Heidegger

> “This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots
> of them out there…. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and
> we embrace it entirely, and we don’t try to piece together clever
> diplomacy but just wage a total war, our children will sing great songs
> about us years from now”.

Well, that’s hybris. I don’t deny that the neoconservatives saw this war on
terror as the ultimate affirmation of US domination (domination which is
good for US). It was like trying to catch the last of the trains which could
lead one home, since the globalization enhanced big business but it did not
spare US from jobs cuts. It is like the US big business got so powerful and
successful that it no longer needed US as a shelter. And, this did not
please the Americans. So, what can you do when you no longer know what to
do? Do a gamble! Try to risk everything you have for the sake of winning
everything there is.

But, I said hybris. Well, the whole concept of one force to rule the world
is hybristic. It is like Axis waging war in Europe, in Africa, in the
Pacific, in China, against Soviet Union, that is fighting against everybody
else. But, one cannot fight everybody else. That’s why one needs allies.

But this alliance is half based on self-interest and half based on fear for
the biggest stick. As long as this self-interest and this fear will endure,
cooperation will be ensured for this purpose.

But, the war on terror leaves the publics of those allies disenchanted.
Initially, this war was for securing human lives, not for sending them to
waste. It was meant for proclaiming democracy, not tyranny, as the way of
life. It was meant to liberate countries, not to occupy them. So, everybody
is disenchanted by this big lie: fight for an ideal and practice the
opposite of that ideal.

But, if neoconservatives have a merit that is that they have put a check on
individualism. Democracy defined and defended by the neoconservatives is not
the liberal democracy which existed before the neoconservatives. State,
authority, power, domination, respect for law and order, respect for
country, respect for God, etc., tend to become cherished again. They are
promoted by an amalgam of fear, self-interest and manipulation.

The new world order is defined by “Farewell to anarchy”. And, if the US is
to be criticized for something, it is that they do not follow this vision
well enough. They are producing anarchy in Iraq. So, what’s the solution? Be
consequent: support law and order, restore peace, and promote cooperation
under the new global dominating force.

So, the problem with the war on terror is that it did not define its
strategy, and that is a mixture of contradictions. It should develop a
coherent strategy and show the world that authority is good. It should show
the world that if you follow individualism long enough, you fall prey to
anarchy. And the only way to get out of anarchy is to show respect to
authority.

But the authority has obligations, too. It has to show consequence,
coherence, benevolence. It has to show that it is in the very interest of
those who are dominated.

So, world domination and authority is ok, but they have to be in service of
the many. As long as it will serve clique interest, it will fail to become
an enduring authority.

Greetings,

Tudor

Posted on Thursday, June 22nd, 2006 at 12:55 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback
Tags: America» terror» war»