Was the war worth it?

In a recent article Time magazine asked whether the war in Iraq was worth it.

I was against the war from the beginning because I sensed that the motives behind it weren't right. There seemed to be an ulterior motive behind it and the politicians involved were not being straightforward about it. I didn't trust the characters involved.

It is too soon to tell whether the war in Iraq war was worth it or not. Perhaps in 20 years. I believe in time it will be grudgingly accepted as so.

Was the Vietnam War worth it? Yes, I believe in the long run it was. Vietnam, especially North Vietnam, was an isolationist nation, not wanting to be part of the greater world. That war forced it to open up. Today, Vietnam is one of America's closest associates, in trade and travel. That war also led to America’s rapprochement of China under Richard Nixon, diffusing possible future conflicts in that part of the world.

Wars, history has shown, have facilitated and forged the world's determined path towards globalization. The Iraqi war, in a characteristically perverse way, as the Vietnam war did, is furthering that process. Saddam Hussein was resisting that process by not cooperating with the rest of the world. Hence, to my way of thinking, the war.

It is unfortunate that the present administration in Washington was so deaf to the advice given it by other, advice that could have made the war in Iraq a success. If the troop levels had been higher, as many in the know had insisted, Iraq today may be more settled and secure. If the troops had protected the existing infrastructure of Iraq, like the hospitals, the energy grid, museums, security forces, things would be much easier. But, then, this administration was from the outset inherently incompetent, because neoconservatives were running things, people who are overly ideological and naive.

Francis Fukuyama, of "The End Of History" fame, originally supported the idea of "regime change" in Iraq. However, he soon changed his mind when he saw how inept and poorly the administration was executing the war. His neocon brothers seemed to be out of their depth, not fully examining and understanding the consequences of such a war. They hadn't learned from the past or the first Iraqi war, ignoring it as though it was irrelevant. He recently wrote an article entitled "After Neoconservatism" in which he voiced his concerns about how neocons are running the war and how it will affect future American foreign policy.

Fukuyama recently discussed the intellect of neocons with the French intellect Bernard-Henri Levy. I don't view the neocons aligned with Bush as particularly intellectual or deep thinkers. They tend to be like MBAers (Master of Business Administration), which Bush also happens to be, who don't or can't see the world as multidimensional, who think the world can be improved or corrected with just a few tweaks. (They are suspicious of intellectuals because they see them as cluttering things up.) If they had thought more deeply about Iraq they may have taken a more coherent, sensible approach in trying to establish democracy there. Democracy is contingent on many things. The Bush neocons thought it would be a cakewalk, done with a few broad strokes. (It took the West centuries to develop and try to get it right.) That is why Fukuyama stands apart from his neocon brothers, because he is a more complex thinker. I don't think of him as a neocon in the conventional sense, but as a pragmatist. If Bush and his neocons had practiced pragmatism - a philosophy ideologues like them detest, - the mess in Iraq would probably not exist today.

Unfortunately, Fukuyama may have had a hand in encouraging neocons to think the way they think, with his "end of history" idea. (I tend to agree with his idea). His idea is that the liberal democracy practiced in America and much of the Western world had become the final form of human governance may have wrongly emboldened neocon. He came to that conclusion because liberal democracy was the only form of human governance left standing after it only rival, communism, collapse. It had triumphed over all others form, implying that it was the holy grail of human governance and that its spread shouldn't be impeded To simplistic thinkers like neocons, such an idea was cart blanche. It made them hubristic and cocky in that they thought they could rightly throw America's hegemony around and it would readily be accepted throughout the world, because, as Fukuyama opined, history had fashioned it that way.

Larry Diamond of Stanford University's Hoover institution was quite exited about going to Iraq at the beginning to help establish democracy. He is an expert on Democracy and he was on a mission, a kind of new frontier mission, landing on the moon. He naively thought democracy was doable in Iraq. He soon had his eyes opened and realized that if you don't have security, which Iraq was loosing rapidly, democracy is not possible. He soon returned to America, saddened and disillusioned. Voting alone was not sufficient enough. Democracy needs institutions to uphold it and they would take years to establish In Iraq.

