We got it wrong in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Egypt, in Libya, & since the outset in Syria
ROBERT R. FOWLER
Half measures in fight against Islamic State will only make matters worse
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Oct. 03 2014, 6:34 PM EDT
Last updated Saturday, Oct. 04 2014, 10:51 AM EDT
.........
We got it wrong in Iraq, then again in Afghanistan, then in Egypt, then in Libya, and since the outset in Syria. Our values are not their values, nor are they universal (which is why Stephen Harper’s and John Baird’s trumpeting of a “values-based foreign policy” is ignorant and pretentious). However much we might wish it were so, there are effectively no universally agreed essential values, and we have had little success, anywhere in the world, forcing people to trade their values for ours. Despite our collective spending of trillions of dollars fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan to win over hearts and minds, many – perhaps most – Afghans do not want to see girls in school; have little interest in what we call democracy; believe our harping about corruption is extravagantly hypocritical; and would rather grow poppies than carrots.
Even the Canadian-authored Universal Declaration of Human Rights – of which we are so justifiably proud – is, in fact, not universally accepted. It was written in the late 1940s, when the infant United Nations was composed of a quarter of today’s membership.
The bulk of humanity was underrepresented. Present at the creation of the UN in 1945 and, three years later, when the Declaration was adopted, were few countries from what today we know as the Third World. China was but Taiwan, and the only African countries were Ethiopia, Egypt, Liberia and a very different South Africa. The colonial powers (Christian white guys all) believed they were the world. To an extent, we still do, tenaciously oblivious to the pervasive impact of our arrogance.
The IS, however, is well aware that we are perceived in such a light. They know the propaganda value of poking sticks into American eyes, or knives into Western throats. They understand the extent to which we in the West are casualty-shy, and that the effectiveness of our actions is crippled by collective attention deficit disorder. They know full well that ill-informed and poorly executed Western forays into “Muslim lands” have been disastrous for us – and they are anxious to lure us into further folly. They are confident that by so doing they will dramatically increase their recruiting base, their authority, and the scope and impact of their movement; and they simply do not give a damn about the numbers they will lose in the process. Truly, in their eyes, such losses are a blessing.
Xlnt Read:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/half-measures-in-fight-against-islamic-state-will-only-make-matters-worse/article20926294/?page=all
= new reply since forum marked as read
Stephen Harper’s and John Baird’s trumpeting of a “values-based foreign policy” is ignorant and pretentious). However much we might wish it were so, there are effectively no universally agreed essential values, and we have had little success, anywhere in the world, forcing people to trade their values for ours."
And "“values-based foreign policy” is ignorant and pretentious" and in most cases, self-serving. We like to think our values are the most noble. But our values are changing fairly rapidly. It was fairly recently that our values included slavery. And even today we do not treat women equal to men nor Black Americans equal to White Americans. Are values need a lot of work yet we are using values to justify killing people.
Saying that there are no universally agreed essential values doesn't quite say it. IMO there are no sacred values. There is no where we can go to learn the universal sacred values that will live on forever.
Why are we bombing ISIS instead of Saudi Arabia? Hint: It has nothing to do with values.
