It's been said that books are soon
going to be a thing of the past. Well, at least the paper copies
anyway. Being a book purist I hope that is not the case. Not too
long ago I ran into someone who, being more into the electronic
medium, I was pleased to learn had actually returned to the paper and
ink variety. He had come to realize that there was something special
about the presence of a book, it's feel, it's look, it's aroma. And
they do look so good on a bookshelf.
I have been reading The Swerve, which
is a book about a book hunter. What is so special about this man is
what he found and what he helped put in motion with his discovery.
His name was Poggio and he lived in the 1400's. What he discovered
was a collection of ideas that had been lost. Ideas that helped move
us forward into the modern world.
As I watch what is happening in the
world today I realize how easily people can be misled into turning
off the creative ability of the human mind. It is a tragedy in the
making. Because the opportunity to learn by the free exchange of
ideas is what keeps us progressing. To stifle that is to stagnate.
“Men suffer the worst of evils for
the sake of the most alien desires and they neglect the most
necessary appetites as if they were the most alien to nature. It is
impossible to live pleasurably without living prudently and
honourably and justly, and also without living courageously and
temperately and magnanimously, and without making friends, and
without being philanthropic.” Philodermus
It was these ideas that helped bring
about the Renaissance.
137 comments:
Another one
Apologies for the negative comment :-)
lol!
Pete, I have been on the receiving end of many negative comments. Yours was a milder one, believe me!
As for the book, I'm thinking that Greenblatt and his Poggio succeeded quite well. :) Your comment is actually proof of that. Critical thinking is something that is very necessary to development and progress. Making people think is the first step in dragging them, albeit perhaps kicking and screaming, out of the darkness.
Yes, I agree that no one thing or idea was fundamental in bringing about a renaissance in human history. It was, and will be, a confluence of things.
Btw, one of the things I don't agree with in the book is the idea that there is no afterlife beyond physical death. I strongly disagree with this. That doesn't mean I am a supporter of organized religion, however. We can still have our disagreements on that. ;)
I will check out your links.
Btw, this book is only one on my list of reading material. It's just a question of finding time to get to them all! lol!
"...sometimes I am free for reading, free from all care about public affairs which I leave to my superiors. I live free as much as I can." Poggio
"I wasn't surprised to find that a quick Google turned up a slew of scathing
reviews…"
Criticism of the religious establishment is guaranteed to draw ‘a slew of scathing reviews’.
[Lynnette]: "As for the book, I'm thinking that Greenblatt and his Poggio succeeded quite well. :) Your comment is actually proof of that. Critical thinking is something that is very necessary to development and progress. Making people think is the first step in dragging them, albeit perhaps kicking and screaming, out of the darkness."
I'm wondering if Greenblatt's objective was to make people think, or to see his publisher cut a large cheque. I'd encourage you to have a read of the reviews -- the criticism of his "scholarship" is fairly devastating.
I have read over the reviews you linked to, Pete. Yes, they are very scathing, I must say. Some to the point where I have to question the reviewers motives.
I am not an expert on ancient history so will not even attempt to counter their arguments in that regard. I will say that Greenblatt makes clear in his preface that he doesn't believe that the discovery of Lucretius work by Poggio was the only event to bring about the Renaissance. He also makes no secret of the fact that On the Nature of Things had a profound effect on him. He is obviously writing this book about a subject near and dear to his heart. Of course there would be other people who contributed to advancements in science and civil society. He simply chose to write about an event he found important. His readers can make of it what they will, just like any other theories presented by those who are shouting from their soapbox.
While I may not agree with everything that Lucretius wrote I certainly was impressed with his mental acuity. If his work did not have an effect on the thinking of the time I would be very surprised. But before that could happen it would have to be widely disseminated. Whether or not there were other copies as one critic wrote would be irrelevant if they were not being copied and distributed to those with the ability to read them. Poggio's actions certainly helped in that regard.
And if Greenblatt's book can help people to open their minds to other ideas and to think critically, then it does really deserve to have won the National Book Award. Because in the end that is of profound importance to the future of humanity, IMHO.
Btw, Petes, I downloaded Open Office as you suggested. I used that to write this post, actually. That seemed to work just as well as Microsoft's Office. And even better, it was free! :)
" Some to the point where I have to question the reviewers motives."
Figure a guy writes something critical of the religious establishment, he's gonna hit some people right square in their motive.
"Figure a guy writes something critical of the religious establishment, he's gonna hit some people right square in their motive."
Yep, sycophants as well as critics. You seem determined to question the motives of the latter only. And yet of the five I posted, two are avowed atheists, and one writes for a left wing paper and several times refers to Poggio's employer as John XXIII (which is a bit unlikely since the latter died in 1963).
More to the point, excepting the papally confused one, four of the five are academics, and none engage in profuse defences of the religious establishment. Have you actually read them? The objection in all cases is Greenblatt's cartoon caricature of the middle ages and his pure inventions in the last third of the book which they consider unbecoming of a non-fiction work by a tenured academic.
I doubt if religiously motivated critics will need to raise a murmur -- the academically motivated ones have already done a thorough debunking.
[Lynnette]: "I will say that Greenblatt makes clear in his preface that he doesn't believe that the discovery of Lucretius work by Poggio was the only event to bring about the Renaissance."
That's a curious place to hide an admission in a book subtitled "How the Renaissance began".
[Lynnette]: "He also makes no secret of the fact that On the Nature of Things had a profound effect on him. He is obviously writing this book about a subject near and dear to his heart."
So he's biased. Mmmmmkkay...
[Lynnette]: "Of course there would be other people who contributed to advancements in science and civil society. He simply chose to write about an event he found important."
But other academics say that Lucretius wasn't at all influential in the way that is claimed. And they accuse Greenblatt of making stuff up out of thin air. It's one thing to write about something you find important -- surely it's a whole different kettle of fish if the importance is only imagined. Leastways, that is, if the work is allegedly non-fiction.