America and the world have been trying to establish democracy in Haiti for years. After ten years things there are not any better there, but worse. That shows how little we know about what generates and keep democracy afloat.

Sadly, in this world, we sometimes have to get things very wrong to eventually get them right. It shows the perverseness of our development and human advancement. There still is no manual in how to establish democracy in countries that have never experienced it before. It still seems to be a secret as to what really makes it work. Democracy is a system that has developed through try and error. That is what America seems to be experiencing in Iraq.

English as number one.

Perhaps it is arrogant and chauvinistic of me to think that English should be the number one international language since it is the only language I know and am happy to know. Nevertheless, it is my opinion, and judging by its extensive use, from air traffic control to global commerce to the Internet, that English is the only language that is capable of connecting this complex and unavoidably interactive world. It is the chief means of communication between nation with umpteen languages, like those in Scandinavia and Europe. Moreover, it seems logical to me that English should be the international language because it is the mother tongue of democracy and market-oriented economics, the dual system that has virtually come to govern the world.

That English has nurtured and facilitated the world's key governing principles (human rights, rule of law, economic theory and practice, etc.) is an excellent reason why it should be the international language. Those principles were born and cultivated in the British Isles where English started, and from where they were initially exported worldwide. Yet, such an argument doesn't fully explain why English is at this juncture the chosen language of world affairs.

I found a good explanation for English’s predominance in "The Journal of The English-Speaking Union". One of its contributing authors concluded that the dominance of English was significantly due to its being "in the right place at the right time". That makes sense. For instance, English was rightly positioned in two world wars, as the language of the winning side. As a result, English gained a special status, first as the chief language in the fight for freedom, with the efforts of Britain, its colonies and the United States, and then as the language of reconstruction of its defeated enemies. It was the language of triumph. This certainly helped galvanize English as the world's premier language. In the aftermath of the war it became the language of international treaties like those dealing with trade and currency exchanges.

I see a parallel relationship between Democracy's ascendancy and English's ascendancy. English has developed as a user-friendly language, where the user is generally in control of its use. Other languages are not as democratic or user friendly, less flexible and more dictatorial about their use. English is quite a democratic language in that it is organic, constantly adapting and modernizing. I think it is also significant that the two major countries that speak English are the countries that have exported democratic ideals and principles. The Magna Carta, the nascence of democracy, was written in the British Isles. The United States is the one who established lasting democracy in Germany and Japan, the defeated enemies. The U.N., an institution devoted to encourage and reinforce democratic principles and human rights around the world, is headquartered in an English speaking country. English is a modern language. Democracy is a modern governance. The two have a lot in common.

French also had the opportunity of being the international language because it was the instigator of a very important world activity, diplomacy. As the years went by, though, the French and their language lost out to English because of France's losses in colonization, and the influence that went with it. As a result, French was relegated to a second tier language. In directly, those French losses resulted in an introspection, which manifested itself in a protectionist attitude towards the French language which in turn made French less flexible than English and thus less attractive as an instrument of global communications.

Because Chinese is the most spoken language in the world, it could become the international language that English is now. However, I don't think so because it is a very difficult language to learn and use. Another drawback is its inflexibility. This became apparent when China and Taiwan were discussing their separation (Taiwan essentially is a rogue state of China that broke away during the communist revolution) and Taiwan's right or non-right to independence. They had to turn to English for the sake of clarity and reason. Had they continue their exchange in Chinese, the chances of an international incident were very really. Their turning to English may have prevented a war between them. English's usage allowed a vagueness, which English is good at, to enter the discussion, allowing for the ambiguous interpretation of such absolute Chinese terms as nation, state, self-determination, freedom and equality, which otherwise would have been fighting words.

The above explanation of why English is or should be the number one international language may be on their own unsatisfactory, but as a whole those things are what have facilitated English's ascendancy Yet, English itself can also take credit for its rise to the top. As a consummate opportunist it has enrich and advance itself by borrowing from other languages, in the process making itself flexible, resourceful and extremely relevant. However, one historical circumstance above all has given English the opportunity of being number one. Had it not been for the world becoming a sufficiently connected place, the need for a central language of communications would never have been possible or necessary.

