You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘geopolitics’ tag.

Below is a comment I sent to NPR’s All Things Considered in response to a pretty hilarious commentary section on their Tuesday, April 14 show:

I consider myself a person of the left. I’d like to think I’m more open to a wider variety of “crazy” political opinions than many other Americans. But listening to your commentator’s piece on Somalian piracy Tuesday afternoon I found my jaw dropping on the ride home.

What got to me was the suggestion that Jihadists are worthy of more respect than Somali pirates because at “least they are fighting for something they believe in,” rather than cynical self-enrichment. Really, NPR? Really?

I still struggle to figure out why I should hate these raiders from Somalia, this razor edge of Third World capitalism, where no business transaction can exist without at least one sucker; they disrupt the commerce of radical Saudi and Iranian Islamic governments, they are against shariah law and they rarely ever harm their hostages, although that could now be over after the Navy SEALs’ sniper rifle escapade.

What they are doing is unsavory, yes, and no one can begrudge the hostages’ families wanting their captors dead or captured, but I find myself more willing to root for apolitical, anti-fundamentalist and imminently practical pirates who attempt to, as 50 Cent would put it, Get Rich or Die Trying.

After eight years of nightmarish political and religious ideology driving multiple nations, and with the current economic tailspin, a breath of cynical, realist practicality is one of fresh air. If I were Obama, I would be funding these pirates to continue raiding the commerce of America’s real future foes in Central Asia: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan and Russia.

I’ve always been torn on Rousseau and Locke. The social contract is a noble concept, probably one of the noblest, but even the most cursory glance at current events and back at history will make it plain that natural rights are a sham. Nation states and the contract of rights they grant and/or deny to their citizenry are based on a foundation of violence either explicit or implicit, directed toward its own citizens or outwards towards perceived foreign enemies.

One of my favorite examples is Turkey’s republican democracy: it’s marked with multiple occasions on which the military, whose command structure is largely staffed with scions of Turkey’s highly educated, secular intellectual class, has directly intervened in elections to depose presidents with Islamic fundamentalist leanings. They do this on the claim that key to Turkey’s constitution is a section forever establishing the republic as a secular state. Are the rights of the citizenry–the right to govern themselves, being violated by their military? I would say yes, but not condemn the act. After all, they are violating the democracy in order to depose people who would more than likely erode the democracy much more dramatically had they been left in office.

The firewall between the military and politics is largely a Western, First-World conceit. Imagine if the U.S. military weighed into elections to depose any religious fundamentalists who happened to make it into office.

This is all pure speculation.

If most Western liberal democracies have taken the view of von Clausewitz that wars are an extension of politics, rendering a military’s commanders subordinates to the civilian government, and that total war is an untenable military or political posture, then does that not render a conversion to full-on libertarian, Athenian direct democracy a geopolitical impossibility (short of majority-mandated nuclear hellfire)?

Of course, the libertarian response, and it’s as good one, would be that nation states would play a much smaller part in each others’ domestic affairs than they do now. But still assuming there has been a full return to direct democracy (my conceit here is the assumption that the advancement of libertarian ideals would involve the overhaul of representative democracy/republicanism), then I highly doubt that there would be no highly influential, highly populous voting demographics in the U.S., much less any other nuclear-equipped nation, that won’t harbor a knee-jerk, button-press approach to foreign affairs. In that sense, libertarianism then faces the same problem Marxist-Leninism did: the justification that communism cannot work unless the entire world is communist.

Republican Spain had a democratic army. George Orwell in Homage to Catalonia speaks of it positively, primarily for the fact that it worked as well as it did, but of course we all know how well it panned out for Republican Spain.

This is all pure speculation.