The Best Friends Money Can Buy?

Reading the reports of unrest around the US embassy allegedly caused by a YouTube video that few if any has seen (including me) did not shock me, I'm sorry to say.  Apparently it's OK to insult any other religion in the world without fear of violent assault, but not that of Islam.  Evidently these true believers hold so strongly to their 'Religion of Peace' that it's OK to kill anyone who in any way insults or makes fun of your religious figures.  Now this in itself is a curious contradiction, since there is no iconography in Islam.  As such it seems incongruous that any 'image' can therefore be seen as an affront. (But let's set that aside for now.)

I also noted that an attack on US Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, led to his death along with three others in a protest that apparently escalated into an attack on the consulate there on September 11th.  In spite of the ongoing reports from the Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and the Administration that there was no plan involved, it would take, in a phrase Mrs. Clinton used back in 2007 when still a Senator, "a willing suspension of disbelief" to accept that guys with rocket propelled grenade launchers just happened to show up at this curiously well organized tactical assault of US sovereign territory. (But let's set that aside for now too.)

This brutal assault on the persons and property of the United States has seemingly touched off a wave of demonstrations and destruction at Embassies from the Western Europe to Indonesia.  It seems that the apparently disenfranchised populations of predominantly Islamic nations across most of the world have decided to publicly share their negative opinions of us by destroying our property and killing our citizens.  Governments in many of those countries, which have seemed perfectly capable of putting out the fires of such demonstrations for many years (even when it required a little extremism and thuggery on their part), seem suddenly unable to protect US territory that they are bound to under international treaty.  Perhaps even worse, US Ambassadors seem unhappy or unwilling to issue Marines guarding those facilities ammunition in order for them to do what these host nations seem incapable of. (But let's set that aside for now too, even if this is getting a bit monotonous.)

Why, because many of these are after all, OUR FRIENDS ....

One might even say that some of these are the best friends that money can buy!  After all, the United States pours out more than $52.7 billion in foreign economic and military aid every year (according to the 2010 numbers I could find), with the economic part of that package coming to some $37.7 billion.  And what a list it is!  Let's look at some of our 'buck buddy allies':

*  Afghanistan topped the list with some $11.4 billion

*  Pakistan got some $2.85 billion

*  Iraq manage $2.1 billion

*  Egypt received a paltry $1.7 billion

*  Mexico got a mere $718 million

*  Gaza (yes little bitty Gaza) managed $693 million

*  And Indonesia got $338 million to spread across almost as many islands

Now lest anyone forget, we have been doing this for many years, under the leadership of both parties.  This may be another of those examples of 'bi-partisan blundering' that those of us looking at Washington DC can't help but notice when we poke our nose under the tent (no camel jokes intended ... well OK maybe there are).  And speaking of poking their nose under the tent, once that nose has found its way in, it seems impossible to dislodge it.  We seem to treat these wayward nations as if they were a ne'er do well brother-in-law.  No matter how much we give them, it's never enough.  And no matter how deep we dig in our pockets, they're never going to like us.  In fact, giving them the money only seems to make them hate us more.  While we're making such comparisons (and forgive me for noticing), but a lot of those nations appear to have significant Islamic populations.  

This is not to say that we carry no blame in these situations.  It was the US after all, who supported the despotic rule of the Shah of Iran; at least until we stopped supporting him.  Oh sure we got rid of Saddam Hussein and his evil persecution of his own people and those of Kuwait, but only after years of supporting him as a bastion against the guys who took over in Iran after we ran out on the guy who ran it before.  We also supported the despotic rule of Mubarak in Egypt before we bailed on him; and there was a time when we liked Gaddafi before we didn't.  Hell we still sell a lot of really cool military hardware to the monarchy in Saudi Arabia, knowing that various members of the royal family have (and probably still do) support a number of groups considered terrorists organizations around the world.

It therefore seems that our foreign policy is little more these days than a poorly planned and totally misguided attempt to get the best friends that money can buy.  It's a policy that's never worked particularly well for us, and in these days when we're all but broke and paying out with borrowed money, it's failing even worse than normally.  It is one however, that appears to be impossible to abandon; though perhaps there is one difference is that the current Administration has decided to exercise which might be worthy of note.  That's the practice of continuously apologizing to the crappy friends we have, and that only hang out with us while we're paying for them; while simultaneously insulting the ones not currently on our payroll.  It's a curious form of diplomacy that reminded me of the days of my youth, and some friends from a little band from Chicago that achieved a modicum of success; especially in the 70's.  Perhaps the President, since he currently chooses to call this his hometown as well, might want to learn from some of its finer poets and bards: 

  

Styx

Now, I'm a jet fuel genius 

I can solve the world's problems

Without even trying.

I have dozens of friends 

And the fun never ends

That is, as long as I'm buying.

Is it any wonder I'm not the president?

Is it any wonder I'm null and void?

