Comments for It's good to be the Sheik...

It's good to be the Sheik...

Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:57:07 -0600

Joe Honan, one of the Castle's two correspondents on the ground in Iraq, is a sailor from JFCOM attached to the Marines in Ramadi, where he's... an agriculture specialist. In the same, only-in-the-military way that I, with a Bachelor's in Geography and a Master's in Criminal Justice... am an Artilleryman and a LVC/DIS/HLA simulations expert. Because the service decided I was, and so I became one. That is how Joe has become a specialist in agriculture... and anything else the team needs this week. Such flexibility in those who make up the Armed Services is a great component of our strength. The pictures don't really tie to the story - Joe sent them along with this note: I’ve attached a few pictures, pastel colors are real popular for buildings around here; sometimes it feels like a weird episode of Miami Vice. Joe picks up the tale: The men titled “Sheik” here are interesting mix of hereditary clan leaders, influential locals and rich businessmen who have some say in their districts. It’s actually somewhat democratic, because the power is based on influence or “wasta.” So the son of a powerful clan leader can lose his position if he doesn’t help his people as much as a guy that made his fortune since 2003. They’re kind of a cross between city selectmen, medieval barons, and mob bosses.

Comment from David M on 2008-08-18

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 08:47:29 -0600

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the blog post From the Front: 08/18/2008 News and Personal dispatches from the front and the home front.

Comment from Boquisucio on 2008-08-17

Sun, 17 Aug 2008 23:02:00 -0600

Not a bad translation. Or more loosely: Until when will you abuse our patience, Catilina.

I took three years of Latin and loved it. Towards the end I had a good command of it; being able to appreciate the finer points of Cicero, Sallust, & Caesar. However with lack of use, most of it have been long forgotten. I can still string-up simple sentences (albeit with glaring grammatical horrors), but to relish once again in the sublimity of Virgil - Forget about it.

Latin has given me to this day, a good understanding how all Western languages are intimately interconnected. And that I won't forget.

Comment from SangerM on 2008-08-17

Sun, 17 Aug 2008 15:38:39 -0600

How long, at last, O Cataline, will you abuse our patience???

Izzat it Boq? I had to look it up. I'm reading a translation of Cicero (Oxford World's Classic, by Niall Rudd -- VERY well done, actually). The last Latin classes I took were in '70-71, and though I passed, I did so barely. Do you read latin? If so, wow. I was already impressed, that would just add icing...

Comment from Boquisucio on 2008-08-17

Sun, 17 Aug 2008 00:50:47 -0600

Quousque tandem abutere, patientia nostra, Catilina!

How do I love Late Republican Prose.

Comment from SangerM on 2008-08-17

Sun, 17 Aug 2008 00:05:01 -0600

Ric, your post ties neatly to something I've been reading and something I read a few years ago. I'm still filling gaps in my classical education, and your post has given me a lot to ponder and a new trail to follow.

I'm just now finishing up Cicero's 'The Republic' and 'The Laws,' and while the co-option aspect of the system is not discussed at length, there is a great deal about the responsibility of learned citizens to take the reins of government, and a discussion about those who do and those who turn away, if you will. It's quite amazing, actually (to me at least--this is the first time I've read Cicero) to see how much of our modern American system is rooted in the philosophies of the ancients, and it's even more Amazing to know that our Founders were well educated in those philosophies, especially Adams and Jefferson, and how well they managed to imbue our system with the most beneficial elements.

As for the tension aspect, this is a bit of a different. Felix Frankfurter (former Supreme Court Justice and one of the co-founders of the ACLU) once spoke about the tension in the American Federal system between the branches of Government and between the States and the Federal Gov't. In one speech, he was actually referring to the one thing that makes the American legal system different from all other systems, the so-called war amendments (post Civil War) that prohibit states from denying 'due process' and 'equal protection of the law,' which were not in any other nation's constitution, and which he said "are the source of the greatest difficulties and the most challenging problems to come before" the Supreme Court. In another speech about Israel's 10th Anniversary, Frankfurter said "I think the achievement of democracy as a progressive exercise of free men, each a part of the sovereignty of the state, is one of the rarest, one of the most admirable and inspiring manifestations of political skill, of civic devotion, [and] of institutional enterprise." For my part, I see full active participation in our governmental system as the greatest cause of tension an intelligent and educated person will encounter in life: the call to serve vs. the right to say no; the obligation to work for the greater good vs. the instinct to maximize personal gain; the expectation of willing sacrifice vs. the personal duty to family, and on and on....

I haven't really got all of this worked out yet, but I have been thinking a lot lately about the tension between individual rights and State (societal) obligations, which touch on so many parts of our lives, especially today. For example, in a country where Government is supposedly for, by, and of the People, does the government have the right to draft into the military people who don't want to serve? I don't think so. Does the Government have the right to tax citizens who don't want its services. I think so. Do individuals have the right to force other people to listen to them because the Government says so? Is the so-called freedom of speech as sacred and immutable as it people think it is? Should it be? Is there a right to privacy? How about anonymity? Shouldn't individuals be allowed to associate only with people they want to associate with? Should one person have the right to make a group of individuals behave a certain way, or be able to force membership in groups where he or she is not welcome? Should "people of color" be given extra rights denied to "whites" just because the system is unbalanced or unfair--to make up for past ills? Are we all really equal? Do we really want everyone to be equal or only provide equal opportunity to everyone?

And a whole lot more of the same....

I know there are no easy answers, and I know that some things are just inherently unfair and that isn't going to change, but I am nonetheless fascinated by the notion of tension in systems, in relationships, and in politics, and your post, Ric (and Joe via the Armorer, by extension), has added an another dimension I hadn't even considered. Thanks for that....

V/R
SangerM

BTW, re: equality, Friederich Hayek once wrote "From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time.”

Talk about tension....

Comment from BillT on 2008-08-16

Sat, 16 Aug 2008 16:40:30 -0600

The pomegranate soda is pretty good -- try the tamarind, though. Usually people pass on it because the picture on the label looks like a deep-fried finger...

Comment from Ric Locke on 2008-08-16

Sat, 16 Aug 2008 12:48:37 -0600

...somewhat democratic, because the power is based on influence or “wasta.”

Y'know, that's how the Roman Republic worked.

The Senators elected one another. It wasn't a matter of honor so much as it was co-option. If you had enough power, enough wasta, the rest of the Senators would elect you -- basically, bring you within the System. For most people the honor of the thing was enough, but if it wasn't they had all sorts of things they could and would do to you, from cutting you out of business deals to sending troops (or assassins) to your house. If you weren't willing to be part of the solution, you were defined as part of the problem.

I have occasionally wondered if something like that wouldn't be applicable to Iraq -- an "Assembly of Sheiks" whose membership was self-elected from among the people the populace recognized as having that status. Modern political systems are hybrids, partly Greek democracy, partly Roman republic. It seems to me a mistake to concentrate on on form at the expense of the other. The tension between the two systems is an important part of the political dynamic that makes the West work.

Regards,
Ric

Comment from Katherine Optima Maximae on 2008-08-16

Sat, 16 Aug 2008 11:29:49 -0600

Me: “…..O.K…. how many of you Sunni leaders want to get left in the middle of Baghdad to find you’re way to Ramadi instead of flying with an armed escort?”
Him: “Oh we’ll all go and rent a couple of cars.”
Me turning to Gunny: “You know, I think this war is officially over.”

Yep!