Reflections on Ken Wilber's The Religion of Tomorrow
(2017) - Parts
INTEGRAL WORLD: EXPLORING THEORIES OF EVERYTHING
An independent forum for a critical discussion of the integral philosophy of Ken Wilber
Publication dates of essays (month/year) can be found under "Essays".
Originally posted on the SDi YAHOO! forum.
I will occasionally come across an idea that is so on target I just have to share it with
others, because it recognizes the deeper vMemetic architecture. There is no way to
introduce Western democracy into Iraq, especially in the post war climate.
I don't know who Mr. Garrard is but he deserves some applause for this creative idea.
What do you think? How does this fit the SDi model, given the nature of "the people of
-- Don Beck (April, 2003)
How to win
the Iraq War
Patrick W.H. Garrard
MARCH 27: As a hawk who supported the war in Iraq, I am getting very
nervous over how things are going. This could be a real disaster. On the
other hand, this country can't afford to lose and we can't leave Saddam
Hussein in place with his evil intent and WMD.
What to do? Actually, there IS a rational, low-risk way of taking care of
Saddam. Follow my thinking·
Let's break Iraq up in smaller, more rational units based on their ethnic/religious populations.
- The key to winning this war is political and financial, as much as
military, and I now see that we've been too focused on the latter. Remember,
if you take away Saddam's oil, what does he have left? NOTHING!
- Saddam uses Stalin as one of his role models, and he's planning to
turn Baghdad into another Stalingrad. (That would give him the heroic status
he craves: "Defender of the Homeland.") DO NOT play his game, DO NOT enter
the city, because it would be a real mess. Have you seen those high-altitude
aerial photos of Baghdad? It is a maize within a maize. Besides, he will be
using chemical warfare, and there is no reason to risk a second Gulf War
- Leave Baghdad alone, and withdraw below the border of the southern
no-fly zone. (Though continue bombing all NON-civilian targets: Government
buildings, military and security centers, palaces, etc.) Set up an
independent free Shiite republic in the south. Give it U.S./Brit security
guarantees PLUS all the southern oil fields. You will now have a small,
soon-to-be-wealthy state owing its survival to the west. Rooting out Saddam's
people from this area should have the highest priority, and a popular
uprising will come sooner rather than later.
- Set up another free republic above the northern no-fly zone that will
be Kurdish and Turkman (if you can get them to cooperate, which will be
hard). This will create another small, rich republic dependent on the west.
Will this, in effect, be a Kurdish republic, and thus abhorrent to Turkey?
Yes, and fit punishment for Turkey's recent past behavior. IMPORTANT: Place a
thousand or so U.S. troops along the border to act as a "trip-wire" and keep
out the Turkish army. They would never dare roll past the Americans, and they
must he stopped from making a serious incursion.
- Saddam will now have lost all his oil -- world's second largest
reserves -- and central Iraq and Baghdad will become another oil-poor Syria
or Jordan. For SH, this will mean no more palaces, no more military buildups,
no more expensive security apparatus. Just another semi-poor mideast state.
No oil = no money = no political power. This treats Saddam like the cancer he
is: You shrink the tumor (Saddam) by depriving it of its nutrients (oil).
Pretty soon, no more cancer.
- Why does this make sense? Because Iraq was always an unnatural state,
formed by the British, so let's break it up in smaller, more rational units
based on their ethnic/religious populations. The Kurds and Shiites will look
after themselves, and will quickly cleanse their areas of Saddam's Baathists.
Meanwhile the U.S.and Britain will guarantee their territorial protection,
and most of our troops can soon come home. Besides, why should the
Baghdad-Tikrit region keep functioning as a colossal parasite, sucking all
the oil wealth from the impoverished Kurdish and Shiite regions? Without
this revenue, Saddam's regime will whither on the vine.
Will the other Arab states hate the idea of breaking up one of the
mideast nations? Sure, but TOUGH! Anyway, they'd rather have three
non-threatening Iraqi states than one powerful oil-rich, empire-building
So there's my idea. If you think it makes sense, PASS IT ON to everyone
you know. It may be too obvious for Washington, so let's help them get it.