| |
|
Well, the problem with one-eyed Simmons' (which, incidentally is what I call my old chap) model is that... well, it's cock. The Melian andrapodismos took place in 416BCE. The expedition to Syracuse sailed in 415. If the Athenians went soft, they went soft bloody quickly.
Next up, the Syracusan expedition itself. Did it fail because the Athenians weren't nasty enough? Did it bollocks. It failed for all sorts of reasons - the other cities in Siciliy did not supply the aid to the Athenian forces they expected. Athenian supply lines were overstretched. Lamachus, the best attacking general in the camp, died early on in the mission, leaving Nicias, who was of a more defensive character. First the Corinthians under Gongylus and then the Spartans under Gylippus were able to reinforce Syracuse. Finally, the attempt by Demosthenes to sieze Epipolae ("the heights") failed in 413. That's, ultimately, the reason that the expedition failed. They didn't capture the high ground. Easy as.
Where the cock Simmons got the idea that Demosthenes was a poet I have no idea. I think he might be mixing him up with Demosthenes, the Athenian orator, who lived about a hundred years later. Which is fair. I always get Dan Simmons mixed up with Ron Simmons - Farooq in the Worldwide Wrestling Federation.
Annnnyway. If you're looking for a political reason why the Syracusan expedition failed, and why Athens lost the Peloponnesian war, then look not to the Athenian's softness, but rather to the rigour with which they defended their own religious beliefs. Alicibiades, the controversial and somewhat shag-happy young man who was rapidly establishing himself as the brightest young thing in the city, was accused before he sailed to Syracuse with the fleet of having mutilated a number of hermae, apotropaic statues. Rather than return to face a politically-motivated prosecution for blasphemy, Alcibiades fled and allied himself with Sparta. It was his advice that they should fortify Decelea, putting soldiers in Attica all year round and forcing Athens to live within its walls. It was his negotiation that encourage members of the Delian League to revolt against Athens, and it was his advice and diplomacy that secured an alliance between Sparta and the Persian Empire, matching the wealth and the naval power of Athens.
So, if you want to avoid the fate of Athens, you want to be nice to your alpha bisexuals and make friendly overtures to Iran. Winner.
His dates are off as well - he has the war ending in 406, not 404 - and he neglects to note that the Athenians had overthrown their own democracy quite happily before the Spartans imposed an oligarchy in 404/3. Also, that oligarchy was very shortly thereafter overthrown in turn and democracy reestablished.
So, the comparison is both historically inaccurate and also toss.
To address this idea that a billion people want to destroy America the beautiful, and will go out of their way to do it - utter wank. From the declassified section of the latest NIE on terrorism:
Although we cannot measure the extent of the spread with precision, a large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists, although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.
• If this trend continues, threats to US interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide.
• Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit. Over time, such progress, together with sustained, multifaceted programs targeting the vulnerabilities of the jihadist movement and continued pressure on al-Qa’ida, could erode support for the jihadists.
Given a choice, most Muslims will not blow a) themselves and b) shit up. The best way to avoid this is to identify the four pillars of conversion to combat-ready jihadi:
Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement:
(1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness;
(2) the Iraqi "jihad";
(3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims;
all of which jihadists exploit.
The occupation of Iraq is probably the best recruiting tool for terrorists. However, since we're stuck with that we can look at the other elements. (1) and (3) can be attacked by helping Muslim nations to establish fair, safe and less corrupt governance, by helping to feed and clothe the poor of the Muslim world, by working to restrain the political instability cuased by poverty and the constant threat of war. (4) by making it clear that the US is trying to help rather than to harm.
From the same report:
Concomitant vulnerabilities in the jihadist movement have emerged that, if fully exposed and exploited, could begin to slow the spread of the movement. They include dependence on the continuation of Muslim-related conflicts, the limited appeal of the jihadists' radical ideology, the emergence of respected voices of moderation, and criticism of the violent tactics employed against mostly Muslim citizens.
• The jihadistś greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution - an ultra-conservative interpretation of sharía-based governance spanning the
Muslim world - is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. Exposing the religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadistsí propaganda would help to divide them from the audiences they seek to persuade.
• Recent condemnations of violence and extremist religious interpretations by a few notable Muslim clerics signal a trend that could facilitate the growth of a constructive alternative to jihadist ideology: peaceful political activism. This also could lead to the consistent and dynamic participation of broader Muslim communities in rejecting violence, reducing the ability of radicals to capitalize on passive community support. In this way, the Muslim mainstream emerges as the most powerful weapon in the war on terror.
• Countering the spread of the jihadist movement will require coordinated multilateral efforts that go well beyond operations to capture or kill terrorist leaders.
This might interest your dad, xk: according to US intelligence, the deadliest weapon against Muslim terror is Muslims. Most Muslims don't want to live in a state of constant theocratic terror. Most Muslims' interests are not served by shari'a law. Barring a small number of nutbars, Muslims don't want this shit - it becomes a viable alternative only when it seems as if it is an alternative to conquest, humiliation, anarchy and the apparent destruction of their way of life. Poverty makes terrorists, and hopelessness, and a feeling of being kicked around by the big boys. Beyond that, it's mainly about territory - I've linked to Robert Page's findings on Palestinian suicide bombers too many times, but the key message bears repeating: not that many of them - about 20% - were members of Islamist organisations. The idea that the bombers in Iraq would otherwise be blowing up the Arc de Triomphe or the world's biggest ball of string is nonsense. If they weren't blowing themselves up in Iraq, they wouldn't be blowing themselves up at all. These are true-blue American facts.
So, I don't imagine that the world Simmons envisages is in any way credible. It is possible that more and more Muslims will be radicalised, and that life in the West _and_ the East will become more and more unpleasant. There are ways to limit that, and they will, I hope, be initiated by the next President of the United States.
The Piglet one is quite interesting, but it might be an issue for a separate thread. |
|
|
