Politics of ressentiment often propels states towards making strategic mistakes that help the political elites perhaps win constituencies but often costs the state in the longer run. The very imagination of a ‘conflictual difference' that bedevils what is called the ‘sympathisanten' and the already converted called the ‘Tafriqs' vis-a-vis their target audience is what needs to be addressed.
Similarly, the majority sections that harbour similar imaginations or ‘prejudices' needs to be examined too. Not from the ‘now-possessed' view-points of patronization-oriented programmes that usually form what is called the politics of ressentiment. Rather, a clear-headed approach is needed. Britain, like most of Europe, adheres to Human Rights as its parameter of fundamental rights - that do look at ensuring an equal freedom of thought, faith, belief and worship - and an equal freedom of participation that favours the freedom of the individual.
What, under such conditions, fosters such ‘jehadi' sentiments? And you will find a host of people all eager to find their place under the sun. Put more plainly, the mismatch between human ambition and the abilities of those harbouring certain ambitions. That will lead to many a force attempting to direct the course of ‘local' developments - for money and/or for those moments of ‘relevance' and/or worse - sheer malice. The already-converted work usually with cold mechanical detachment and are rarely seen in the crowd.
It is them and it is the separation of the wheat from the chaff that calls forth for equally cold and detached problem-solving that is cognizant of not merely the complex problems at hand but also the room for interfernce from political novices who have ambitions.
It brings one back to the original question of "why should someone born and brought up in Britain go and fight a ‘jehadi' war in Basra?!"
The answers to this rather simple question usually has quite sobering effects, even if one is not aware of ‘rogue' states and nations and the undercurrents that move beneath the surface of world politics.
- 0
April 24, 2008
Ilyas M. Mohsin, PPP, Platinum Contributor (296)
It appears that as, generally, money makes the electoral win go in the US, George W won against Gore despite all the 'pregnent cahds etc'. At the time of his installation, he had only known Mexico, luckily. One wonders if he knew where Iraq was. Due to his questionable rapport with, what President Eisenhower had defines as" the Military Industrial complex", he became a hostage to the perverse thinking of neo-cons. The massive loss of US credibilty, power and goodwill is the outcome of his 'my way or highway' policy which has ruled the roost for seven years
Unfortunately the misadventures in Iraq/ Afghanistn may prove to be particulrly damning as over a million people have been killed, a bigger number maimed etc and more than have been rendered refugees. In the process US courted atrocities like in Gitmo/ Abu Ghuraib/ Bagram base
and huge resentment among the Muslims. Even the moderate ones do not approve of such massacres through indiscriminate bombing or mismanagement of countries under US'occupation' with surrogate regimes. Hence the fight against 'occupation' goes despite the dreadful asymmetry of power between combatants. No wonder the volunteers for the extremists keep on multiplying due the culture of defiance against 'occupation'/ callouness of the enemy.
Thequestion raised could provoke a thesis as a Blissful Ignorance rules the powerfu who could not care less, generally, as they cahse and kill all coming their way in their chase of the 'badguys' like in video games.