"You seem determined to question the motives of the latter only."
Actually, I was thinking mostly of you.
I didn't write the reviews. Are you imagining some elaborate conspiracy in which I faked all those web pages?
You read the book?
Read it? I never even heard of it until Lynnette posted.
Merriam-Wester
crit·ic noun \ˈkri-tik\
"Definition of CRITIC
1 a : one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter especially involving a
judgment of its value, truth, righteousness, beauty, or technique
b : one who engages often professionally in the analysis, evaluation, or
appreciation of works of art or artistic performances"
More Merriam-Webster
"1 cri·tique noun \krə-ˈtēk, kri-\
: a careful judgment in which you give your opinion about the good and bad parts of
something (such as a piece of writing or a work of art)"
A critic's critique can be either favorable or unfavorable. The terms are neutral as to the content of the product. ‘Fawning sycophant’ is decidedly not neutral. You are decidedly not neutral. You already know the hostile critiques are ‘fairly devastating’ and favorable ones are from ‘fawning sycophants’.
You didn't need to know any more than that the author was critical of The Church.
"You already know the ... favorable ones are from ‘fawning sycophants’."
You certainly didn't glean that from anything I wrote. So let's agree you made that one up. I won't question your prejudices, since that would be rude. We'll put it down to an honest mistake.
Neither of my criticisms in the top comment mention "The Church" (nor does Lynnette's post nor the Greenblatt interview), and my main criticism was simply that neither Poggio nor Lucretius started the Renaissance, nor really had a whole lot to do with it. That is based on my own knowledge.
It's also why I wasn't surprised to find critical reviews from people who were clearly qualified to discuss the matter. I don't consider them hostile, unless pointing out Greenblatt's manifest errors and inconsistencies is hostile. They say of Greenblatt's main thesis that he "has virtually no evidence to justify this assumption, while a massive amount exists for constructing a different story" and that "The Swerve did not deserve the awards it received because it is filled with factual inaccuracies and founded upon a view of history not shared by serious scholars of the periods Greenblatt studies".
I'd happily read positive reviews from serious scholars, but I didn't find any. Maybe you can, assuming you're interested in the topic for it's own sake and not just the question of my neutrality.
"You certainly didn't glean that from anything I wrote."
Of course I did; couldn't help but…
Yes, of course you're right. You did. What I should have said is: "I didn't write it".
♪♫ One and one and one is three ♫♪
♪♫ He say "I know you, you know me" ♫♪
... he's wrong, of course.
"... he's wrong, of course."
So ya say.
Easy to test: see if my mind is changed by those positive scholarly reviews ...
I'd think any valid test would have required first that you at least have read the book before deciding which critiques were ‘fairly devastating’ and were the product of ‘fawning sycophants’.
Typo correction:
I'd think any valid test would have required first that you at least have read the book before deciding which critiques were ‘fairly devastating’ and which were the product of ‘fawning sycophants’.
Otherwise we'd merely be testing how cleverly you could defend a conclusion you'd already jumped to on the basis of the defense of The Church as your guiding principle.
The objection in all cases is Greenblatt's cartoon caricature of the middle ages and his pure inventions in the last third of the book which they consider unbecoming of a non-fiction work by a tenured academic.
Well that could certainly be their motives, Pete, I am not a mind reader. It is just that at least one seemed particularly nasty, suggesting something akin to jealousy. I have heard that academia can be dog eat dog.
That's a curious place to hide an admission in a book subtitled "How the Renaissance began".
Actually the subtitle is " How the World Became Modern".
So he's biased. Mmmmmkkay...
lol! I'm not quite sure what your point is here? Are you saying that the Renaissance did not lead to the modern world? Or that Lucretius had no role to play?
But other academics say that Lucretius wasn't at all influential in the way that is claimed.
Greenblatt is not the only author to suggest that the ideas first put forth by Epicurus, on which Lucretius based his work, were influential to the modern world.
Epicureanism at the Origins of Modernity Catherine Wilson
Lucretius and the Modern World W.R. Johnson
Epicurus: His Continuing Influence and Contemporary Relevance Dane R. Gordon and David B. Suits
Sources are taken from The Swerve.
And they accuse Greenblatt of making stuff up out of thin air. It's one thing to write about something you find important -- surely it's a whole different kettle of fish if the importance is only imagined.
Even if he did "make stuff up out of thin air" that doesn't necessarily mean the importance of Lucretius work to the modern world is incorrect. That only means that this author chose to present his theory poorly.
I would also like to point out one small thing, that I do give credit to one of the reviewers for picking up on. The book's story really centers around Poggio and his life. While Greenblatt chooses to focus on his discovery of the poem by Lucretius he does point out one other thing that we really need to applaud Poggio for. He, along with a few others, helped transform Carolingian minuscule into a form of writing that was the basis for the type we call "roman". Legible writing opens up a whole world of possibility for change. Certainly I would call it a step towards the modern world. :)
"It is just that at least one [review] seemed particularly nasty, suggesting something akin to jealousy."
To use your own words, that's poor presentation on the part of the reviewer but it doesn't make him wrong.
"Actually the subtitle is " How the World Became Modern"."
Only in the US. Elsewhere it's "How the Renaissance Began". I don't think either is better or worse -- both seem highly over-reaching.
"Are you saying that the Renaissance did not lead to the modern world?"
Led to it in the sense that it occurred before it? Yes, ok. Led to it, as in that it was the necessary precursor ... I'm more inclined to go with the idea of the longue durée, that the passage from classical antiquity (and before) to now was a far more tortuous path than any potted history can convey. Even the nomenclature of the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment, and the Dark Ages and Middle Ages, all of them were made up by people who wanted to show how all the preceding history pointed to their own time as the pinnacle of civilisation (i.e. doing what Greenblatt is doing here). I don't believe any of that stuff, or that any age (let alone any one person) can lay claim to "the" decisive lurch toward modernity (whatever that is).
