The War to end all Wars

THE WAR TO END ALL WARS

JACO KLEYN

In August of 1914 a British writer by the name of H.G. Wells publishes as collections of articles under the title The War that will end War. The war he refers to non-other off course than WWI. In this articles he blames the so called Central Powers for the war and put it to them that the only way to stop the war is to actually ‘wipe out’ Germany’s military might. The then US president, Woodrow Wilson, later uses the same words as Wells’ title and put it to the US Congress that America needs to get involved in the war effort because the war (WWI) will be the war to end all wars. He goes further in the same address and put it that it is necessary to go to war because only by taking part in this war will they (the US) be able to make the world ‘safe for democracy’. Words that will echo through the decades after the war and be used by not only one but about every US president since. Adding an ironic twist to the famous words was Field Marshall Earl Wavell during the Paris Peace Conference when he said “The war that was supposed to stop all wars now gave way to the peace that will stop all peace.”

That was then, what if anything does it have to do with where the world finds itself today, a hundred and two years after the famous words were first seen in print? Everything. Today the 17^th of November 2015 the world had had a change to take in breath again after the attacks by Islamic Extremist on so called soft targets in Paris France. More than a hundred people dead in less than a hundred minutes. And we, the people of the world, after waking up on Saturday morning hearing the news, after changing our Facebook profile pictures to the colours of the French flag, after everything else we do when confronted by news of this nature, we now still sit down to CNN, BBC, SKY News and all the rest and listen to presidents saying this will be the war to end all wars.

Have we ever heard one of this leaders telling their parliaments and congresses exactly what led to Islamic Extremist? Have any of the leaders ever come forward to tell their voters about the secret deals with rebel forces? About the millions of dollars paid out to people like Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Reza Shah and many others? Probably not. How can they do that? How can an American President tell the American public that they have spent millions (if not billions) of dollars on characters that they later had to spend even more billions on to make them go away. Not to even mention the countless loss of American and other lives in the process. The region is aflame and U.S. policy bears much of the blame.  Washington’s relentless attempt to reorder and reshape complex peoples, distant places, and volatile disputes has backfired spectacularly.  America has caused manifold problems while proving unable to solve any of them. The Forbes reporter Doug Bandow nails it on the 16^th of June 2014 by stating; “Washington helped make the mess in Iraq and elsewhere. The US must stop trying to dominate and micro-manage the world.” But surely the American presence in the Middle East cannot be seen as all bad, some people will say. Granted, they did to a certain extend “protect” the flow of oil to the Western World, but the question remains; at what cost to the rest of humanity? We have seen and heard lies about so called weapons of mass destruction, we have heard Washington telling us that Saddam Hussein is the pinnacle of all that is evil and with his demise from power the Middle East and Iraq will be a new born democracy. Their claim that keeping U.S. troops in Iraq and elsewhere would have prevented that nation’s current implosion ignores both history and experience.  The bitter divisions among Shia, Sunnis, and Kurds reflect the country’s artificial creation; the U.S. invasion wrecked the national state, setting the stage for a bitter sectarian struggle. A sectarian struggle that did not stay in Iraq but poured fuel on jiaddist all through the region.

The simple fact remains, fighting and killing more foreigners in another people’s conflict would make more enemies of America and all her allies, threatening more terrorist blowback. The Syrian civil war and the rise of ISIS in the region is a good point to confirm this. The civil war is destabilizing the region, but American or any other involvement would not impose order.  Boots on the ground is inconceivable.  Tepid action—no fly zones and increased arms shipments—would be more likely to prolong the conflict than deliver a decisive result.  Moreover, Assad’s ouster likely would trigger a second round of killing directed against regime supporters, such as Alawites and other religious minorities. What must also be remembered in the Syrian scenario is that the al-Assad regime to a certain extend rely on ISIS to fight the war for him. There has been numerous reports of Syrian military officials seen to be operating with and in cahoots with ISIS fighters.  Reports to this extend has go as far as to say that Syrian fighter planes has laid waste to areas just before ISIS moved in.                                                                                                                                    

