Blue Cord

About three weeks ago, as I was driving back from Tennessee, I happened to hear an interview with Stephen Biddle from the Council on Foreign Relations. He was talking about the fact that the current conflict in Iraq has more to do with different groups within Iraq attacking each other than it does with Iraqi groups attacking US troops. While there are certainly some who attacking Americans, this is not the main source of unrest. Notice how often we hear of bombings in market places and attacks against members of the Iraqi government.

This got me thinking of more seriously of an idea I have had about a way forward in the mess in Mesopotamia.

The current borders of Iraq and indeed all of the Middle East were drawn up by the British and French in the wake of World War I. Prior to 1932, Iraq did not exist. Despite this, the US policy in Iraq right now seems to be assuming that the current borders make sense when in fact they don’t. If you look at a map, the borders don’t follow any natural divides, nor do they reflect the ethnic makeup of the region. For example, the drawing of the map after WWI took no notice of the fact that a third of the population of Baghdad was Jewish. Instead, they just set up an Arab state.

Why, then, are we attempting to keep Iraq whole? It is not like it has any historical precedent. Would it not make more sense to divide it up along ethnic lines? If the primary source of the hostility is Sunnis fighting Shiites, Shiites fighting Sunnis, and Shiites and Sunnis fighting Kurds, why not send everyone to their own room. This is how my mother handled things when my brother and I were fighting.

This approach worked well in the Balkans in the wake of the collapse of Yugoslavia. It put an end to ethnic violence. Everyone got a share in the power, but it was a share that they themselves controlled. If we followed this approach in Iraq, it would alleviate worries about Shiite reprisals against the Sunni minority. It would protect the Kurds from ethnic violence. And it would give democracy a chance of actually succeeding in the region.

As you can see from my hastily drawn map above, the different groups already are somewhat settled according to their ethnic and religious identity. This map, of course, is oversimplified and does not show the pockets of groups that live outside of their majority area. And we would also have the problem of what to do with the region around Baghdad, which is a mix of Shia and Sunni. Surely, however, such problems are no more difficult to solve than the current difficulties. Some people would have to move, but many are already moving because of the violence. Wouldn’t they prefer to be moving because they had a chance at peace?

I think another benefit would be that the international community would be more likely to support this idea. The UN was the one that orchestrated this in the former Yugoslavia, and troops from different UN countries could be the ones that helped defend and build each of the independent countries. I think an international presence instead of a US presence would also decrease animosity towards the governments in each country.

I know this idea has been floated around a bit, but it has not been discussed as much as I think it should. What do you all think? Is it feasible? Is it workable? Is it better or worse than our approach now? If we truly believe in democracy, shouldn’t we at least put this idea before the Iraqi people and let them decide if they want to pursue it?

Apparently, my placing Canadians on my pet peeves list has cause a bit of a stir north of the border. They were so angry that they were getting ready to invade, but then realized that one of their two army hellicopters was in the shop, so it has been postponed.

My swipe at Canadians is part of a running feud with friends at LCC. There are about an equal number of Canadians and Americans on staff there, so there is some friendly rivalry. Just to be clear, I really have nothing against America, Jr. In fact, I think of Canada as the 51st state we never had.

On a related note, Vilnius University in Lithuania has a Department of English Philology. While that is not unusual, it is interesting that they have only one speciality in their department: Canadian Studies. I love the opening line on their web page:

Canadians? Aren’t they just a bunch of igloo inhabiting, ice hockey playing, beer chugging, beaver worshipping, Celine Dion-loving, polite, peacekeeping, unarmed Americans with health care?

You gotta love it!

Chris Heard at Higgaion has posted some of his pet peeves. Since I am simultaneously snowed in and bored with proofreading the New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, I thought I would offer some of my pet peeves. A few are academic, while others are more general. Most pertain to language, but a few other things slipped in. It is just a short list of things up with which I will not put.