"Greenblatt is not the only author to suggest that the ideas first put forth by Epicurus, on which Lucretius based his work, were influential to the modern world."
That's not the point at issue though. Greenblatt's thesis is that the manuscript of De Rerum Natura as uncovered by Poggio decisively influenced history. Why, for instance, was that more decisive than the decision of the monks who copied it several hundred years earlier, so that it even existed to be discovered. Oh yeah, the evil monks only copied it so that they could hide it ;-)
"Even if he did "make stuff up out of thin air" that doesn't necessarily mean the importance of Lucretius work to the modern world is incorrect. That only means that this author chose to present his theory poorly."
LOL. Poor presentation is an interesting way to describe lying.
Oh, forgot to acknowledge your point about Poggio and Roman writing. Did you know that Carolingian minuscule arose in a period sometimes called the Carolingian Renaissance? And that it's the first of three Renaissances, starting 700 years before Poggio's discovery? And if Poggio's development of writing is significant, it's hardly more significant than Gutenberg's contribution a couple of decades later. (Gutenberg used Blackletter, before he used Roman typefaces).
"Oh yeah, the evil monks only copied it so that they could hide it."
Oh, come now. You can do better than that. There's no reason to assume the monk who copied it is the same monk who ‘hid’ it. There's absolutely no chance that the scrivener lived ‘several hundred years’ and kept control over that manuscript.
"There's no reason to assume the monk who copied it is the same monk who ‘hid’ it."
Ah. Thanks for bringing that up. There's no reason to suppose that anyone hid it.
So that line was a complete red herring?
On Greenblatt's part, yes.
You've taken the overnight opportunity to read the book, have ya?
*smothered laughter*
Oh, it feels just like old times! Well, except some people are missing, but still...
I know I owe you a comment, Petes, but it will have to wait for a bit. No time to chat, gotta get to work.
"On Greenblatt's part, yes."
It has occurred to me, Greenblatt hasn't been posting here. You can't blame that red herring on him; that was all your doin’. (I don't think you've read the book either.)
To use your own words, that's poor presentation on the part of the reviewer but it doesn't make him wrong.
That review I was referring to was the one by the German blogger Baerista, who did the guest review. When I tried to look at his blog I noticed it was missing, so I'm not sure what his credentials are?
[Lynnette]: "Actually the subtitle is " How the World Became Modern"."
[Petes]: Only in the US. Elsewhere it's "How the Renaissance Began". I don't think either is better or worse -- both seem highly over-reaching.
Maybe so. I am not sure who actually titles the book, but I'm thinking that since the titles may be different in different countries the publisher has a great deal of say in that. However, that does not alter the fact that Greenblatt does indeed feel that the recovery of Lucretius' poem On the Nature of Things was "the key moment" that helped the world "swerve" in a new direction. And all of his caveats aside, whether he proved that is certainly debatable.
I don't believe any of that stuff, or that any age (let alone any one person) can lay claim to "the" decisive lurch toward modernity (whatever that is).
I can agree with this. For a real change of any magnitude to occur it takes more than one person contributing. And "modern" is merely the term for the present day. I don't think there is any deeper meaning for it than that.
Greenblatt's thesis is that the manuscript of De Rerum Natura as uncovered by Poggio decisively influenced history. Why, for instance, was that more decisive than the decision of the monks who copied it several hundred years earlier, so that it even existed to be discovered. Oh yeah, the evil monks only copied it so that they could hide it ;-)
Not having lived in that time period I can't attest to anyone hiding or not hiding anything. But there are apparently some scholars out there who feel that certain parties may not have wanted that document too openly disseminated.
What should have been noted is that Platonism, or, more properly, Neoplatonism, swept the field in late antiquity. Epicureanism and its texts fell out of favor and, consequently, into extinction, not just because of religious hostility, but as much or more because of the fact that virtually all pagan intellectuals of philosophic bent had become Platonists and, for that reason, detested Epicureanism.
Professor John Monfasani
University at Albany, State University of New York
Poor presentation is an interesting way to describe lying.
What exactly did he lie about?
Having never read Lucretius' poem I am finding his ideas to be amazingly prescient. This struck me as being something we really should consider, given the looming issue of climate change:
The universe was not created for or about humans. The earth-with its seas and deserts, harsh climate, wild beasts, diseases-was obviously not purpose-built to make our species feel at home.
The fate of the entire species (let alone that of any individual) is not the pole around which everything revolves. Indeed, there is no reason to believe that human beings as a species will last forever. On the contrary, it is clear that, over the infinite expanses of time, some species grow, others disappear, generated and destroyed in the ceaseless process of change. There were other forms of life before us, which no longer exist; there will be other forms of life after us, when our kind has vanished.
(*cough* *cough* I couldn't help it. I had to get in a point about climate change. It is kind of my pet issue. :))
Lee,
I see the Turkish parliament has authorized the use of military force against ISIL.
I noticed this morning that they had a vote scheduled. They're seemingly getting bent about ISIS taking a shrine in Syria that's very important to the Turks (it's actually considered a Turkish enclave, surrounded by Syrian territory; the Turks supply the military guards for the shrine and it's considered Turkish ‘territory’ under international law.)
[Lynnette]: "Having never read Lucretius' poem I am finding his ideas to be amazingly prescient."
The bit you quoted seems pretty amazing alright. I must go read the whole thing. Your previous post, I see nothing to disagree with, except you asked what Greenblatt lied about. Perhaps misrepresented would be better. Hypatia wasn't killed for being an intellectual, and she wasn't the last Alexandrian intellectual, female or otherwise. The Catholic Church didn't ban "curiosity" -- Greenblatt seems to have mistranslated curiositas which means gossip/vulgar interest. Other conjectures are just super-unrealistic ... the idea that Thomas More (a canonised saint) was a closet Epicurean seems a tad outlandish. And so on.
