http://librivox.org/the-history-of-the-peloponnesian-war-by-thucydides

I think it is our collective ability to recognize any single action’s membership in a larger pattern which has ultimately written the bigger History. In this statement, the word ‘our’ is self-referential, and in my case means post-modern western America, with its unrealized wish for democracy.

It’s very curious to me that at this moment it appears that the Mid-East’s Jihadists have become expert at intentionally manipulating the look and effect of small, single acts so that THEY APPEAR TO BE PART OF A MUCH LARGER PATTERN, when in fact they are not. They are trying to write a new History faster than actual events would normally allow. And GWB et al are simply assisting them by providing the set-up due to our lcollective lack of recognitiopn of the pattern.

It’s simple: 1st grow your Democracy. 2nd build up your military industrial complex. 3rd Invade countries and foist your political belief system upon others via your military industrial complex. Repeat and rinse…

How do we convince others that democracy and freedom (the word used by GWB to describe what we are fighting for) is the best system as we diminish or own?

From the get-go two things: this was a very risky endeavor and it is not at all clear that with 100% public support this thing could have been “won”. Secondly you seem to be suggesting that unless everyone shuts up and gets with the program they are aiding “the enemy” ( as declared imperiously from above).

Protesting against war is not an impulsive act, it’s a very considered and brave act. The visible protesting against THIS war certainly was not that strong. I can only think of Cindy Sheehan and perhaps one or two other formal protests. Most were silently grumbling or blogging their anger, writing to their congressional reps ( as yours truly) until finally this past Fall when there was a tipping point.

The irresponsiblity on the side that is now and was then opposed to this war lies and will lie on whether they hold those who WERE REALLY irresponsible ( a mild word for criminal) accountable.

In addition you do not consider the lack of support wordwide, especially amongst the Euro populations where we DID see more protests. Oh if we could have only controlled those, perhaps we would be whinning.

Step forward to the 21st Century – US in a time of crisis – the war with Iraq not looking so good to the public. It’s interesting that several scholars of the classics have recently been “offered-up” as Iraq war pundits on public broadcast shows. The author of “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (a pre-text for the Iraq invasion) was recently on a PBS show arguing that Iraq is not experiencing a civil war. Surprisingly the author’s credentials are “light” on contemporary Iraq culture/politics but “heavy” on the literature of ancient Rome and Greece. In “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (a publication of “The Project for a New American Century”) the author coined the term “American Peace” – a reflection of “Pax Romanum”, the term popularly used by classical scholars to describe a peaceful phase of the ancient Roman Empire. The term is sprinkled throughout “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, providing implicit justification for US global hegemony. Two other classical scholars have recently been heard on PIR and NPR – both promoting a pro-war agenda. And both are authors of publications that similarly promote U.S. hegemony in geopolitics.

We should proceed cautiously before accepting “lessons” which employ the classics to justify contemporary geopolitical action – we run the risk of oversimplifying complex situations – this has already proven disastrous in the Iraq war (as it did for the Third Reich). Of course we can learn from the classics – but a lot has happened since the fall of the Roman Empire. The classics are only valuable to the extent that we can temper our reading with an understanding of intervening history and a complete analysis of the contemporary situation.

And when we consider the “lessons” offered by contemporary classical scholars we must inquire as to the scholars’ background, who they are associated with and how extensive is their understanding of the actual “on-the-ground” contemporary situation to which their “lessons” pertain.

Yes – Wilson and ALL the presidents who have taken this nation to war were IMO irrational. You, they and others can rationalize going to war for any number of reasons but as I note below:

Rationality is a function of one’s beliefs, predilections, and system of logic. It cannot be defined by consensus or bandwagon. Just because actions are deemed rational by group opinion doesn’t mean that those actions comport with my sense of rationality or that of others.

There are myriad systems of logic available to the human species and where it may be logical and rational for some people to commit violence on others or themselves in return for imagined or concrete rewards (be it abstracts like freedom, safety, and martyrdom, or material possessions, land, oil etc.) for others (like Hermocrates) violence is an anathema. IMO there is never a justification for violence, as Isaac Asimov noted in his Foundation trilogy Violence is the last resort of the incompetent.

Wars are started by ideas (that the end justifies the means and so war is justified – usually due to FEAR and impatience on the aggressors’ part) and they are stopped by ideas (that peace is desirable and war will not be tolerated.)

If enough people eschew violence then it will cease to be acceptable. It’s a matter of desire – John Lennon & Yoko Ono said War is over if you want it. We as a nation (and world) haven’t developed our ethos to want it yet and so it remains a part of the mass reality.

Peace to ALL,

Jazzman