“Strategy does not allow a nation to walk through the garden of war and politics unscathed. Strategic planning informs a nation of what it can do and can endure once it’s been pricked. Through planning, a nation can learn what it can endure and the depths of their adversary. It’s not about the plan. It’s about the planning.”
– Nicholas Torres, USAF, AMU Grad Student
– – – – –
*Nicholas is one of my classmates and has given me permission to quote him.
No government will ever reach perfection, therefore their success must be evaluated on how well they return to law after war messes everything up.
Propaganda works on those willing to listen either from fear or from prior conviction. It can plant seeds of doubt, however seeds of doubt turn into trees of knowledge for any willing to explore rather than be led.
No matter how good a narrative is, if it only looks at one side of the story it still falls short. Spoils may go to the victor, but history of conflict written by the victor sadly seldom tells the whole story.
People keep talking about the ills of our government, about our liberties being at risk and about how bad the nation is now. But I really wonder how many of them have ever studied any history – real history, the kind that goes beyond even the freshman level American History course of most colleges. Before they spout off about the loss of rights, do they really do their very best to understand the basis upon which those rights were created or do they simply agree with the masses screaming foul?
I often wonder if the propaganda material of 1770s and 1780s is all the people of today know about and whether they understand that not all the Founding Fathers agreed on the propaganda. The one thing they did seem to agree upon was creating a Constitution that did not hem us in but rather grew with us, adapted as we adapted, and outlived the political rhetoric of any one generation.
Lastly, I wonder if the spouting masses of today have any real idea of how much compromise those Founding Fathers put into not just the Constitution, but into the governance which then had to follow in order to provide for the protections the Constitution promised. Or how many times it took the threat of war before they would step down from their soapboxes and agree to compromise.
Maybe it is our turn to set aside the soapbox and pick up a scholarly history book, one that challenges our notions rather than simply tells the mythical side of the story.
Whenever the media or friends discuss the war on Christmas these thoughts come to mind…….
I often wonder if “political correctness” is blamed for the decline in “Christmas” because Christians avoid looking at themselves and asking if they are teaching “Christmas” or teaching something else. It is easy to get fired up at the “attacks” but much harder to recognize that “Christmas” doesn’t just happen because you buy a tree and make cookies.
I really don’t think the lack of a nativity at the court house or public building will adversely affect my family, but the lack of one in my home certainly will. While it is sad to see public display of the holiday diminish, I do try to keep in mind that it is the traditions we make at home and share with our family and friends that count. I also remind myself that Hollywood’s version of Christmas is a rather new version and that the fundamentals of Christmas count more than how Hollywood defined Christmas to our parents and grandparents.
Whether I say Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, or Season’s Greetings, I am wishing a person the best. Christ is only removed from Christmas when I forget to include him in my life, not when others exclude him from theirs. I would hope I live in such a way that people will still know I am Christian even when I wish them Happy Holidays. If nothing else, I hope they at least see the kindness in me when I wish them happiness.
A wish of cheer, in any form, is the message that carries on even after the lights and the tinsel get packed away for another year. Christ will never be removed from Christmas as long as well-wishers genuinely wish each other glad tidings at least once a year. This is part of the magic of the season; this genuine wish for blessings and cheer to be the companion of others. The Bleak Midwinter is replaced by a White Christmas the moment when a genuine greeting brightens someone’s day.
It is a good and noble thing to stand up for that in which you believe. Sometimes you may even need to fight for your beliefs, but remember when we choose to fight, we are seeking to change the will of others. Changing someone else’s will is not simply changing their mind, but changing their desire to resist the result you propose.
The decision to fight, to try to change someone’s will, should not be decided upon lightly. Even a fight of words can result in harm and injury. Before you start a fight, make sure your fight is for something in which you are willing inflict injury to achieve. Be sure the thing you are willing to injure others over has a great enough value that it will offset the damage you will cause.
We can stand on principles without resorting to a fight, but to do so we much have respect for the principles upon which others stand. In almost all cases, it will be better to stand than to fight. It is a profound task to figure out the exceptions.
Fear is the easiest way to distract people from seeing issues clearly. It creates “something worse” and thereby allows bad to be perceived as good.
….
….
Is it a good thing when your kids start arguing with you as to whom the credit for pithy ponderings should go?
What history will teach us…
I recently saw a meme that defined treason as including giving aid to an enemy. It started me thinking about the debate over foreign aid and the role it plays in diplomacy. While I certainly agree that foreign aid must be scrupulously administered and should not be simply a default in the national budget, I disagree on the implication of who one might call our enemy*.
Interestingly, during the years between WWI and WWII the United States, while not enemies with Great Britain, saw Great Britain as being the greatest potential for threat to US security and prosperity**, second only was the rising threat of Japan. These threat assessments were based on the notion that with Germany having been weakened after WWI, a naval, and thereby commercial threat was only really viable by Great Britain and Japan.
Yet, when France fell and Great Britain became bombarded, President Roosevelt devised a scheme to aid Great Britain despite US isolationist rhetoric and congressional policy. So does that mean Roosevelt committed treason by helping a potential threat? Or does it simply mean that an unstable region, a region lacking a balance of power poses a greater threat to US security and prosperity than the potential threat of any one nation?
History teaches us that diplomacy and national policy is not as clear as political talking heads would like us to believe. I really don’t think history will record much of the opinion of the talking heads, rather history will view the intent, implementation, and result of policy. Then history will most likely teach us we were fools to listen to the talking heads in the first place.
* enemy is defined as a hostile nation or state. The presence of hostile factions does not make the state an enemy. Just as the US cannot universally control the ideas and actions of its citizens, the US cannot expect another nation to do that we cannot or will not do ourselves.
** National Security and Prosperity Interests was the terminology used prior to the Cold War when the language changed to National Security Interests.
We see what we want to see, we hear what we want to hear and then we criticize our political representatives when they represent our narrow points of view and cannot get anything done.
Hmmm…
Pithy Ponderings 