It appears that Turkey is also getting some incentive from the PKK as well.
Possibly further gains by ISIL in Iraq. Although it looks like the fighting continues in that area.
Petes,
Having never studied philosophy in college I was very intrigued by the depth of the ideas put forth by Epicurus and Lucretius. I may have to look into reading material for further study.
I may not agree with everything from Lucretius' writings that Greenblatt chose to put in the book, but it is still fascinating reading.
Sometimes I get the feeling that college may be wasted on younger people. While I was never the bar hopping kind of college student I was also never...ummm...too studious either. :) Now I am finding some of these subjects far more interesting.
Some pretty amazing footage of the eruption of the volcano in Iceland.
Really nasty day today, cold, wet and windy. Not a good day to do leaves, so I think I'll bake cookies. :)
On a completely unrelated matter I have to say I'm getting worried about this Ebola situation in west Africa.
Now, it might seem callous to state that I'm GETTING worried when over 3000 lives have already been lost to that horrible decease. But what I'm saying is that I'm becoming worried that it could get a whole lot worse.
I read that an Italian (Not An Italian as we know him but an Italian national) professor suggested that if the situation isn't turned around quickly west Africa could have a million infected people by the end of the year, which could bring about complete anarchy and hinder any efforts except quarantine of the entire region.
I also read an article claiming that whenever a new victim is infected there are billions of new viruses bred in that single host. And that Ebola is an "unstable" replicating virus prone to morphing. The worst scenario then would be that the virus, with so many new replications, will morph and that one of the new strains will be airborne.
Great footage Lynnette, and thanks for sharing it. That volcano looked like my throat felt last weekend after indulging in way too much white wine at a social event. I need to learn to stay away from that stuff since it gives me severe heartburn. Red wine seems to work fine though, so I have an option.
"I'm getting worried about this Ebola situation in west Africa."
We're sending troops, military construction, guys who usually expect to build airfields and forward bases, to build medical facilities and needed infrastructure. We have soldiers already on the ground, moving dirt and raising walls.
No problem, Marcus. I always rather enjoyed the stream of consciousness type of conversation that we used to have over at Zeyad's. As far as I am concerned free discussion, within reason of course, is the purpose of having a comments section.
The problem with the Ebola outbreak is that time is of the essence. While we have sent troops to put in place needed infrastructure, we are in a race with the virus. That is why President Obama has called on other nations to help in that fight.
And I hate to beat a dead horse, but this is one of those times where people like Bruno were completely wrong in the necessity of the United States having a robust military that is able to operate anywhere in the world. Because in times of crisis such as this they do have a very good organizational capability that allows them to be of help.
I have heard that red wine, moderately drunk, is actually very good for you. All of those anti-oxidants you know. ;)
What about getting moderatly drunk using red wine? ;)
lol!
You know what they say, everything in moderation. :)
"We're sending troops, military construction, guys who usually expect to build airfields and forward bases, to build medical facilities and needed infrastructure. We have soldiers already on the ground, moving dirt and raising walls."
"...this is one of those times where people like Bruno were completely wrong in the necessity of the United States having a robust military that is able to operate anywhere in the world. Because in times of crisis such as this they do have a very good organizational capability that allows them to be of help"
It could be argued that a suitably resourced civilian effort could achieve the same thing without the wasteful overheads of the military.
"Sometimes I get the feeling that college may be wasted on younger people. While I was never the bar hopping kind of college student I was also never...ummm...too studious either. :) Now I am finding some of these subjects far more interesting."
Ditto. When I was younger I only studied technical subjects, even though I was interested on other stuff back then too. Now I'm getting a chance to study science more formally, it's been an eye-opener. On the other hand, it's also a bummer, because I've realised how specialised real scientists are in their day jobs, and how far beyond the typical undergraduate student almost any area of science gets when you go into the detail.
I expect it's the same with philosophy and history too. I have a sibling who has studied philosophy to master's degree level, and other acquaintances with doctorates of divinity, so I've picked up a little by osmosis... enough to know that it's a similar hornets' nest when you get specialised (and that Greenblatt is mostly spinning a yarn).
"Really nasty day today, cold, wet and windy. Not a good day to do leaves, so I think I'll bake cookies. :)"
I think our summer died yesterday. Was dark enough to have lights on all day, and the rain came down in an unending vertical torrent. Today, amazingly, is beautifully bright and clear, but temps are down nearly ten degrees C on last week. It feels a lot more like autumn now. More showers and a few overnight frosts are forecast for the next while.
"It could be argued that a suitably resourced civilian effort could achieve the same thing without the wasteful overheads of the military."
What's needed now is speed. Efficiency is a good thing; speed is a necessary thing. I would be pleased to surrender the effort to a more efficient, suitably resourced civilian effort by the EU, or even the Catholic Church. Reckon you guys can have that on the ground in the next week or so?
British IS hostage Alan Henning was murdered. Don't know if you saw the coverage in the last couple of days of his soon-to-be-widow pleading for his release. Henning drove charity convoys to Syria to help Muslim victims of the conflict there. There had been some hope that his humanitarian record might make some difference to his captors. I think the IS PR department has made a tactical mistake on this one, or rather is showing the true colours of the sadistic morons running the show. Unfortunately it doesn't bode well for the American humanitarian worker, Peter Kassig, who was also seen in the Henning video.
"Reckon you guys can have that on the ground in the next week or so?"
The Catholic Church was working on the ground long before your boys got there and will be there long after they leave, on direct medical care, education, and humanitarian aid. Many Catholic health workers have already died trying to combat the initial outbreak. Yore welcome.
Erdoğan has now said, in a public statement on Turkish TV, that Turkey will not move militarily to save the Kurdish town of Kobane, near its border, from being overrun by ISIS. Erdoğan says he does not want to ‘widen the war’.
American air strikes have not yet broken the siege there either.
"The Catholic Church was working on the ground long before your boys got there and will be
there long after they leave."
