The Logic Off Topic list

> For the first 20 years of his reign Pharoah Thutmosis III had been little
> more than a figurehead alongside his more famous co-ruler, and his aunt,
> Hatshepshut. When Hatshepshut died, the tribes of Palestine and Syria, who

I saw a pretty interesting documentary by Egyptologist Bob Brier in which
thy pointed out that Hatshepsut actually took the title of king (there being
no other applicable title or precedent for a female ruler).  In fact her
likeness was engraved as pharaoh on many buildings and wiped out for unknown
erasons by Thutmoses III.  We know that Thutmoses and Hatshepsut seemed to
have a good relationship during her life (in fact he did run the military
even during that time, giving him something to do and preparing him for his
later great campaigns), so there is some surprise that he (or someone whom
he didn't stop) was so avaricious in destroying all traces of her rule.  In
fact her name was literally struck from the roster of pharaohs where it did
appear for a brief time.

Perhaps her likeness was a reminder of better times for the Egyptian
populace; then again that's quite a leap because although we know the
Egyptian public was capable of revolting and thereby at least influencing
pharoah policy, that was a rare concern for pharaohs.  Perhaps she was
closer to the religious rulers and they needed to be chastened.  Anyway,
that's all speculation.

What's interesting is that for a long time, until something like the
beginning or middle of this century, Hatshepsut wasn't even known to exist,
and for a long time after the discovery of her rule we called her a regent
and thought that Thutmoses III was the pharaoh.  He wasn't, she was.  She
was the only Egyptian female pharaoh in history (Cleopatra had some other
title).  She went so far as to wear her hair in a masculine manner and put
on decorations resembling the traditional Egyptian male beard.

Megiddo is not the first battle we know; the battle of Kadesh we know a good
deal about as well.  See
http://militaryhistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fww
w.reshafim.org.il%2Fad%2Fegypt%2Framseskadeshcampaign.htm

Just a nit-pick - the numbers of soldiers is often debated because we only
know that the historians of those times exaggerated, for political as well
as story-telling reasons.  But as I recall there's pretty good evidence that
it was qtuie a sizable army from surviving records of what it took to feed
them and such.

> Funnily enough, a very similar consensus exists even about wars fought as
> recently as 200 years ago. It is hard to believe that much has changed
> since then ... although one can only speculate what historians of the
> future will make of the wars being fought today.
>

I think though what this misses is that many wars have had a sense of moral
imperative and this sense has been a key determinant in the results of those
wars.  The consensus that historians and the like have about the "real"
purpose of wars isn't wrong but it's a view informed by factors the
participants themselves were often only dimly aware of.  Almost every (if
not every) war can be seen as the extension of power by the participants;
for the winner of the war this is the by-product even if it wasn't the
intent going in.  Almost every war can be seen to occur for either economic
or social reasons that related to long-term changes in  how people conduct
their lives, as well as influencing those reasons in turn.  Yet none of this
changes that the people engaging in such conflicts may have had a "good" or
"moral" reason (whether one agrees), nor does it change that even thousands
of years later we often see a "good guy" in a conflict.  And more
importantly, this moral component to war is in fact what motivates countries
to fight and is what reflects the national or tribal or organizational
conscious at that point in time.

Personally I don't see American military history as fueled by any sort of
altruism.  Rather I think we have engaged in wars as a combination of the
expression/consequence of our increased power in the world geopolitically
and our need to protect American business interests (as they say, the
business of America IS business).  But that doesn't mean that we haven't
fought some good fights and that the consequences of our actions have been
in my opinion far better than the alternative of us not acting.  I think
that's simply because our government and economic system are still founded
in some pretty good principles and are still linked together.  And our
morale approach to war reflects these principles often.  (By "morale
approach" I simply mean the morales we use to justify/wage war, not that we
wage war in a morale way; in other words in a generic way I mean the morale
approach every group takes).

In the Arab world there is an increasingly serious struggle as the
fundamentalists see a world turning its back on traditional values and
moreover changing the lives of Arabs; someone in a post a while ago
indicated they didn't see the Arab governments doing much to increase their
lot and diversify their economies.  Yet the green belts being developed
(contrary to the Israeli belief that they made the desert bloom ) and the
universities and the attraction of non-energy businesses are symptomatic of
changes occurring in the Arab world.  And much like in the West there's a
struggle between those who wish to see the old world's ways continue and
those who believe their religion is more flexible than requiring that.  And
of course as has been mentioned in the Arab world the have-nots can identify
more easily with the fundamentalist claims as in fact they are not
benefiting from these advances and they are powerless, thus to the extent
they work with the fundamentalist cause they gain power.  (Of course the
experience of the Taliban points out that the have-nots get abandoned pretty
darn quickly once the fundamentalists gain power, much as in any movement;
the Afghan people were pretty enthusiastic about a devout religious
government until that government proved itself as corrupt, violent, and
self-serving as prior rulers).

So this pan-Arab conflict will draw in the US; we have economic interests
there, both as a resource and as a market.  Instability is dangerous for us,
both in business and now we see personally as well.  The polarization that
bin Laden wants is ironically something we ALSO see as in our interest.
Why?  Because to polarize means we also get moderate/progressive Arabs on
"our" side, or at least on a side that has economic interests which, while
potentially hurting us, we can negotiate with and keep the Middle East
marketplace open.  Until this polarization reaches its logical conclusion,
we have many fence-sitters who aren't willing to help us any more than
they're willing to help the terrorists.

So I expect we're going to see an active taking of sides throughout the
Middle East in the next few years.  Iran has to make a choice, and
regardless which way they choose their leaders know well they will be
embroiled in conflict, later if not sooner.  Countries like Egypt and Jordan
long ago rejected fundamentalism and will be sorely tested by that choice.
Saudi Arabia has to choose as well,  a particularly difficult choice being
the home of Mecca and Medina.  And of course Israel and the American
relationship with it complicates things incredibly.

Well, that's further than I intended to get in this, anyway, just some
thoughts.