Keeping the wider world in mind
Western governments, in particular the US, see the world through narcissistic lenses. Europe had its way in the world for centuries while the US has led since the 1950s. The habit is so ingrained that they often ignore the effect that their actions have on the thinking of other nations. Instead, they repeatedly insist on their view of desired solutions expecting others to follow in a docile manner.
In the past, there was no need for them to show restraint in pursuit of their interests. But times have changed. There are many potentially powerful countries in the world, some with significant wealth and weapons. They are analyzing threats 10-50 years into the future and finding cause for concern in West’s readiness to use military force.
Israel is doing what it thinks best for its people while Washington is doing what it thinks best for its security. Both are at war to change the political order in selected countries. That strikes fear in others of their joint military might, especially as all of Europe underpins US power through NATO.
Perhaps Israel and the US will win their objectives in their wars and install friendly governments to secure the peace. But lessons are being burned in stone among other potentially powerful countries. The first lesson is that military power will remain the most important ingredient of national affirmation for the foreseeable future.
The second is that the only feasible way to face US, Israeli or NATO might is on the ground, asymmetrically, house to house. That might can also be slowed down or deterred by sufficiently numerous missiles and, perhaps, dirty weapons delivered through terrorist proxies as a final resort.
Fear is a dangerous emotion. It will incite others to acquire means of deterrence secretly (probably including “terrorist” contacts) and rely less on the UN’s system of international laws for conflict resolution. A world without trust among nations, many armed with horrific weapons, is a nightmare prospect.
This is the prospect that moderates must confront and defuse. We cannot live together on this fragile planet without accommodation and compromise. These are too important to be left to generals or politicians. Nor can compromise always be on US or Western terms.
Finding solutions to intractable problems requires much wisdom. Perhaps, we lack that for the moment. But we can, as moderates, help to place the Middle East conflict in its wider context. That wider context is today’s world.
When Israel was mandated, the Judeo-Christian World War II victors ruled the UN. There were some 50 members but most were under Western tutelage. That tutelage is long gone but Washington wants its Judeo-Christian worldview to remain dominant.
In this “for us or against us� environment, moderation entails stepping back to temper our outrage at injustices perpetrated on those we support. Rage makes even reasonable persons bay for blood, especially if the “enemies� are of another religion or culture.
Nor can we allow our grief at human tragedies to blind us to the other’s point of view however different. Many at this time hate Israel but it deserves a careful hearing.
Hating either Israel or its opponents can never nourish the middle path of peace. Peace always places human dignity above doctrines and blame.
Nor does killing the “haters� solve the problem. New technologies, the proliferation of which is impossible to stop, are helping to create more effective and brutish haters as demonstrated by the Middle East and Iraq.
It is as easy to cry, “Muslim totalitarians want to annihilate Jews� as it is to cry, “Zionists and crusaders want to annihilate Muslims�. It is also easy to brand as anti-Semitic all those bystanders who watch the physical destruction of multi-religious Lebanon with tearful hearts.
Moderation stipulates cooler counsel and, certainly, less narcissism. There is a big world out there beyond the US, Europe and the Middle East. The world’s majority belongs to cultures to whose hearts the Old Testament, the Bible, Abraham, Jesus, anti-Jewish beliefs, the Koran and Mohammed say little.
Similarly, the Buddha, Confucius, Tao, Krishna, Ram, Mahabharata, Gita and Ramayan say little to the hearts of Judeo-Christians and Muslims. (One commentator at TMV asked, “What the hell is the Veda?� although that vast and most ancient body of knowledge is the life source for over 2 billion Hindus and Buddhists in India, China, Japan, South East Asia and elsewhere.)
Whatever our politics, cultures and beliefs, moderation requires we place “living together� above “living side by side�.
17 Responses to “Keeping the wider world in mind”
This post made my day, since it is very much in line with my current thinking. I doubt I need to expound on this.
The difference is that Zionists don’t want to ‘annihilate Muslims’, whereas Muslim totalitarians do want to kill all infidels, especially the Jews.
I’m not making this up, they’re open about it themselves.
I agree with you that we should look beyond our borders, beyond what we know and respect other cultures.
However there is a clear line. That line is there, where those other cultures don’t respect our culture and if their wish is to destroy our culture.
I’ve learned from the past. My family witnessed WW2 very closely. Appeasement does not work. Compromize does not work with extremists. One should not even try to negotiate with extremists, all they do is bide their time and strike when it suits them.
Michael-there is no way to eliminate extremism-fighting them militarily the way we fought our enemies in WWII will not work, and a lot of innocent people will die or suffer as a consequence. This in turn will beget more terrorism, as we have discovered by our misadventures in Iraq. The best solution is to neutralize their appeal by winning hearts and minds. The U.S. has talked the talk, but not quite walked the walk on that one!
Well, obviously I partially disagree. Yes we must win the hearts and minds, but it must always be combined with the use of force against the leaders / the ones who feed the hatred.
You know why? Because we will never win the war for the hearts and minds without doing that. They will sooner listen to the leaders of their own culture, of their own religion and of their own tribe than to us.
Thus, take out the extremist leaders and support those who support democracy and freedom.
