"We are the keepers of this legacy, guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort, even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We'll begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people and forge a hard- earned peace in Afghanistan."
— Barack H. Obama
44th U.S. President In his Inauguration Day Speech
44th U.S. President In his Inauguration Day Speech
During my early teenage years, I conducted, almost instinctively, a personal study of Islam, Judaism and Christianity, and made a discovery that was 'profound', at least to me, at that time: Those three religions are more similar than they are different. In fact, they can almost be regarded as scattered fragments of a whole, and when you unify certain scriptures and teachings from the three separate religions, you come-up with a rich holistic treatise on any 'spiritual' subject matter. Strikingly, all three religions can be condensed and be summed-up as: 'Love leads to God'.
Excited, I presented my findings to my father, who then told me that my discovery was nothing new. It in fact, was the mantra of a poorly-groomed generation of liberal twenty-somethings during the 70s; which wholly dedicated its life-energy to illegal 'pharmacological' products, 'free-love', and having a transformative effect on the world: hippies. Of course, I knew about hippies, but then, I only viewed them as placard-wielding people who fought mammoth (sometimes worthwhile) 'battles' in the wrong way - and was incensed by the fact that they had discovered MY discovery before I had discovered it. If I had also known that Universal Unitarianism's founding principle was embedded in MY discovery, I would have thought that my philosophical mulling had been an entire waste of time - as it yielded no new insights. Therefore, I'm glad that I was ignorant about Unitarian Universalism.
Anyway, when I was conducting that study, something else mystified me, and it was Ecclesiastes 1 verses 9 - 11 (from The Christian Holy Book - The Bible) which says (this is according to the English version of The Good News Bible): "What has happened before will happen again. What has been done before will be done again. There is nothing new in the whole world. 'Look', they say, 'here is something new!' But, no it has all happened before, long before we were born. No one remembers what has happened in the past, and no one in the days to come will remember what happens between now and then." That was a bold assertion that needed to be tested, but that would have been too time consuming, so I just left the philosophical mulling in suspended animation and got back to living life like a normal adolescent.
With the passage of time, my knowledge on historical events naturally expanded, and I saw a discernible pattern through time: current events are only distorted mirror reflections of events that precipitated in the past. Hence, my new insights on the repetitive nature of events averred Ecclesiastes 1 verses 9 - 11; serving as the successful test of Ecclesiastes 1 verses 9 - 11 that I failed to conduct during my teenage years. Thus, I can say with a great measure certitude that: events keep repeating themselves over time. We fail to realize this, because when events repeat themselves, it is neither in the same environment, nor on the same plane. Therefore, whenever I'm trying to map future implications of certain events, I always look to the past - because the past abounds with rich answers to present-day questions.
Excited, I presented my findings to my father, who then told me that my discovery was nothing new. It in fact, was the mantra of a poorly-groomed generation of liberal twenty-somethings during the 70s; which wholly dedicated its life-energy to illegal 'pharmacological' products, 'free-love', and having a transformative effect on the world: hippies. Of course, I knew about hippies, but then, I only viewed them as placard-wielding people who fought mammoth (sometimes worthwhile) 'battles' in the wrong way - and was incensed by the fact that they had discovered MY discovery before I had discovered it. If I had also known that Universal Unitarianism's founding principle was embedded in MY discovery, I would have thought that my philosophical mulling had been an entire waste of time - as it yielded no new insights. Therefore, I'm glad that I was ignorant about Unitarian Universalism.
Anyway, when I was conducting that study, something else mystified me, and it was Ecclesiastes 1 verses 9 - 11 (from The Christian Holy Book - The Bible) which says (this is according to the English version of The Good News Bible): "What has happened before will happen again. What has been done before will be done again. There is nothing new in the whole world. 'Look', they say, 'here is something new!' But, no it has all happened before, long before we were born. No one remembers what has happened in the past, and no one in the days to come will remember what happens between now and then." That was a bold assertion that needed to be tested, but that would have been too time consuming, so I just left the philosophical mulling in suspended animation and got back to living life like a normal adolescent.
With the passage of time, my knowledge on historical events naturally expanded, and I saw a discernible pattern through time: current events are only distorted mirror reflections of events that precipitated in the past. Hence, my new insights on the repetitive nature of events averred Ecclesiastes 1 verses 9 - 11; serving as the successful test of Ecclesiastes 1 verses 9 - 11 that I failed to conduct during my teenage years. Thus, I can say with a great measure certitude that: events keep repeating themselves over time. We fail to realize this, because when events repeat themselves, it is neither in the same environment, nor on the same plane. Therefore, whenever I'm trying to map future implications of certain events, I always look to the past - because the past abounds with rich answers to present-day questions.
