as exposed to the Enlightenment.

The Middle East is just one part of the world in the middle of a transition from Agricultural Age to Industrial Age governance and values.  They are under a handicap as they have seen the ugly side of both Western and Marxist values, and are not inclined to adapt either of these oft tread paths out the Agricultural Age.  Thus, they are clinging to Islam, which is not a path out of the Agricultural Age. Islam is an anchor binding cultures to the Agricultural Age.

Anyway, a gas attack is a way of saying it is more prudent to accept tyranny than to resist.  I  expect Assad to be familiar with and embrace that style of thinking and governing.  I half expect the rest of the Middle East to fall back on this approach as well.  Putin too.  Russia is further along the path than many countries, but the path to Enlightenment values is often two steps forward, one back. Putin seems to be one of the steps back. I'm not religious, but I don't often bash religion either. I generally don't stand up and say the problem is religious, the problem is radical Islam. However, Islam does embrace tribal thinking. A believer is supposedly a brother, and the unbeliever is abominable.

Anyway, gas might not make sense in a world where Enlightenment values dominate.  Making sense of the Middle East definitely requires stepping outside of one's own values and trying to understand (though not agree with) other older value systems. As with other strange beasts like Republicans (or Democrats), they seem insane, evil, stupid, naive or otherwise incapable of acceptable human thought. No. They just grew out of a different culture, era, mind set. You aren't going to understand without doing a good deal of growing one's self.