(over-simplification)
Well, obviously I partially disagree. Yes we must win the hearts and minds, but it must always be combined with the use of force against the leaders / the ones who feed the hatred.
My dear 22 year old fellow….its awfully hard to win the hearts and minds of people who’s hearts and brains are scattered about.
As far as the ones “who feed hatred” look in the mirror Michael, your one sided, constant, monotonous drum beating, your very unchristianlike, monosubjected harping and defensiveness on Israel and the middle easterners is in its miniscule part, picking at an open wound, keeping it festered, driving people away, rather than making them your allies.
I hope that by the time you get to my age, and have some life experience under your belt beyond the 22 years you have now, that you will actually be able to “think outside the box” learn without bias both sides of an issue, and realize that “there is no right side” in ANY geopolitical/religious issue beyond diplomatic interchange.
Every war period, is the direct result end product of politician’s failed domestic and foreign policy, and complete failure of diplomatic action.
One day too Michael I hope you come to realize that one sided support and/or attempting to help from an outside position can be the worst possible thing an individual or nation can do, especially in an international fiasco that has been ongoing for centuries. And this, no matter how one tries, cannot be rationalized or defended from a one sided position. In fact it cannot be rationalized or defended from any position at all.
I do however, fully expect you Michael, to continue on with your extremely limited, one track, tunnel vision without bothering to try to discover why the Arabs have despised Jews, more specifically despise for the Hebrews, as long as they have in the first place. Or is it that you are of the mind that hate develops without cause; something only a young limited experience fool could or would think.
Umh, did I say that we should declare a massive war, or did I say we should fight the extremists(‘ leaders)?
Read Chipped, read.
It comes down to a question of fighting ‘for’ something or ‘against’ something, and working together versus ‘going it alone’.
Gulf I ended well (except for Saddam) because the US, UN, and it’s allies fought together for something: defense of Saudi Arabia, liberation of Kuwait. They fought with the consent and consensus of the Arab world because they were fighting for the Arab world.
Gulf II-Iraq has not ended (well or otherwise) because it was not fought for any benefit (but for a very select few). It was rooted in a lies and misinformation, had to be continually repackaged, and it’s still going on, contrary to the lack of reports in the media. It was fought expressly because certain, arrogant, extreme elements wanted to fight it.
As for Lebanon, the question of whether Israel has a right to defend itself when attacked is a false dichotomy crafted to shield it from criticism of how it’s prosecuting its war. Of course Israel has a right to defend itself, as a nation, as a people. Having been invaded, so too would Lebanon if it had the capability. It’s the mass destruction (again) of Lebanese civilian infrastructure and facilities that’s raising the outcry, and rightfully so.
Nothing in history happens in a vacuum. How many of these Hezb’Allah ‘terrorists’ would be pursuing more docile lifepaths if Israel hadn’t bombed the hell out of Lebanon in the 80′s? How many displaced and terrified (terrorized?) Lebanese children will now look to Hezb’Allah (or a similar organization) for expression 25 years from now?
It will be the same on the Israeli side of the border. More fear, more anger, more hate. The vicious cycle spins on.
Should a punative option remain on the table when someone steps out of line? Absolutely.
Are martyrs being created in all of these pre-emptive actions? Damn straight, whether or not we call them that.
Lip-service to the peace process is not an effective substitute actually pursuing it. Diplomacy and compromise are not, in and of themselves, ‘appeasement’. While we’re throwing the Hitler argument around, let’s not forget that the environment in which he rose to power was fertilized by Allied arrogance and self-righteous superiority after the first WW, or that, in working with Germany and Japan after the second, we gained allies.
I agree, Michael, that extremist leaders, “the ones who feed the hatred“, need to be confronted. However, in that confrontation, let’s not forget the extremists feeding the hate on ‘our’ side while we’re at it.
That’s moderation.
Don in Canada great comment.
That is true. All sorts of extremism that use violence must be ‘halted’ so to speak.
You are also right that we must work with the ones who are willing to work with us. I have never believed in sanctions; they always punish the people, even the ones that are striving to change the direction their country is going themselves!
Kim rightfully pointed out that we must do something to win the hearts and minds, be it that that isn’t the only thing we need to do, in my opinion.
It must be a combination: forcefully dealing with the ones feeding / spreading the hatred while effectively supporting those who are willing to work with us, who are willing to improve themselves, to improve their countries, etc.
In other words; strike the leaders down, but help the people.
That’s how I see it.
Don -
Overall a very well thought out post, but I disagree with the assertation that Hezbollah would not exist (or be attacking Israel) if it were not for Israel’s own actions. They are dedicated to the destruction of the Israel state and always have been, and to the re-establishment of the Caliphate.
Chippedchips
My dear 22 year old fellow….its awfully hard to win the hearts and minds of people who’s hearts and brains are scattered about.
I hope that by the time you get to my age, and have some life experience under your belt beyond the 22 years you have now, that you will actually be able to “think outside the box” learn without bias both sides of an issue, and realize that “there is no right side” in ANY geopolitical/religious issue beyond diplomatic interchange.