• Using the word “methodology” when what you mean is “method.” This happens in academic circles all the time. You can hear it in almost every session at the SBL. A method is a procedure you follow. Methodology is the study of method. You cannot apply a methodology.
• “Beg the question” - to beg the question means to assume what you are trying to prove as part of your argument. It is an informal fallacy in logic. “Begging the question” does not mean that a particular question needs to be asked, but this is how it is constantly used.
• PIN number - you do not have a PIN number. PIN means “Personal Identification Number.” Number is already a part of PIN, so you don’t have to say it again. This goes for ATM machine as well. ATM stands for “Automatic Teller Machine.” Machine is already in there. So please, for God’s sake, stop telling me you are going to the ATM machine to input your PIN number.
• Irregardless - this is not a word.
• Express checkout lanes - no, this is not about people who get in express lanes with too many items, although that frosts my shorts as well. Instead, it is about the sign over the lane that says, “Twelve Items or Less.” Items can be counted. Therefore, it should read “Twelve Items or Fewer.”
• Canadians. ‘Nuff said.
• Reckless creation of denominative verbs - this seems particularly common in the business world. We don’t agendize things; we put them on the agenda.
• Quotation marks for emphasis - “Extra” low prices; Get the “best” bargain in town!; This sale only runs until “Saturday.” It is like there is an epidemic of non-referenced quotations. Who said the prices were “extra” low? Use bold if you want to emphasize. The rampant use of scare quotes is bad enough. Let’s not expand quotation marks to emphasis.
• People who don’t understand adverbs and adjectives - you do not “feel badly,” unless of course your tactile senses are not functioning properly. You “feel bad.” Verbs of perception take adjectives to describe the state your are perceiving.
• People who dress up their dogs.

One thing that probably should be a pet peeve but isn’t is the use of the word “hopefully.” To do something hopefully is to do it expectantly, e.g., “He waited hopefully.” It does not mean that the speaker is hoping that something will happen. “Hopefully, he waited” does not mean “I hope he waited.” What should be said is, “It is to be hoped that he waited.” Despite this, I still can’t bring myself to use “It is to be hoped . . .” in everyday conversation, and I am sure it peeves someone else’s pet out there.

Several on-line sources are reporting that Bruce Metzger, long time professor of NT at Princeton Theological Seminary, has died at the age of 93 of natural causes.

It would be hard to imagine any scholar who has contributed more to a field than Bruce Metzger.  Metzger was widely known and almost universally respected.  My first introduction to the academic study of the NT was in an undergraduate class where we used his New Testament: It’s Background, Growth, and Content.  Even many people who have never heard of Metzger have benefited from his work, as he was the general editor of the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible.

Metzger was particular interested in the text critical study of the NT, and his work has pushed the field forward in numerous ways.  Metzger was also the editor of the United Bible Society’s Greek New Testament, one of the two main critical editions of the Greek text.  Despite the highly specialized nature of  his work, his scholarship was never isolated from the needs of the church.  Metzger remained an ordained minister in the Presbyterian church throughout his career.

A memorial service will be held on February 20th.

Whenever I teach an upper level class that includes the Song of Song, I always have the students try to draw what the lovers looked like according to the descriptions in chapter 4. It is always a fun exercise. The Wittenburg Door did such a drawing a number of years ago. Tyler Williams has the drawing up at Codex, along with the text on which it is based.

One of the pieces of imagery that had always baffled me was the reference to the woman’s breasts, which are described as “two fawns, twins of a gazelle.” Several years back, however, I found an explanation. I think it was in Marvin Pope’s massive commentary on the Song of Songs. He notes that in Akkadian, ‘anpu means ‘nose,’ just as its cognate ‘ap does in Hebrew. But in Akkadian, it also means ‘nipple.’ Hebrew probably also had this meaning, but it is not preserved. So, just as the face of the gazelle slopes down to the nose, so does the breast slope down to the nipple. It is not only a wonderful image but a great play on words as well.