Up and until now weapons have been pouring in to assist Syrian rebels against al-Bassad and ISIS. At a conference in Paris in 2012, Western and Sunni Arab countries announced they were going to "massively increase" aid to the Syrian opposition. On 19 September 2013, French President François Hollande hinted that France was ready to begin supplying lethal aid to the Free Syrian Army. The Financial Times reported that Qatar had funded the Syrian rebellion by "as much as $3 billion" over the first two years of the civil war. In July 2012, Switzerland ceased arms exports to the UAE after it emerged Swiss weapons were finding their way to opposition fighters. In June 2012, the Central Intelligence Agency was reported to be involved in covert operations along the Turkish-Syrian border, where agents investigated rebel groups, recommending arms providers which groups to give aid to. Agents also helped opposition forces develop supply routes, and provided them with communications training. CIA operatives distributed assault rifles, anti-tank rocket launchers and other ammunition to Syrian opposition. The State Department has reportedly allocated $15 million for civilian opposition groups in Syria. In December 2013, The United States suspended the shipments of nonlethal military aid including food rations, medical kits and pickup trucks after warehouses of equipment were seized by the Islamic Front. On 24 December 2014, a Jordanian fighter jet was shot down over Syria and its pilot, Jordanian air force lieutenant Muath Al-Kasasbeh, captured. This pilot was executed by burning in January 2015 and was later used to attempt to recover jailed terrorists. Jordan offered to make the exchange, but demanded "proof of life" first, this wasn't done, and the video of the pilot's execution was released. In May 2015, The Independent reported that Saudi Arabia and Turkey "are focusing their backing for the Syrian rebels on the combined Jaish al-Fatah, or the Army of Conquest". The Army of Conquest reportedly includes an Al-Qaeda-linked Al-Nusra Front, which had been declared a terrorist organisation by the United States.

The reports on insecure weapon allocations to fighters in especially Syria can go on for many more pages. The cruel fact is that nobody giving weapons to these fighters can know who will end up using them and against whom they will be used. The assumption that Washington, London, Paris, Moscow and whoever else could get just the right arms to just the right opposition forces to ensure emergence of just the right liberal, democratic, pro-Western government of a united Syria is childishly naive. The U.S. and by implication all the countries currently involved in the Syrian conflict long ago demonstrated that it is better at destroying than building nations.

Will this then be the war to end all wars? I doubt it. In fact, this war is the war that will start numerous others and eventually not only end peace but kill it completely.

Also read: http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/putin-exposes-g20s-financial-ties-isis-during-antalya-summit/ri11199 Russian President Putin accusing G20 members of financing ISIS.

Gratis aanlyn skryfkursus

Welkom by GAROB MEDIA se gratis aanlyn skryfkursus vir beginners. In die volgende ag modules gaan ons deur verskillende aspekte van Kreatiewe Skryfkuns werk. Ons sal ten sterkste aanbeveel dat u die oefeninge wat deur die loop van die kursus aangebied word sal doen. Moet ook nie huiwer om vra te vra oor die werk wat behandel word nie.

Die kursus sal in die vorm van ag artikels hier op ONDER DIE DORINGBOOM aangebied word. Om vra te vra of opmerkings te laat volg die instruksies onder die “Comment” hofie of gaan die Faceboek blad:  https://www.facebook.com/groups/912540885489512/

LET WEL: Hierdie is n intree vlak kursus. Dit beteken nie dat dit in enige vorm ondergekik is of dat u nie iets daaruit sal leer nie. Wat dit wel beteken is dat u na afloop hiervan n basis sal hê om vanaf te beweeg. Sekere deelnemers mag dalk voel dat hulle genoegsaam iets geleer het en nie verdere onderrig benodig nie, terwyl ander weer voel dat hulle meer wil leer. Vir laasgenoemde bied GAROB MEDIA verkeie opsies aan. Voel dus vry om na afloop van die kursus met ons in verbinding te tree vir meer moontlikhede. Lees ook die artikel;

https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5717640924755125113#editor/target=post;postID=8458432836015096242;onPublishedMenu=posts;onClosedMenu=posts;postNum=1;src=postname

Module 1

Kreatiewe handelinge

Wat is kreatiwiteit? Volgens die HAT kan kreatiwiteit kort opgesom word as die vermoë om iets uit niks te skep. Hierdie omskrywing is dalk n erge veralgemening van ʼn baie meer komplekse gedagte. Descartes het die bekende woorde “I think therefore I am” geuiter. Ons kan daarop uitbou en moontlik sê dat I think therefore I am and therefore I create. Om dus te kan skep moet ons dink en om te dink moet ons wees. Sommige mense sal hulle denke deur gesproke woorde uiter, ander weer deur middel van beeldhou of skilder en ander deur die geskrewe woord, hetsy in die vorm van n gedig, n roman of dalk n kortverhaal.

