James' post about Leon Kass prompts me to make some general comments about
the recent controversy here over Samantha Atkins' postings about the
Afghanistan War and John Clark's responses to them.
First, my usual disclaimer regarding my own personal list participation.
Since 911 I've been preoccupied with matters that have taken me away from
writing here. Because of the international nature of my work, the terrorist
attacks had a direct impact on my daily life that I am only now getting
under control. The main U.S. office of one of my largest clients was
destroyed in the attack. (Fortunately, all of the people in the office got
out of the WTC alive, since they were on the 48th floor of the first tower
and the head of the office had the good sense to tell his people to get the
hell out immediately, without regard for the important and sensitive records
that were left behind and all lost.) Carefully laid plans for the work I
was to be doing for the rest of this year were undermined and had to be
rethought and new plans set in motion. Beyond that, the attacks had a deep
intellectual and emotional impact on me. As I've mentioned briefly here
since, I embarked on a course of Islamic studies that is by no means
finished. I've also spent more time since 911 doing things that just make
me feel better - spending time with my wife and friends, doing art work,
going to the theater, playing music - because the violence and irrationality
of the attacks have made me realize more than ever how important it is to
balance "work" with play, and ambition with love.
Second, thanks to James for posting the article about Leon Kass. It points
up the danger threatened by irrationalities other than Islamic
fundamentalism, an ironically welcome change for me from worrying about the
dangers originating in the Middle East.
Finally, some specific comments about the "Atkins/Clark War". I have to
begin, as others have, by saying that I agree with John and disagree with
Samantha on almost every specific point that's been raised. As a life-long
student of military history, I believe it is simply wrong to say, as
Samantha has, that the United States has "attacked Afghanistan". Far, far
more than any other military establishment in history, the current U.S.
armed forces are animated by a deep and broad value of avoiding civilian
casualties wherever possible, demand extremely clear-cut war aims and
operate in a general political environment in which the use of violence is
prescribed as narrowly as possible.
Beyond this, I understand both the intellectual and visceral repugnance John
has expressed at the criticism of the current U.S. policy Samantha has made.
If there were ever to be a situation that would justify the use of force in
response to provocation, it is the 911 attacks. Action taken to firmly
break al Quaida, its ideological fellow-travelers and the nation states that
support them is, to me, a defense of civilization. Failure to act
decisively - and yes, violently - at this juncture would be a confession of
weakness in our civilization, a lack of confidence in our own identity as a
culture that would be tantamount to collective suicide.
Because of the strength of my feelings and the to me overwhelming logic of
these conclusions, it is difficult to tolerate repeated references to the
past sins of U.S. foreign policy, great as they may have been. Being in the
business of conflict myself, I know that the moment of maximum battle is no
time to undermine resolve with doubts: That is an exercise for prior
consideration and debate and the weighty job of assigning credit and blame
after the fact. And, with a few notable and important exceptions, I believe
that the United States does a better job today than in the past of both the
tasks of prior consideration of its foreign policy values and the work of
self-criticism after the fact. The U.S. exercised restraint in imperial
triumph in the Gulf War, engaged its military might in Haiti and the Balkans
with almost dainty impact and has generally been infused with a greater
element of self-criticism and self-doubt in the last thirty years than any
other imperial power in history.
With all that said, though, I have to agree that John's rhetoric has been
over the line. The simple fact is that the minimal governance of this list
requires that a line be drawn at personal attacks. Making distinctions when
the subject of discussion is one about which people have very strong
feelings is a difficult task. Is it wrong to call Samantha "an idiot", but
OK to call Jeremy Rifkin "a dangerous moron" (as I have)? I have to say
"yes", and this is why: Samantha is a list subscriber and regular poster and
Rifkin is not.
So that it's clear, I have to say that I actually agree with John that some
of the views at least implicitly expressed by Samantha are actually
dangerous, in the sense that their widespread adoption would significantly
undermine the security of those who work to implement the transhumanist
agenda. Furthermore, although I have only been skimming the list these last
couple of months, I FEEL (based on that brief skimming) that Samantha may
have been lighting a few rhetorical matches in the gasoline-soaked
environment of inflammatory feelings in the aftermath of the attacks.
However, it is important to note that she is not alone in her thoughts and
also that she shares many of the same goals and values held by people who
disagree with her on the matters at issue recently. It seems to me to be
more important to encourage open and civil debate so that we can all
understand each other better, than to simply vent personal frustration or
even repugnance, tempting though it may be to do so. Observing a
prohibition against personal attacks best encourages such debate.
A final note: bear in mind that it is more infuriating to hear someone with
whom you share at least some values and goals and who you otherwise like and
respect express opinions with which you strongly disagree than it is to hear
the same opinions expressed by someone with whom you share nothing or for
whom you have no affection or respect. I will give a personal example:
Since 911 I have found the postings on the subject of Islamist terrorism and
the US response that Amara has made to be wrong in some basic ways. Amara
is someone whom I have admired from afar for a long time and who I was very
pleased to finally meet in person at Extro5. She turned out to be just as
intelligent and charming as I had imagined, and my admiration for her soared
even higher. Yet I have felt that her opinions about Islam and the general
subject of how the civilized world should respond to the Islamist threat
were wrong in ways that it was difficult for me to fathom. I confess to
being literally angry when I read some of the things she wrote. Why?
Because I couldn't understand how someone who was so intelligent could be so
mistaken about something that seemed so clear to me. In such a situation
restraint is a greater virtue than it would be with someone for whom I feel
no respect: It is all the more important to maintain civility.
So I end with a plea that each list subscriber take the responsibility to
maintain a general atmosphere of civility here.
Greg Burch
Vice-President, Extropy Institute
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:21 MDT