Life is an endless negotiation with ourselves and with the world about who we are- the truest truth of who we are- and whether we have the mettle to simply be us, all of us, as we are, backlash notwithstanding.'
This is the US! The world's most complex nation and the most advanced one too when the size is taken into account. The other day I was wondering what went wrong with the policies of the Obama administration in Iraq that the ISIL or the Islamic state; an splintered group of al-Qaeda, has emerged as the dominant force in Iraq and Syria and the militant group may expand all across the Middle East, wherever there is a sizeable Sunni population, with or without resentment against the authorities-in-charge.
And I got it right: it's the additional complexity arrived because of changing and rising conflicting consciousness. The fact is that there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq when the US under the Presidency of George W Bush invaded it in 2003. But equally true is the fact that there was no al-Qaeda in January 2009 when President Bush departed and President Obama took over the reins of the White House.
Personally, I think that President Obama is not that adventurous and he would like to play it safe when it comes to crisis management. He has been lenient, since beginning of his first term, towards Muslims, particularly towards the Arabs, and has said all the nice things that public; American, non-American Western and global, and media expect an American President to say.
It is a fact that President Obama has ended war in Iraq but still the anger and frustration among Sunnis there is at all time high after the invasion of Iraq as is evident in the recent success of the ISIL in Iraq and Syria. The ISIL, now, has control over some 30% of territory in Syria and around 33% of territory in Iraq and it is active around Iraq-Jordan and Iraq-Saudi Arabia borders too. So what's the reason?
It is reinterpretation of past events with the help of newly developed tools and newly found consciousness in the Middle East and beyond. More and more people are interpreting same events differently than they used to a few years back and this process is continuing all over the world, with varying measures, including in the West.
The rate is highest in the Islamic world due to its own internal reasons: they took the longest time to realize that the world around them has changed and they also need to change with that. Beyond that there is a great interplay of action and reaction within. When the Westerners can rethink about the past and the present what is wrong if the Islamic world tries so?
I think gone are the days when the US, mostly under the Republican administrations in recent past, used to invade Islamic world. The overt invasion may be ruled out now but the fact is that the militancy is on the rise all over the Islamic world and if Islamists attack any interest of the West then they may face retaliation by it. The rise of militancy is of a grave concern to the US-led West and the US under President Obama has morphed its tactics by silent drone strikes and massive surveillance programs.
So, how would Islamists interpret Obama's Presidency? Favorable but as per them 'he is the lone good guy among the bad ones' and therefore, he cannot overhaul the US administration from the top to the bottom. And how would Democrats interpret President Obama on strategic front after his term is over? As a person who ended long-fought wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan and he did not bring world's condemnation to the US. What about Republicans? For many he is not even Commander-in-Chief and they would remember pulling out US forces from Iraq and Afghanistan as his biggest errors along with Benghazi's consulate attack on September 11, 2012.
The person is same and so are his actions for American public yet no objective assessment even in the US! The world is more polarized than ever before and this is true about all parts of the globe, particularly about the Islamic world. The drifting and razing consciousness would not only affect Iraq, Syria, Tunisia, and Egypt but also the Saudi Arabia, Iran, Palestine, Pakistan, Afghanistan and many others, and such would decide the future evolution of these and other societies.
The humans would dominate more than ever before in shaping their destiny and since the world is so much divided bitterly the chances of errors are very high. The US and the rest of the West need to be cautious about it.
But the complexity because of consciousness would not affect only Islamic world it would affect the BRICS nations too. In India, the relationship between Hindus and Muslims may touch a new low as the political and ideological Right has become an irreversible reality; from decades in the past to almost permanent in future.
The fact is that with the constant and continuing Anglicization and Westernization along with expansion of social websites and Internet, Hindus as a group will be more politically aware and less tolerant of Muslims as a group. The history of medieval times would be revisited. On the other hand the Muslims would remember more of their discrimination post-independence. Both will forget their mistakes and would remember those of other's.
In China, there will be some activity against the suppression of voice for freedom and free will and this is particularly true if China is not able to manage its economy properly. If its economy fails not only it would spell gloom in the West but also the mighty Middle Kingdom would face more internal troubles. China has to sell its non-economic inflation to its public as well as to other secondary and tertiary markets. For that it requires huge American support.
In Russia, if Whites as a group remain silent then authoritarianism would increase but not otherwise. If Whites stand up for their rights then I think that Russians will unleash a new era of reforms. That power is within their hands. In Brazil and in the South Africa, their political elites have to manage mostly demographic conflicts.
But stability in the BRICS nations depend mostly on their economic performance or else not only the apparent glue among the member states would wash away but also conflicts among their various demographic constituents within would increase.
Sure, Mr. Blow's daughter is free to keep her hair the way she wants. She does not have to straighten it. But then there comes the upper limit: people like Mr. Blow and his daughter and their likes, cannot question the very fundamentals of the US. What they dislike is the Republicans and that does not bode well for the US.
Same is true about conservatives' excessive disliking of liberals. Mind you, both cannot be equally correct on all counts, wherever they differ, from single perspective. Sure, if one does not want to vote for the Republicans that is perfectly okay but that hatred; eternal among many, against Republicans, is not good, more so, when the Republicans have ruled over the US longer than the Democrats.
The US is what it is because of its productivity and efficiency. From my perspective it is its Constitution and laws, individualism, capitalism, freedom, patriotism, and the most importantly excessive beliefs of early Americans in the God of Gospel which could be the contributing factors for making the US indeed unique and exceptional in the globe. And those need to be maintained irrespective of the great demographic changes taking place in the US.
The productivity and efficiency of the US is very much required for the globe to grow in real term and this fact no liberal should forget. Let the US remains what it has been or even improves for better despite of 'political hair'.