In die geval van die skrywer kan die kreatiewe handeling met die volgende voorbeeld uiteengesit word;

Tydens n donderstorm slaan die weerlig n boom raak naby jou...

Die gebeurtenis word ervaar dmv sintuie. Hoor die klap, sien die weerligstraal, voel die statiese elektisiteit...

Alles wat deur die sintuie ervaar en waargeneem is word in die brein verwerk

n Gedagte begin vorm aanneem

Die kreatiewe denke neem oor en omvorm die gedagte na iets unieks

Die unieke gedagte wat tydens die kreatiewe proses gevorm is kry gestalte in die geskrewe woord

Die proses soos hierbo voorgestel is natuurlik vir elke skrywer verskillend. Daar sal sekere onder ons wees wat vir dae lank met n gedagte rondloop voor dit vorm aanneem in die geskrewe woord en ook die teenoorgestelde. Uiteraard sal daar n tyd kom wanneer elke skrywer vir lang tye loop en nadink oor sekere karakters, die storielyn en dies meer. Op hierdie stadium van die kursus is dit egter vir my belangrik om die kreatiewe proses aan die gang te sit. Vir daardie doel sal ons nou die eerste skryf oefening aanpak.

Oefening 1

Skryf in nie meer as vyftig woorde die eerste gedagte wat in u gedagtes opkom met die lees van elk van die volgende drie sinne.

1. Die hond blaf dringend terwyl dit in die leë gang af kyk.
2. En toe begin sy huil...
3. Daar is beswaarlik een glas wyn oor in die bottel

Kyk weer na die proses soos dit hierbo uiteengesit is. Die eerste taak van die skrywer is om dit wat hy/sy sien of beleef in die brein “op te neem”. Hierdie onverwerkte materiaal word dan deur die kreatiewe proses omskep tot woorde wat uiteindelik op die papier opeindig. Sodra hierdie aksie plaasvind kan daar nou gepraat word van n konsep-teks (first draft). Die konsep-teks kan anders ook gestel word as n rofwerk uitleg van die uiteindelike kortverhaal of roman.

Op hierdie stadium wil ek by die volgende stelling wat gereeld deur voornemende skrywers geuiter word stilstaan;

“Al die reëls en skryfkonvensies inhibeer my kreatiewe proses. Ek wil net kreatief wees...”

Die geheim van n goeie skrywer is om die balans te vind tussen die kreatiewe proses en die konvensionele proses van die vakman. As n voorbeeld wil ek hier n bietjie buite die skryf milieu beweeg en kyk na een van die wêreld se bekendste impressionistiese skilders, Claude Monet.

                                      

Die reeks bekend as Haystacks (1890 – 1891) bekyk Monet die invloed van lig. Die skildery aan die linkerkant word die effek van lig ondersoek aan die einde van somer en die skildery aan die regterkant word die effek van lig ondersoek teen sonsonder met ligte sneeu. Wat leer ons uit hierdie voorbeelde?

1. Die skilder het “iets” beleef en deur middel van verskeie sintuie dit ingeneem.
2. Dit wat deur die sintuie ervaar en waargeneem is, is in die brein verwerk en onderhewig aan die kreatiewe proses tot moontlike beelde verwerk.
3. Die beelde is uiteindelik op doek vasgelê en het tot die skepping van meesterstukke aanleiding gegee.

Om nou terug te keer na die stelling hierbo;

Sou die skepping van hierdie meesterstukke moontlik wees slegs deur die kreatiewe proses?

Moes die skilder (Monet) beskik oor ʼn sekere hoeveelhed kennis t.o.v. sy vakgebied om die skepping moontlik te maak?

