Reaction of the following sort indicates the comparative absence of reality-basing, the probable presence of some sort of relentless preconceived Systemzwang:
| It seems to me that in both Sadr City and West Beirut, the anti-US forces have been playing a carefully calibrated game in their relations with national governments that had, until now, been solidly pro-US. (Following Hamas's playbook there.) Their preferred strategy seems to be not to overthrow or directly confront the national government, unless the national government confronts them... But rather, to do a combination of whittling down the government's legitimacy while also holding out to it a potential life-raft of cooperation-- but on the basis of a nationalist and ever more strongly anti-US platform. In both Lebanon and Sadr City, the anti-US forces seem to be doing rather well at this game, the ultimate "prize" of which is to win the loyalty of the national government (and therefore, also, all of its international legitimacy.) Given that this game requires smarts, subtlety, patience, and an intimate knowledge of the minutiae of local/national politics, is it any surprise that the US is doing very poorly at it? |
It seems to her! Golly.
What does NOT seem to her, but would seem to an ethical and intellectual adult, is that she, like pretty well everybody else at her distance from the troubles, does not know what is actually going on well enough to be dangerous. Omne ignotum pro ideologicatum habeâmus!
Having two blanks to fill and nothing legitimate to fill them with, the mind of the doctrinaire economises. In a curious display of devotion to the razor of St. Ockham or the least effort principle of St. Zipf, one and the same snake oil is prescribed for "both Sadr City and West Beirut." Well, what mind will be at pains to invent two different narrationes confectae from scratch when one alone suffices?
In fairness, Mr. Bones, one ought to disregard the quality of the snake oil confected, which in this case is lousy. [1] At "both Sadr City and West Beirut" it makes little sense to fantasize and fabulate about the fiends "winning the loyalty of the national government." Indeed, that particular snake oil makes little sense simpliciter: it sounds almost as if somebody obtuse, without any sense of humour or sense of measure, had got ahold of Bertold Brecht’s wisecrack about the Pankow régime dissolving its people and electing another. [2]
Before the fog of war suddenly descended on "both Sadr City and West Beirut," it seemed to thee and me that it would not be easy to warrant this publicist’s facile "both." Though of course Tel Aviv and Crawford patronise the particular armed bands of Beirut and New Baghdád that send ambassadors to the United Nations and thus get to pass themselves off as "the national government," beyond that there is not much significant similarity. To begin with, poor M. al-Málikí has Sole Remainin’ Hyperpower to back him up, whereas M. de Siniora has more like the Keystone Kops. To describe the same correlation of forces bottom-up, the Rev. Fadlalláh is entrenched in a far stronger position than the Rev. Señorito al-Sadr. [3]
But God knows best.
_____
[1] The material poverty of it consists additionally in at least (1) dragging Uncle Sam (viz. the militant extremist GOP) center stage when there happens to be remarkably little sign of Yank fingerprints in the chambers where the two latest corpses lie freshly slain, and (2) the remarkable chutzpáh of orating in favour of "an intimate knowledge of the minutiae of local/national politics" in the very article of demonstrating that one can easily do without anything like that oneself.
This deplorable mental lockjaw is to be condemned on formal, not material, grounds, Mr. Bones. We would like to drive an Aristotelian stake through the heart of it if possible. Accordingly, we must think clearly and note honestly that we deplore and condemn it even though a particular narratio confecta turn out to be substantially accurate. Doctrinairisms run in schools, after all, and a consequence of that fact is that in these cases the snake-oil mind is presented rather with a sort of multiple choice quiz than a with a blank slate and an essay question:
31. The troubles at both Lebanon and Sadr City are chiefly due to
A. the evil Qommies
B. a nationalist and ever more strongly anti-US platform
C. war for oil
D. the mendacity of Bush
E. all gone absolutely, criminally bonkers
E. some other factor
(You see, sir, how I comply with the usual tip-off and expect the canny student to select the longest available response. Our scribbler canvasses [E] herself, presumably in jest, though one cannot be entirely sure she is not "serious.")
[2] As happens not infrequently, honest factious obtuseness such as the present publicist displays could -- just barely might possibly -- be refined and dispassionate sarcasm. Dean Swift might done something with the trope of a "national government" solemnly pondering which private-sectorian crew of armed banditti it ought to bestow its "loyalty" upon. That is rather a good tail-wags-dog joke, but only as long as one realises what tripe and baloney it would be if taken in earnest as Pol. Sci.
[3] A suggester might suggest that the renegade firebrand anti-Crawfordite señorito already enjoys a certain sort of anarcholibertarian Nirvana in the former Iraq that the Beirut statelet has yet to match. The Rev. Fadlalláh would perhaps like to paralyse the LB Fedguv as thoroughly as Khalílzád Pasha paralysed the I. Z. neorégime with that "constitution" that he graciously granted it. Fadlalláh cannot actually pull that structural sort of coup off, however, even though he is much better able than Sadr Tertius is to ensure that no [exp. del.] Fedguv, constitutional or vigilante or merely left over from the colonial French, is going to paralyse him and the God Party any time soon. If one assumes, Mr. Bones, as thee and I (along with zealot publicist H. Cobban and even "the ever-diligent Badger") assume, that the God Party fiends are basically engaged in a defensive project, not trying to help the evil Qommies conquer the known universe (and/or obliterate Jewish Statism), Fadlalláh & Co. are on balance far better off than Muqtadae and Muqtadae’s Mahdí.
The logical inference from that inference is, I think, that "both Lebanon and Sadr City" is antecedently a nonsense. To believe in any sort of "both Lebanon and Sadr City" comports far better with the immoderate and omphaloscopic views of Wingnut City and Rio Limbaugh and Crawford and Tel Aviv: the fiends are all out to get poor Narky Dexter, don’t you know?
One cannot ever rely on "antecedently" with perfect confidence. It is not quite absolutely impossible that after the present dust settles, some new striking resemblance of "both Lebanon and Sadr City" will greet the analytical eye. However if you would bet your money that way, sir, you’d bet on anything.
No comments:
Post a Comment