We went from talking about a ‘suitably resourced civilian effort’ to a few straggling Catholic aid workers? That's your ‘suitably resourced civilian effort’?
Fact is:
The only entity that can move in rapidly enough and with enough knowhow into this Ebola crisis is:
The armed forces of the USA.
Maybe there should exist other forces, but there are none. Not today.
I hope ya'll went in soon enough and that ya'll will be able to make a difference and kill this bug.
The boys will build what they're asked to build; buildings, fences, bridges, roads, communications networks, whatever, and get it up quick. I'm hoping somebody's got a plan for what to build.
Greenblatt is mostly spinning a yarn
And yet it did win a Pulitzer. Oh well, it did get me interested in a subject that I had not pursued in the past. That's something. :)
I think our summer died yesterday.
Still unseasonably chilly here. But at least the sun came out and the winds dried up everything enough for me to do leaves. I spent a productive two and a half hours vacuuming and mowing. It looks nice, for now. But I know that I will be spending weekends for the next month or so, at least, buried in leaves.
We were fortunate we didn't get the snow they predicted.
There had been some hope that his humanitarian record might make some difference to his captors.
I'm sorry to say that I never for a moment believed there to be any hope that a humanitarian appeal would work with ISIL. It has not in the past and there was no reason to think it would do so now. The people in leadership positions are not on the same page as humanity. May he and all the innocents who have lost their lives due to the brutality of this Frankenstein monster rest in peace.
Many Catholic health workers have already died trying to combat the initial outbreak.
And the outbreak still continues, which means they weren't successful in stopping it. We must try to make sure their sacrifice wasn't in vain.
Erdoğan has now said, in a public statement on Turkish TV, that Turkey will not move militarily to save the Kurdish town of Kobane, near its border, from being overrun by ISIS.
The Kurds don't want Turkish help. They just want more weapons and airstrikes.
American air strikes have not yet broken the siege there either.
They apparently got serious about bombing in the region tonight.
#Kurds
I think the mistake that everyone makes is assuming that their area is the most critical to this fight. Kobane is certainly important, but I think the order of bombing started with command and control structures. So you may not see much effect in the beginning, but it will have an effect in the future.
I hope ya'll went in soon enough and that ya'll will be able to make a difference and kill this bug.
I think we all hope that. This could end up being even more serious than the ISIL problem.
[Marcus]: "The only entity that can move in rapidly enough and with enough knowhow into this Ebola crisis is: The armed forces of the USA."
What makes you think the armed forces of the USA (or of any country for that matter) are qualified to tackle a viral epidemic?
[Lee C]: "The boys will build what they're asked to build; buildings, fences, bridges, roads, communications networks, whatever, and get it up quick. I'm hoping somebody's got a plan for what to build."
Even you are making them sound clueless.
[Lynnette]: "And the outbreak still continues, which means they weren't successful in stopping it. We must try to make sure their sacrifice wasn't in vain."
Don't worry, not all the Catholics died. :-)
And the living ones will be doing a lot more than Lee C's bridge-building, fence-building, road-building squaddies. One simple thing they will be addressing that the Yanks won't, is educating people about the dangers of traditional burials of Ebola victims, which is contributing to the spread. You have to be out in the communuity for that (and they do, after all, run a third of the schools on the entire continent).
"Even you are making them sound clueless."
I was the one who was ‘clueless’, as you call it. I hadn't heard a word about their opening mission; I have since heard the word. Turns out they're first going to build 17 scattered ‘treatment centers’, not exactly hospitals, but places where Ebola specifically can be treated, and not incidentally, the patients also isolated from direct physical contact with the general population. (Visitations across a controlled gap of specified distance to prevent transmission, facilities for storage and disposal of contaminated personal and medical articles, and stuff like that.)
Seems to me to be the correct first step.
Next would come medical personnel and supplies to staff the treatment facilities.
And the living ones will be doing a lot more than Lee C's bridge-building, fence-building, road-building squaddies.
I am thinking this epidemic is big enough to require all the help the people of Africa can get. And since the US was asked directly to help then I am sure we are trying to make a contribution that will make a difference.
I've no doubt of it :)
BBC broadcast this morning says Turkey has driven Turkish Kurds out of their villages along the border with Syria near Kobane. It appears the intent is to isolate the Kurdish defenders in Kobane, simultaneously preventing them from receiving any reinforcements and blocking any retreat into Turkey. ISIS has continued its attack on Kobane with heavier weapons than the defending Kurds possess, and has gained some ground.
American airstrikes have so far not been enough to cause ISIS to break off their offensive.
I think Turkish attempts to improve its position with regard to its "Kurdish problem" at the same time as taking on IS will backfire. Especially if, as rumoured, the PKK ceasefire is called off this month. Both Kurds and Turks will be fighting on two fronts unnecessarily.
"…at the same time as taking on IS…"
I haven't seen any sign the Turks really are taking on ISIS. They've made noises in the Turkish parliament about it. They've not mobilized any forces, other than against the Kurds.
Sky News (a Murdoch / News Corp company, and therefore sister company of Fox News, but not batshit insane like Fox) had an extensive piece from Liberia today. Their reporter was -- rather bravely -- travelling with a body collection unit around the capital, Monrovia. It was, quite literally, reminiscent of the corpse carts and cries of "bring out your dead" during the Black Death in Europe. All corpses are now ordered to be cremated, regardless of the cause of death.
The body collectors don't have the resources to disinfect the houses of all the Ebola victims, so they are limited to just taking the bodies away. The workers in the unit have been attacked by locals, and been ostracised by their own families, some of whom have refused to let them back into their homes, or will only give them food outdoors in a plastic bag.
Meanwhile in quarantine units, there is insufficient isolation between the dead, the infected, and the recovering. There are insufficient places in general, and a general lack of resources. The news items showed scared looking survivors, who admittedly said they were being treated very well, while round the corner from where others were being treated, a dead body was being sloshed down with disinfectants.