President Barack Obama said in his inauguration speech that 'We'll begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people'. When he said that, I thought that it is very noble of him to say that about Iraq. But how will the militant forces in Iraq react to a U.S. pull-out? I thus consulted history for the answer, and happened to stumble-across a riveting answer:
Every culture and religion has its own tales of a Robin-Hoodesque folklore hero. In early 20th century turbulent Mexico, the ideal personification of the Robin-Hood-legend was a fellow named Pancho Villa. During the Mexican Revolution of the early 1900s, he was the self-styled leader of a clique of bandits-cum-rebels that went around robbing trains, after which he would doll-out the proceeds of his daring raids to the impoverished masses. This won him the hearts of many, and his reputation for being tough but kind, spread far and wide. However, after some fierce battles, he lost his battle for absolute control to a gentleman named General Carranza, and retreated to a life of full-time banditry - which made him unpopular with the masses that once adored him. Being unloved infuriated Villa, and he hunted for a scape-goat.
He soon found one, the Americans, and went around butchering American soldiers and civilians alike (in some of the most gruesome ways); causing widespread trepidation and anger amongst American expatriates residing in Mexico. The American government was particularly infuriated by the acts of terrorism committed by Pancho, and deliberated on sending a military expedition to thwart Pancho. Therefore, the American government reasoned that it would be unwise for the United States not to strike back promptly, and that striking back would help to prop-up President Woodrow Wilson's image at home - as Americans largely perceived President Wilson as being; a pacifist/a schlep/a schmuck/unmanly/a wimp/ineffective/spineless/useless/heavily lacking in leadership and strength/a nebbish/K'vatsh. Hence, Wilson succumbed to the pressure, got permission from the Mexican government to capture Villa, and sent 10 000 troops to extract Villa from the wilds of Northern Mexico.
The Americans were poised for victory. They had with them the latest weaponry, and were supported by reconnaissance from the air. Also accompanying the Americans, was a small army of journalists which was strategically planted in different locations, as part of the PR campaign to bolster Wilson's image. However, things didn't play-out as the Americans envisaged. They were given false leads by Mexican civilians they paid for information; were despised by the peasantry in the Mexican country-side; navigated hostile terrain and unfriendly environmental conditions. Furthermore, Villa also succeeded in frustrating the extraction effort by playing cat and mouse with the US soldiers.
As the punitive effort continued to progress unsuccessfully, the American public grew restless, and was frustrated by the protracted war effort that was bleeding the fiscus. They started to view their government as inept, and started to respect Pancho as an astute man, who managed to escape the wrath of a superior force. This was a minus for the Wilson administration, which then decided to halt the punitive effort to prevent further humiliation.
When the U.S. force was pulling-out of Mexican territory, it was attacked and pursued by rebels. This forced the U.S. army to use planes to protect its vulnerable rear flanks. Therefore, the Obama government should be aware that U.S. forces stand a strong chance of being attacked heavily by militants when they pull out of Iraq. Hence, a quick withdrawal from Iraq is not the safest option to take, as it will expose U.S. forces to attack as they withdraw from Iraq.
He soon found one, the Americans, and went around butchering American soldiers and civilians alike (in some of the most gruesome ways); causing widespread trepidation and anger amongst American expatriates residing in Mexico. The American government was particularly infuriated by the acts of terrorism committed by Pancho, and deliberated on sending a military expedition to thwart Pancho. Therefore, the American government reasoned that it would be unwise for the United States not to strike back promptly, and that striking back would help to prop-up President Woodrow Wilson's image at home - as Americans largely perceived President Wilson as being; a pacifist/a schlep/a schmuck/unmanly/a wimp/ineffective/spineless/useless/heavily lacking in leadership and strength/a nebbish/K'vatsh. Hence, Wilson succumbed to the pressure, got permission from the Mexican government to capture Villa, and sent 10 000 troops to extract Villa from the wilds of Northern Mexico.
The Americans were poised for victory. They had with them the latest weaponry, and were supported by reconnaissance from the air. Also accompanying the Americans, was a small army of journalists which was strategically planted in different locations, as part of the PR campaign to bolster Wilson's image. However, things didn't play-out as the Americans envisaged. They were given false leads by Mexican civilians they paid for information; were despised by the peasantry in the Mexican country-side; navigated hostile terrain and unfriendly environmental conditions. Furthermore, Villa also succeeded in frustrating the extraction effort by playing cat and mouse with the US soldiers.
As the punitive effort continued to progress unsuccessfully, the American public grew restless, and was frustrated by the protracted war effort that was bleeding the fiscus. They started to view their government as inept, and started to respect Pancho as an astute man, who managed to escape the wrath of a superior force. This was a minus for the Wilson administration, which then decided to halt the punitive effort to prevent further humiliation.
When the U.S. force was pulling-out of Mexican territory, it was attacked and pursued by rebels. This forced the U.S. army to use planes to protect its vulnerable rear flanks. Therefore, the Obama government should be aware that U.S. forces stand a strong chance of being attacked heavily by militants when they pull out of Iraq. Hence, a quick withdrawal from Iraq is not the safest option to take, as it will expose U.S. forces to attack as they withdraw from Iraq.
