James Holmes starts his article by stating how demolishing a totalitarian regime and instead instilling something more "humane" isn't as easy as we may think. The problem doesn't only lie with Sadaam Hussein but the Iraqis in general, who are prone to pick up a gun and fight rather than negotiate their political interests. James points out a main point in Machiavelli's novel is having a firm hand when transitioning from a totalitarian regime to a more human regime. Flip flopping ideas in the leadership of the transition will provoke these feelings to arise from the people going making the transition. Machiavelli also pointed out how leaving under a tyrant makes the virtues of the accustumed people less lively, spirited or intense and people who are without care and attention are more likely to fall under the first master they are exposed to. This idea is present in Iraq. Meaning people who are freed from tyranny are "newly freed beasts" who don't know how to reason their defense will rely on what they know. Machiavelli's idea was "'a corrupt city that lives under a prince can never be turned into a free one, even if that prince is eliminated along with all his line" and the only way to reach freedom for these people would be for a good person with virtue would help them transition from their bad habits.
James described two hypotheses for America's role in Iraq and judging how our military is still present in Iraq his latter hypothesis would be more correct. Iraqi people have bad habits that prevent them from developing a more humane means of government and America will be a part of Iraq's politics for years to come.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
The Prince 10-18
Chapter 10 and 17
"...it is impossible not to foresee difficulties in attacking a Prince whose town is strongly fortified and who is not hated by his subjects" (27). This quote goes along with the idea in chapter 17; better to be loved or feared? A strong fortified town, where the ruling Prince is admired, is something worth fearing. When it comes to times of strife or wartime, "men are less careful how they offend him who makes himself loved than him who makes himself feared" (44). Meaning strong countries, such as the U.S., are less likely to be the victim of an attack from a foreign force. This idea relates to the situation in Iran; if Iran is to develop nuclear bombs the U.S. isn't likely to be the victim of an attack.
Chapter 10
"...since human affairs are so variable that it is almost impossible for any one to keep an army posted in leaguer for a whole year without interruption of some sort" (27). When a country has an army it suggests that they will seek military action if needed; these armies will not remain uninterrupted when the human affairs in today's world vary.
Chapter 14
"For with contempt on one side, and distrust on the other, it is impossible that men should work well together" (38). This quote sums up the U.S. relation with Iran and their nuclear programs. Iran is the side with contempt and the U.S. is the other side with distrust of Iran's motivations; it is impossible for the two countries to have any form of alliance or work together with this situation.
"...it is impossible not to foresee difficulties in attacking a Prince whose town is strongly fortified and who is not hated by his subjects" (27). This quote goes along with the idea in chapter 17; better to be loved or feared? A strong fortified town, where the ruling Prince is admired, is something worth fearing. When it comes to times of strife or wartime, "men are less careful how they offend him who makes himself loved than him who makes himself feared" (44). Meaning strong countries, such as the U.S., are less likely to be the victim of an attack from a foreign force. This idea relates to the situation in Iran; if Iran is to develop nuclear bombs the U.S. isn't likely to be the victim of an attack.
Chapter 10
"...since human affairs are so variable that it is almost impossible for any one to keep an army posted in leaguer for a whole year without interruption of some sort" (27). When a country has an army it suggests that they will seek military action if needed; these armies will not remain uninterrupted when the human affairs in today's world vary.
Chapter 14
"For with contempt on one side, and distrust on the other, it is impossible that men should work well together" (38). This quote sums up the U.S. relation with Iran and their nuclear programs. Iran is the side with contempt and the U.S. is the other side with distrust of Iran's motivations; it is impossible for the two countries to have any form of alliance or work together with this situation.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Machiavelli and the Mullahs
This article is about how Machiavelli's masterpiece offers advice on how to handle situations during times of "heightened peril". He wasn't concerned with man's moral perfection but survival in this sometimes violent world. Machiavelli argues that through careful actions leaders can actually shape the outcomes of events to their advantage by "snuffing" out danger. The Mullahs are using Iranian money to concoct their terrorist trade in Iraq. Machiavelli also makes reference to the idea that if you wait to hear big news it could be too late; which could suggest the U.S. taking action against Iran before something big happens.
President Bush could be guided by three principles of Machiavelli's novel: self-reliance, the importance of being feared and the need to take the initiative once conflict is inevitable. This idea in the article makes sense. President Bush can't and doesn't rely on others when reaching decisions because "the arms of another will fall from your hand, will weigh you down, or restrain you". However, at the same time leaders need the people to back them up, that's why the U.S. is a Republic and elects their leaders. Another idea mentioned is there is "greater security in being feared than in being loved" and that mutual interests make alliances, not affection. This idea makes sense if Islam really does fear the loss of power.
One final idea Machiavelli leaves us with, a nation "will always have to choose between risks...prudence lies in knowing how to distinguish between degrees of danger and in choosing the least danger as the best". Taking action and using force against Tehran's nuclear operations make be the path with less danger.
President Bush could be guided by three principles of Machiavelli's novel: self-reliance, the importance of being feared and the need to take the initiative once conflict is inevitable. This idea in the article makes sense. President Bush can't and doesn't rely on others when reaching decisions because "the arms of another will fall from your hand, will weigh you down, or restrain you". However, at the same time leaders need the people to back them up, that's why the U.S. is a Republic and elects their leaders. Another idea mentioned is there is "greater security in being feared than in being loved" and that mutual interests make alliances, not affection. This idea makes sense if Islam really does fear the loss of power.
One final idea Machiavelli leaves us with, a nation "will always have to choose between risks...prudence lies in knowing how to distinguish between degrees of danger and in choosing the least danger as the best". Taking action and using force against Tehran's nuclear operations make be the path with less danger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)