What a condescending remark. Perhaps Alzheimer’s disease has addled your brain prematurely. That has the same validity as your comment regarding Michael’s age. There are people who spend their whole lives refusing to question what they are spoon fed while others are free thinkers from the cradle. many people develop a bias for reasons of vanity or insecurity. Neither the age issue nor the life experience issue are examples of a well reasoned debate.
Chippedchis said :
I hope that by the time you get to my age, and have some life experience under your belt beyond the 22 years you have now, that you will actually be able to “think outside the box” learn without bias both sides of an issue, and realize that “there is no right side” in ANY geopolitical/religious issue beyond diplomatic interchange.
Every war period, is the direct result end product of politician’s failed domestic and foreign policy, and complete failure of diplomatic action
That is simply wrong on many levels. Not only is war often not the result of a failed domestic or foreign policy, but rather it has frequently been the culmination of a very deliberate and successful plans. It is your own bias as to the nature of war which precludes you from seeing the obvious. While you are busy looking outside the box the actual answer is lying at your feet.
Um, this sounds pretty liberal-ish to me. You’ve clearly delineated where you disagree with conservatives. Please expand on where you disagree with liberals.
Michael- I agree that working with leaders that are cooperative with Western civilization is a worthy goal in theory. In practice, however, new leaders spring up as quickly as the old ones are picked off. Many international terror cells (not dealing strictly with Lebanon but the wider conflict) are set up to operate independently and organized to quickly replace any leader that is killed or captured. Also the U.S. has become so unpopular in the Arab world that our support of a leader who is cooperative with the West immediately turns them into targets, as they are seen as traitors. Just as any American seen as cooperating with terrorists would be viewed as complicit with their destructive goals.
In this particular conflict, we are making more enemies than we are eliminating by allowing Israel carte blanche in her destruction of Lebanon. Don in Canada is correct about the never-ending cycle of violence which is passed down to the next generation. Worse still, none of the moderate Arab countries back our position-not even our ally Maliki- who was put into power by our soldiers blood on the battlefield. That constitutes a very risky outlook for future stability in the region.
MichaelF,
Thanks for that excellent rebutal of Chippedchips ridiculous post.
Kim,
I always enjoy your comments. We disagree about certain things, but I enjoy them very much.
AustinRoth-
If you go back to my post, you’ll note that I never said Hezb’Allah wouldn’t exist; I questioned whether their membership would be as large as it is without the focus for anger, hatred, and aggression it provides. Of its membership, how many hew to the militant wing’s hard line, and how many are just there to exact revenge for earlier attacks on their homes and families? How many of its fighters signed on for this campaign because of their stated intent of trading kidnapped Israeli soldiers for Lebanese prisoners? The base being played by the extremists in charge, perhaps? Hezb’Allah would almost certainly still exist, but with less credibility, and not in the form of the large, well-armed force that’s giving Israel headaches now.
Michael(vdG)-You are also right that we must work with the ones who are willing to work with us.
No, we must be willing to work, period, with the more moderate elements and the extremists. A strong military option must be maintained, but it must strictly be punative, and our responses must be tempered, focused, and resolute. ‘You did that, now reap this. Finished yet?’ Escalate the conflict unduly and ‘we’ are branded the extremists and imperialists that enable ‘their’ extremists to seem reasonable and attractive in mass action.
No, the hard core extremists will never work with us, but if penalties for extremist responses and attitudes are made inattractive while (more importantly) the benefits of de-escalation are made more attractive, the motivation of the rank and file falls away. The carrot before the stick, as it were.
But, as noted, intentions and motivations must be sincere. Pretense will not win credibility, and the west has already lost much credibility in the Middle East because of it. A carrot wrapped around a bomb is not going to win anyone’s heart or mind.
It’s a long process, made longer now, but if the last 4 years haven’t taught us that shortcuts don’t work, we’ll never learn.
I suppose you “experts on everything” can enlighten us all on exactly what does cause war, and how one does not have to have some life experiences under their belts to be anything more than book learned opinionated snobs.
Please. Do. Print some actual backed up facts for a change. No more rhetoric, no more slurs, no more personal opinion, no more arguing…just your printed backed up facts that should be able to be found right here on the internet.
Chippedchips :
I suppose you “experts on everything” can enlighten us all on exactly what does cause war, and how one does not have to have some life experiences under their belts to be anything more than book learned opinionated snobs.
In all your years of life experience havn’t you learned that there is no one answer as to why all wars happen ? Haven’t you learned that there are a myriad of reasons which result from the human condition?
While life experience is valuable it does not trump intelligence and acumen. Take a golfer who has played for decades yet can’t hold a candle to a 16 year old girl like Michelle Wie.Or a chess expert such as Boris Spasky who is trumped by a young portage like Bobby Fisher. While life experience is valuable it does not preclude an intelligent young person from having valid and informed opinions. The Boston Red Sox finally won a world championship after they hired what some thought was an executive far too younger the demands of the position.
Setting that aside it is you who are guilty of acting like a snob. Show me how existing for many decades elevates your opinion above that of a younger person who has worked hard to develop experience and education beyond his year.
Chippy , you may be old but your not very grown up