The Simple Wisdom of John Lennon
I was a toddler the last time protesting college students in this country actually feared for their lives.
Today, stories like this one make non-experts like me wonder if the ISG report went far enough in its recommendations. Sure, go ahead, negotiate with Syria and Iran. And while you’re at it, support the voices of dissent within those countries. Stir up the pot there with the same passion you tried to settle it with force here, some forty years ago.
John Lennon might have given more than one member of the US federal government heartburn during his hey-day when he sang “Power to the People.” In retrospect, his words may be the surest guide for a government in disarray over how to shift the balance of power in the Mideast.
Call me naive, if you want. But I just don’t believe it takes complex strategy to transform the world. It takes the undying will of individuals who truly desire change and the common sense of the rest of us to back them on their journey.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
16 Responses to “The Simple Wisdom of John Lennon”
That something is simple does not mean that it is easy or possible. The complexity of supporting the various populist movements in the middle east is due to the desire not to get those voices killed in the process (a’la the Kurds in Iraq in ’91…)
Gandhi’s message was that the masses could always dictate their course through non-violent resistance. The caveat is that you can’t fear death or retaliate. Something tells me there won’t be a Satyagraha movement in the Middle East any time soon though.
The problem with Gandhi’s philosophy (in my humble opinion) is that while he could move the masses to act while he was alive, the second he died it all fell apart. I also wonder whether it would have worked if the British were as vicious as a dictatorial regime would be.
Gandhi’s methods work much better against a colonial power whose main concern is whether maintaining their position is “worth it” versus against a dictator who wants to maintain power at all costs.
That said, I’d take him against any of the leaders over there a thousand tiimes over.
“back them on their journey”.
Just what do you mean by that? If the Iranian students choose open revolt, are we to “back them” by giving them weapons to use in their defense? What if some of the students joining in the revolt want harsher Sharia laws, not more modernity and equality? What if some of the people fomenting the revolt are Sunni Muslims, with religious reasons for attacking the leading Shi’a power? Which group of students are we going to “back”?
For that matter, did it work out well in the long run that the U.S. armed the mujahadeen to help them fight the Soviets in Afghanistan?
The same way we supported dissent in Hungary among the Shiite in Iraq in 1991 and all those other places?
Look we get these people associated with us, we get bored, they die. Painfully.
Same thing is going to happen to those who share our values in Iraq.
This is the American way.
There’s this disconnect whereby the US assumes that people opposing a ruler we don’t like will automatically welcome us. Fact is many Iranians probably hate their government but quite possibly hate us even more. We gave Iraq democracy, super, and then acted shocked when they voted in radical anti-Americans. I’m betting a great many people in the Middle East want freedom and democracy, and also want the US to stay the hell out of their business. Though I appreciate the good intentions behind supporting pro-democracy forces in Iran, I think it’s likely it would do more harm than good. For starters any American backing of dissidents would mark them, even more if possible, for violence and death, by accusation of treason. Also, people who might otherwise sympathize with dissidents might not do so if they are viewed as “puppets of the Americans”.
Lynx, your general point is correct. But Iraq didn’t vote in “radical anti-Americans”. The vast majority of the parliament in Iraq is not hostile to the U.S. and wants the U.S. to increase its efforts to crack down on the militas and other thugs tyrannizing the Iraqi people.
PatMHV,
I agree completely and I’d even say that the fact that the Iraqi leadership isn’t anti-American enough is part of the problem for the govt not having enough political clout to gain the support of the Iraqis who don’t want US intervention (so maybe indirectly, Lynx is right even though the elected leaders are fairly friendly to the US overall).
I think Lynx makes a stronger point here, re Iranian dissidents:
For this reason, I think support for the Iranian moderates and dissidents has to be very discrete.
Am I remembering that famouse quotation correctly? “Discretion is the better part of valor.” If so, anyone remember who said it?
“Nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come”
Supporting the “voices of dissent” within recognized country is meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation and is an act of war.
But perhaps a justified one when the govt of that nation is imprisoning dissidents, blackballing them from university positions, and in some cases, sentencing them to death.
Really, Krous? “Supporting”? Do you mean to limit that to “supporting through arms”? If not, then our country has been warred upon a lot more than we’ve realized. The Soviets spent a great deal of money supporting American “voices of dissent”. We’d also be at war with Venezuela right now under that definition, among other countries.
Or is that one of those many rules of international relations which applies only to the United States, not other countries?
I agree that the minute you are supporting one faction or another in another country you are by definition meddling, but I don’t agree that it’s always wrong. Hell, we have diplomats and embassies at least in part to ensure our influence on other nations, the same way we give more favorable trade agreements to nations that give us favorable treatment. In some cases I think that meddling is more than warranted, it is required, like in that place called Darfur we keep forgetting about. I also think that meddling, even diplomatic meddling, should be approached with caution and with a view to how it will be received. In the case of Iran, this form of intervention would probably not be good for the democratic movement of Iran, and therefore would probably not be good for us either.
C Stanley
Sounds like the United States and Isarel.
Posted: PLEASE DON’T FEED THE TROLL