Interestingly, the reporter mentioned the presence of American boots on the ground at the end of the piece. Where she was staying was close to where thousands of American troops were building a new quarantine centre for 800 to 1,000 patients.
However, she said the American building effort was scheduled to take months, and there was no American involvement in the pathetically under-resourced effort in the communities, which is where the battle to contain the epidemic will be won or lost.
So I think in answer to Marcus's original hope, the US military effort is probably very useful, necessary, and welcome ... but it won't be the decisive factor in containing the epidemic. Indeed, given the exponential spread we've seen in the last few months, the battle could be already won or lost before the American efforts see the light of day.
It appears the intent is to isolate the Kurdish defenders in Kobane, simultaneously preventing them from receiving any reinforcements and blocking any retreat into Turkey.
If this is their intent, I agree with Pete, it will backfire. They will only encourage Kurdish rebellion within Turkey, ISIL will become more dominate on their border, and they will seriously piss of a major ally, the United States. Because this will only make the ISIL problem more difficult to deal with.
P.S. And it will also make it more obvious that Biden was an idiot for apologizing to Erdogan for his remarks earlier about the revolving door ISIL fighters are using at the Turkish/Syrian border.
Meanwhile in quarantine units, there is insufficient isolation between the dead, the infected, and the recovering. There are insufficient places in general, and a general lack of resources.
And that is what is needed to prevent further spread of the virus. The infrastructure needs to be built to provide this.
Indeed, given the exponential spread we've seen in the last few months, the battle could be already won or lost before the American efforts see the light of day.
This may be true, as what has been done so far has been insufficient to stop the virus. It has been allowed to spread alarmingly.
The body collectors don't have the resources to disinfect the houses of all the Ebola victims, so they are limited to just taking the bodies away.
From what I gather the virus does not live long outside the host body. While disinfectant will certainly be necessary, keeping the homes closed for now should help contain the virus I would think.
"…Biden was an idiot for apologizing to Erdogan…"
I don't think that was Biden's call. I think Obama ordered it. According to what I've read, Biden called Erdogan; Erdogan demanded an apology on the phone. I don't think Erdogan would have demanded an apology if he'd not been certain one was in the offing. To have made the demand and been rebuffed would have cost him face.
Biden's public apology was for conveying the impression that Turkey might be ‘intentionally’ promoting ISIS. (Biden's office describes it as a ‘clarification’.)
News on Twitter is that there have been protests by Kurds in support of Kobane in Germany, Sweden, & Turkey.
Syria long ago turned into a free-for-all. The Kurds are about the only players we can count on to not join side with ISIS, and I include in that the Iranians (who've been known to harbor al-Qaeda).
NBC Nightly News is reporting that ISIS has taken Kobane. They've raised their flag in the city center. There may be pockets of Kurdish holdouts in the town, but they've lost their center. Turkey has moved additional tanks and artillery and troops up to the border behind Kobane to make sure the Kurdish fighters can't escape.
I think the Kurds can quite properly question why the hell we couldn't get them some close air support. I surely do question it.
Maybe the support has been too close already -- I read a report that seemed to be saying airstrikes had killed some Kurds along with IS attackers. It was badly worded though, I could be wrong.
The Kurds aren't hanging around though: they've killed fifteen IS militants in a female suicide attack. Turkey can dick around with tanks on the border. For the Kurds this is an existential issue.
Pete: "What makes you think the armed forces of the USA (or of any country for that matter) are qualified to tackle a viral epidemic?"
Tackle? Depends on what you mean by that. I do believe they will make the situation very much better (or less bad) by building treatment facilities and providing necessities. They can do much to improve the conditions so that medical staff have a chance to work in acceptable conditions. And I don't really see any other organisation that could have done that important part. Possibly the UN, but that would also mean military forces only under a different flag. Might as well go with the most capable force without delay.
I've read the facilities that exist will soon be overwhelmed, if they aren't already. If there are no medical facilities to treat the infected they will remain out in the society, spreading the disease further. So yes, I do believe the physical infrastructure that the US military is there to help with is critically important.
But even more critical is probably to try to get enough medical staff on the ground there. That's where we need a widespread and global committment where many different nations and organisations pool their resources and act quickly. Then again, they have to have some place to work, so it's a combination that's needed.
Hmm... I need to clarify that:
"I do believe they will make the situation very much better (or less bad) by building treatment facilities and providing necessities."
I mean that compared not to the present situation, but compared to what it would have turned out like if they hadn't gone in.
It looks like it will get one hell of a lot worse in any scenario, but I think those actions will alleviate the coming disaster to a degree.
Last I heard the Kurds were claiming they still held downtown Kobane although ISIS is in town and is advancing. Fighting continues street by street.
Apparently Turkey is calling it for ISIS. And as you alluded to earlier, Lee, they have apparently been trying to use this situation to extort desired things from the West and in particular the United States. While I tend to agree with some of the things they want, I do not at all approve of their using the people of Kobani as their pry bar.
Marcus,
I will print out your article to read when I get a chance. Thanks.
"…they have apparently been trying to use this situation to extort desired things
from the West and in particular the United States."
They want things from the Kurds too. They wanted the Kurds in Kobani to agree to a Turkish "buffer zone" inside Syrian Kurdish territory that included Kobani--i.e. surrender the city to the Turks or face down ISIS. The Kurds have apparently decided to go down fighting.
I have to admire the Kurds tenacity and courage. They are the kind of people you really do want to "ride to the rescue" for.
Besides which, when given the opportunity they worked hard at making something of their piece of land. It may not be perfect, but at least they aren't bogged down in sectarianism.
Marcus,
I read the article. Ahhh, it's kind of a relief to see that other people have issues with potential allies.
Actually, my very first take on that was that al-Nusra has lost enough defectors to ISIS, and possibly other causes, that they are trying to put a good face on it and ally with them. My second take was that ISIS is willing to accept that because some of their people also seem to have gone missing and they are in need of commanders and fighters. Because while they may be able to recruit a lot of cannon fodder, true leaders and experienced fighters are harder to find.