From:  "Too Much Time On My Hands", written by Tommy Shaw

Religions of Peace

This posting may be the most controversial that I have ever written, and is probably capable of more misinterpretation than any that I have yet put on paper. It's something that I have been carrying around in my head for quite a while however (there is plenty of unused space up there after all), and realizing that the Wednesday rant this week would be my 600th posting on the site made it seem as good a time as any to trot it out.

Condemn me as an apostate if you will, but I ask that you at least read it through (and carefully) before making any judgment of me. This offering is not intended as denigration of any religious belief including my own, but instead of the acts that have been perpetrated in the name of such belief.      

There are many today using the attacks of Muslim extremists around the world to vilify the Islamic religion. They point out that while the tenets of this religion are ones of peace, those committing these violent attacks on civilian populations today do so in the name of such beliefs. They further make the case that these attacks are not limited to populations of non-believers (those believing in other religions), but that many of the attacks committed are by Shiite Muslims attacking Sunni Muslims, and vice versa (and yes, I do understand that their are differences between the two).     

One can hardly help but notice however that the current crop of terrorism in the world does seem to come from such contradictory beliefs and practices held under the religion of Islam. One can also say that believers in Islam seem to have cornered the market on such actions in recent years. To my knowledge there are no current Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist terrorist groups currently operating on any scale around the world.   

This is not to say however, that the Islamic faith is the only one guilty of such inconsistency, or of acts of unspeakable violence and depravity, and that as a consequence, that many other religions have their share guilt to atone for. Jesus too preached a religion of peace some 2000 years ago, and yet some of the most violent and terrible acts in the time since have been done in His name.   

The Crusades for example, are often romanticized as heroic knightly deeds done in defense of the Holy Land; but the truth is far less appealing. Not only was a great deal of savagery and torture perpetrated by these Christian knights in their looting and pillaging of lands not their own in the name of greed (not their God), but far too often they pillaged their Christian allies as well on the road to what were considered ripe pickings in the lands around Jerusalem. 

No one who has studied history will likewise be able to ignore the acts of barbarism, torture, and murder that were committed during The Inquisition(s). History in fact defines four separate Inquisitions, the first beginning in the 12th century and the last going on until around 1860. One of the most notorious, The Spanish Inquisition, spread this reign of terror from Europe to the new world, torturing and murdering innocent native populations in the Americas who would not accept what these conquerors considered "the true faith". 

Even the suffering that occurred in the "Troubles" of Ireland, while attempting to deal with long-standing issues of a brutal occupation and national sovereignty, carried a religious component within the British Isles. 

If we want to look further back, we need only study the Old Testament of the Bible. Here we can read the chronicle of that same God (for members of both the Christian and Jewish faith at least) similarly putting unbelievers to the sword at various times. The Canaanites, the Midianites, and the Philistines all found this original Jewish state more than willing to take up the sword (and pretty successfully according to the accounts) in the name of their Deity when necessary. Those living in many of those same lands today (and still fighting the same battles, according to some) have found the current Jewish state an equally formidable opponent. 

The Old Testament further tells us that these acts were considered both righteous and Godly, and well in keeping with the behavior of a Supreme Being of peace who was not above committing an act of violence in the name of religious retribution Himself (Can you say "The Flood" or "The Tower of Babel"?). So while it must be admitted that believers in Jewish faith have, down through history, far too often been the target of such inexcusably brutal behavior (and continue to be today), their own past is not entirely unblemished. 

Some early civilizations of course, like the Romans and Greeks, simply gave in to the violence in human nature and religion by having a god of war on which they could blame such human activity. In the Americas, the Aztecs, Toltecs, and Mayans likewise had no problem reconciling the concept of religion and violence. Their belief system did nothing more to excuse such acts as being justified by religion, but did at least save them from the potential moral schizophrenia inherent in trying to follow a peaceful dogma while committing horribly violent acts. 

None of this of course, is an excuse for the current acts of terror and barbarism going on in the world today, and any moral justification for committing such acts by claiming that they are "the will of God" is little more than a cheap form of self-delusion. These actions are beyond deplorable regardless of any attempted moral justification, and those that commit them deserve no reward in whatever heaven they claim to believe in (or any other for that matter). That being said, it must be admitted that much of the violence perpetrated by one human being on another throughout history has been done in the name of belief in a purportedly peaceful Supreme Being. While there appear to be limited exceptions to this (some of the eastern religions come to mind), few of them can attempt to assume the moral high ground on the subject if they look closely enough at their own past. 

As for those committing these senseless and unsuccessful acts, they cannot even claim credit for being the inventors of violence in the name of such belief, merely the latest in a long line of disreputable perpetrators. (I call them unsuccessful since while they have proved tactically successful, they have consistently failed to achieve the hoped for strategic objectives for which they were committed.) They prove little more than the fact that vestiges of envy, hatred, and barbarism remain part of the what we choose to call the 'human condition'.

History, if it chooses to remember them at all, will hopefully do so as little more than failed villains. It's likewise to be hoped that their acts will have little if any lasting effect on the long course of societal evolution. If history can be said in fact to have taught us anything however, it is that no one has ever been entirely safe from those following religions of peace.