U sal nou saamstem dat kreatiwiteit, alhoewel ʼn belangrike komponent, nie genoeg sou wees om die skepping van die meesterstukke tot gevolg te hê nie. Opsommend kan ons dan sê dat n goeie skrywer ʼn persoon is wat ʼn kombinasie en balans het tussen kreatiewe denke en deeglike vakmanskap.

Vir wie wil ek skryf?

Almal kan skryf. Die vraag natuurlik is of dit wat ek skryf en die manier wat ek dit skryf “geskik” is vir die lesers daarbuite? Die meeste van ons het die een of ander tyd in ons lewe n dagboek bygehou. Die doel natuurlik om eie en privaat denke vas te lê en tot n mate te verewig. Die meeste dagboeke sal dan ook geskryf word in ʼn eie en unieke styl wat nie noodwendig geskik sal wees vir n “lesers publiek” nie.

Teenoor die dagboek staan natuurlik die geskrifte wat doelgerig geskryf word vir ʼn weier publiek. Hierdie tipe geskrifte word uiteraard onderwerp aan sekere konvensies en strukture. ʼn Belangrike verskil tussen ʼn dagboek skryf en ʼn teks voorberei vir n publieke leser is dat in die geval van die dagboek die skrywer en die leser in die meeste gevalle dieselfde persoon is. Dit beteken dat die leser die dagboek meerendeels gebruik om beelde wat reeds binne sy of haar verwysingsraamwerk bestaan te herroep. In die geval van die publieke teks is dit glad nie die geval nie. Die skrywer moet die beeld in woorde aan die leser voorstel. Nie net moet die beeld so voorgestel word dat die leser dit letterlik kan ‘ervaar’ nie, daar is ook ʼn paar ander vereistes waaraan so n teks moet voldoen;

1. Die skrywer moet doelgerig vir ʼn spesieke leser skryf. (Liefdesverhaal, spanningverhaal, speurverhaal, kinderstorie...)
2. Die teks moet estetiese waarde hê.
3. Die skrywer moet deur die gebruik van woorde die leser boei tot die storie, hom of haar letterlik binne in die teks intrek.
4. Taalgebruik moet binne die spesifieke norm val

Daar is uiteraard verskeie ander fassette van die teks wat op n latere stadium meer in detail bekyk sal word.

Wat aangaande die kreatiewe denke is dit wat volgens jou die potensiële leser sal interesseer? Spreek die denke n universele waarheid aan of n gemeenskaplike ondervinding? Laat dit jou lag of huil? Suggereer dit n roman wat oor die verloop van 65000 woorde en meer die verhaal vertel of eerder n kortverhaal wat binne die bestek van n paar honderd woorde die verhaal wil deel?

Oefening 2.

2.1. In 50 woorde of minder skryf hoekom u wil skryf.

2.2. Loop deur u woonstel/huis, tuin, die plaaslike winkelsentrum, die straat waarin u woon of n restaurant en skryf ten minste drie kreatiewe gedagtes neer wat u ondervind. (50 woorde elk)

Oefening 3

3.1. Neem een van die gedagtes in 2.2. en skryf 20 losstaande woorde neer. Hierdie woorde moet spesifiek relevant tot die gedagte wees. (LW Nie sinne nie. Losstaande woorde)

3.2. Sodra u die 20 woorde neergeskryf het, gebruik dit om n gedig van ten minste 16 reëls te skryf. (Enige digvorm kan gebruik word)

3.3. Neem nou dieselfde 20 woorde en skryf n kortverhaal van nie meer as 300 woorde nie. Die korterhaal moet elkeen van die 20 woorde bevat.

Watter deel van Oefening 3 was die “maklikste” vir u?

In module 2 sal daar gekyk word na die “Kortverhaal teenoor die Roman”

Neem gerus deel aan die bespreking op die Faceboek blad: https://www.facebook.com/groups/912540885489512/

U kan ook kortverhale sowel as gedigte op die Faceboek blad plaas. Positiewe kritiek bly steeds een van die beste leerskole.

Module 2 sal op 13 November 2015 geplaas word.