Whatever the true motives are, I'm thinking that this whole mess is creating some very odd allies of convenience.
"…the current estimate is that the Army’s and Navy’s engineers can have their
first set of 17 Ebola treatment units finished by mid-November…
Politico
[Marcus]: "I do believe they will make the situation very much better (or less bad) by building treatment facilities and providing necessities... I do believe the physical infrastructure that the US military is there to help with is critically important."
It's definitely important but how effective is it going to be? How do we know if it's enough? I plucked some numbers straight off the TV screen on BBC News just now. The number of deaths to date is 3,429. The number of survivors is "something under a half", according to a British doctor working in a hospital in Freetown. That means the number of infections is ~5,730.
They showed a graph of the infection rate between April and October, and it was clear that there has been an exponential rate of increase (as you expect for an epidemic), with a doubling time of almost exactly a month. With a few calculations, I determine that to be a continuous rate of increase 2.3% per day.
What does that mean? It means that the current infection rate is >130 per day. In 30 days time it will be >260, in 60 days it will be more than 500 per day. If the Yanks finish their 1000-bed unit in 90 days, by that time it will accommodate exactly one day's worth of new infections.
Ok, this is the total number of west African infections, and the unit is just one in one location, but you get the picture.
[Lee C]: "...the current estimate is that the Army’s and Navy’s engineers can have their first set of 17 Ebola treatment units finished by mid-November"
It doesn't say what size the units are but I see from here that it is 17 x 100. That's a good number, and it's not much more than 30 days away -- much better than the numbers I was working off.
Nevertheless, the numbers are scary and there's no room for naive optimism. The doctor I mentioned in Freetown gave an interview in which he said medics were blown away by the scale of the problem which they didn't expect to exceed a couple of hundred cases. A few months ago they scoffed at estimates of 20,000 ... now they are saying it could hit a million. He said that in six months the number of new cases per day could exceed the total number of infections so far, which is in line with my numbers.
"That's a good number, and it's not much more than 30 days away -- much
better than the numbers I was working off."
That's the estimate for the initial deployment, first round, which was around 3,000 men and women. They're already upped the call to 4,000. May be more coming down the pike. And they'll keep building as long as we tell them to build and send them supplies.
Turkish police have killed nine people in Kurdish demonstrations around the country calling for government action on Kobane.
There are beginning to be hints that Turkey and the U.S.A. have been engaged in a stare-down over Kobani. American officials said there were no close air support missions being (or been) undertaken anywhere in Syria, and that they have to keep their eyes on the strategic objective and that Iraq is currently a bombing priority. Supposedly, there have also been certain so-far unnamed hints dropped that it's time for the Turks to step up to the plate here.
On the other side, the Turks appear still confident we'll pull their chestnuts out of the fire if it's necessary, and have told the Americans dropping hints to step up air-strikes if they're all that concerned about Kobani.
Erdogan is a not too closeted Islamist himself, and may remember that Turkey was at the head of the old Islamic Caliphate for almost its entire lifespan. He may not be as concerned about an Islamic State coming into existence as are the monarchies of Southern Arabia, who harbor no illusions that they could claim the Imperial Islamic crown.
I don't think that's quite the whole story. Erdogan also is taking the line of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". He want to see the Shia/Alewite Assad regime gone, so why would he want to hurt IS who are the major thorn in Assad's side?
Analysts reckon it's likely that at meetings with the Yanks later in the week, Erdogan will be looking for American commitment to airstrikes on Assad's forces in return for Erdogan supporting moderate Sunni's (including Kurds?) against IS. That'll be an interesting one because I don't think the Yanks are planning to agree to attacks on Assad (which would cause a political ruckus for both Obama and Cameron. In the absence of that, it remains to be seen what sort of leverage can be brought to bear on Erdogan.
Spain has reported the first case of an Ebola infected patient outside of Africa. A nurse who had cared for Ebola patients in Spain has contracted the disease. This is the secondary danger that people have been avoiding mentioning, in public anyway. We will have infected people outside of Africa and it will be necessary to be very careful in our handling of the patients to avoid spreading the disease. We don't want a regional outbreak to become a worldwide one.
Erdogan would do better to support the Kurds. All he is doing is ticking off everyone and risking his standing in NATO. He may have no problem with the Islamists, but many of his allies do.
The demonstrations have been going on quite a few countries, all allies of Turkey.
"I don't think that's quite the whole story."
Wasn't intended to be.
"…it remains to be seen what sort of leverage can be brought to bear on
Erdogan."
I think he'll win any stare-down at this point. The status quo currently favors him. I think Obama might as well get used to that idea and start figuring on what to learn from Kobani besides blaming Erdogan. Ramping up air support, if it's not already too late, would be one idea.
The biggest lesson as I see it is that you cannot win against ISIL with air power alone, which they already know. If they are going to win they will need to make sure their allies on the ground are reliable and capable of fighting ISIL. That means they will have to be our forces or forces that are equally as well equipped, trained, and motivated to fight as ISIL.
The ISIS fighters outnumber and outgun the Kurds at Kobani. I think the Kurds have outfought them, man for man. But the Kurds are outnumbered and outgunned.
Turkey closing the borders to Kurdish reinforcements doesn't help. Nor does the lack of supplies of heavier weapons. Although I can see our reluctance there after what happened in Iraq. We are kind of caught between a rock and a hard place in that situation.
Looks like the US has a response for Erdogan's strong arm tactics. If he wants a buffer zone he'll have to step up and help create it.
Nevertheless… I was looking at those tanks lines Turkey had laid in to cut off any Kurdish retreat from Kobani. And then I looked again at the shots of the captured tanks that ISIS was using to attack Kobani. It occurred to me that we might point out to the Turks that the Kobani Kurds seemed to be in need of some anti-tank rocketry, which we could supply, and which we could be fairly confident they'd neither give up to ISIS nor use against us.