Film

I belong to a philosophy forum. A suggestion was made that a 'film club' category should be added to it. I voted against it. Then I realize I may have been too hasty in my decision. When I voted I was thinking it would just turn into a geeky discussion and go of track. But then I thought of the impact movies have had on society since their inception. That impact, I thought, can best be articulated in a philosophical way.

There are many negative aspects about movies, like gratuitous violence and sex. However, I think movies generally have had a positive influential on society. Their mass apply has developed common bonds of understanding. They subliminally have helped align society to function in a coherent fashion, developing common modes of behavior and tastes. In America, where the genre was basically invented, films have helped many new immigrants assimilate to their adopted land. They have also helped expand modernity and democratic values throughout the world. They have, in a perverse way, expanded knowledge in their portrayal of historical events. As propaganda they were encouraging and supportive in defeating the enemy in W.W.II. Often, though, they just have been pure entertainment, a release, like circuses for the masses.

The impact of movies can be enormous. Some impacts are just trivial. Nevertheless, they are indicative of the influence of movies. I remember my father telling me that in one movie Clark Gable was bare chested and not warring at least the customary under shirt. In the following weeks of the release of that movie under shirt sales plummeted and never recovered. A similar thing happened in the wearing of hats by men. Sales of hats dropped as movies portrayed men not warring them as they once did.

Some of the impacts are real and not trivial. Movies can be effective in drawing out social issues that would otherwise be avoided or overlooked. They can raise awareness and provoke much needed discussion. In most respects this task now has fallen on television. But movies still carry a lot of weight in raising conscience. Tom Hanks’ movie “Philadelphia” raised awareness to the needless and thoughtless bigotry displayed towards aids victims. After the movie a more sympathetic and less superstitious attitudes developed towards this once taboo subject. Movies help get out the message and dispel the wrong-headedness that so often has accompanied uncharted social waters. Movies that once portrayed Jews and African Americans as inferior and marginal now portray them as part of the main stream, helping to break down racial barriers and change social attitudes toward them.

There was a time when drunkenness was romanticized on the silver screen. Eventually that stereotype died away under social pressure, helping curtail the number of accidents due to alcoholism. Smoking has declined over the years because similarly it was no longer romanticized in the movies or accepted as a social norm as it once was.

The other day I saw a move called “Far From Heaven”. It was appropriate that I saw it again because of my writing this article. It came out in 2001 but took place in 1957. It was deliberately given a 1957 flavor, in how it was filmed and how it was musically scored. It dealt with two contentious issues that for the most part have been defused today, homosexuality and racial segregation. However, the power of this movie made me feel that those issues were still divisive and with us, that racial segregation and anti-homosexual attitudes were still part of our culture. I remember movies made in that era which portrayed homosexuality and interracial relationships as abhorrent acts, leaving the feeling that they would always be so because the cultural consensus of the day said so. However, many moviegoers back then felt uncomfortable with the discriminator behavior they saw depicted on the screen, about how people were being attacked and marginalized just for being different or themselves. In their discomfort those moviegoers helped change perception and attitudes in future generations. Though this movie reflectively showed how far we have come in changing things, it also was a reminder that we still have a distance to go in making society a truly just and equitable place for everybody.

It is hard to measure how much movies have influenced social change, in making things more just, representative and equitable. My sensibilities, though, tell me that such change could not have happened without the movies, this larger than life art form.

Civilization has needed and had many facilitators to help develop and ease it along, like philosophers, theologians, lawyers and scientists. In the 20th century movies also have played a major role in facilitating and mediating society and individuals, helping us in how we ought to organize and govern ourselves. Some will argue, though, that movies have also perverted society with mindlessness repetition and excessive portrayals of sex, violence and hedonism. All I can say to that is, like all human endeavors, this enterprise also has its negative aspects, its down side. However, overall movies have made life richer and more tolerable.