Yes, that's not a bad idea. Now if someone in our government would just get on the ball...
The Turks have the third largest air-force in NATO. With facilities to match. Currently, we're not allowed to use air bases in Turkey to move against ISIS (not even the one we lease and fly an American flag over in Incirlik). I think Erdogan needs to be asked to explain that, perhaps publicly.
"If he wants a buffer zone he'll have to step up and help create it."
Let's look at that realistically. Whom does Erdogan want a buffer zone against? ISIS? Why would he want a buffer zone against ISIS? That would imply that his plan leaves ISIS in control of Syria. We should probably let him know we are not interested in that plan. (I hope to hell they're not showing any interest in that plan behind closed doors.)
Look again at that last map Zeyad put up. Kurds across a majority of Turkey's southern border. Are we really going to agree to give Erdogan a big chunk of Syrian Kurdish territory in order to buy his cooperation against ISIS?
The Ebola patient in Texas has died. They had tried an experimental drug. It was the same drug they are trying on the photographer in Nebraska. Hopefully they started him on it earlier.
I think Erdogan was referring to a buffer zone between Turkey and government controlled Syria. He seems concerned that a vacuum in the area would leave it open to Assad's forces.
The control of any kind of safe zone along the Syrian border with Turkey will be problematic for various factions in the region. I can't see Turkey wanting it controlled by the Kurds, because that would only encourage their independence movement within Turkey. The Kurds would not want to see it controlled by ISIL, for obvious reasons. The solution would have to be a neutral third party, like the UN, if they were actually able to function decently. I am always ambivalent about UN forces because of what happened at Srebrenica. But they couldn't even function unless ISIL is dealt with. So who does that leave us with?
Yes, I agree that Erdogan needs to decide who his allies really are.
"Erdogan needs to decide who his allies really are."
I think that could be said about us. I also think it's high time to tell Erdogan that we want him either onboard, or we go ahead without him. (That vote in the Turkish parliament was only intended to get him back inside our planning circle so he could make his moves based on what he thought he could get out of having prior knowledge of our moves.)
"So who does that leave us with?"
That leaves us telling Erdogan his Turkish ‘buffer zone’ is a non-starter; ain't gonna happen.
"I think Erdogan was referring to a buffer zone between Turkey and government
controlled Syria."
When the Kurds asked him to shell ISIS, he insisted they agree to surrender Kobani and environs to the Turkish "buffer zone", else they could deal with ISIS on their own.
It looks like they are not quite on their own yet. The air strikes seemed to have had some effect on ISIL in Kobani. Perhaps the US has actually gotten "pissed off" at Erdogan, as someone suggested, and has decided to do it without him.
The Kurds are still fighting in Kobani. ISIS seems to have amped it up in response to our air strikes; they're serious ‘bout takin’ the place, but the Kurds are still hangin’ in there.
I think that student is right, the fight will move to Turkey. Erdogan played his cards wrong. He had a nice straight flush going but discarded the center card.
I left a link up in the other comments section regarding ISIL and Iran.
"Erdogan played his cards wrong."
Erdogan appears to have followed Petes' advice (Mon Oct 06, 08:01:00 am, supra) and is only working on one enemy front at a time. It appears the enemy he's picked to work on is the Kurds.
Mistake. But that was his choice.
I'm not clear on what you consider to be the nature of his error.
It appears the enemy he's picked to work on is the Kurds.
I still don't get it. Why would that be an error from Erdogan's perspective? What makes you think he's not more institutionally interested in keeping the Kurds down than in taking out ISIS?
Why would that be an error from Erdogan's perspective?
It would be an error if it costs him more in internal strife than taking on ISIL would have. And my bet is, it will.
Ah… I see. I'm thinking he's willing to take on the ‘internal strife’; after all, he sees that coming, thinks he can win that one. He thinks there's another, bigger prize than just peace with his Kurds.
And that is?
Status in the emerging Middle East, relative to Iran and especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt. He's angling to weaken the former and to have Turkey supplant both the latter as the regional Sunni "leader". With Sunni religious fanaticism on the rise, that means not doing things future generations of Sunni jihadi will remember as an open betrayal of their Camelot, especially in cahoots with the decadent West. That's what it means to Erdogan anyway. He needs to be seen to take down Assad's regime, the Iranian Shia outpost in Sunni lands, to justify having moved against ISIS (as a politically unrealistic "too soon" movement). If he's gonna rain on their parade he's gotta have a prize to offer them as compensation, as justification. As he sees it, that's a ‘win’ over the expansive Iranians, that's what Assad's regime means. (And, very likely, the establishment of Zeyad's dreamed-of Sunnistan, beholden to Turkey, is also on Erdogan's list of things good to do.)
Short piece by Dexter Filkins regarding Turkish policy here.
That sounds like Turkey is just laying in the weeds, so to speak, while others in the region fight out their hatred until they are exhausted, leaving Turkey to pick up the pieces. How open do you think people in the region are to another empire forming and their being just vassal states? Where goes Zeyad's Sunnistan then?
And then there is the reason the original empire collapsed. Perhaps something Erdogan should remember.
"How open do you think people in the region are to another empire forming and
their being just vassal states?"
How open to it were they the first time?
Yeah, he's right, what happens when bombs aren't enough? I don't even think we could drop in boots on the ground near Kobani because they would be in the same boat as the Kurds, that is no heavy weaponry that matches ISIL. We need a ground corridor, and that means Turkey. Unless they could drop in arms by air. But there may not even be time for that now.
One thing I was thinking the other day, was that this battle for Kobani is attracting a lot of ISIL reinforcements. It leaves them like sitting ducks in transit. We should be bombing them en route.
How open to it were they the first time?
Probably not so much.
How open to it were they the first time?
Probably not so much.
Post a Comment