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.
When the hearts of the many are hardened and are accepting of hate, it is then there will be woe among mankind and iniquity will prevail.
– Pioneer Lady
Gandhi described anger and intolerance as being the enemies of correct understanding, but they are also the enemies of reason. They spread misunderstanding.
People will disagree on principles, or on the details of an issue, but that is not the same as standing on misinformation, calling it truth, and asserting all others are wrong in their beliefs. Correct understanding therefor is not just the ability to understand, but the ability to understand the opposition and the ability to reason rather than simply rationalize.
Does the enemy attack when we are weak? When we are distracted? Yes, historically there have been attacks when we have been weak and distracted. But we are also attacked when we are arrogantly standing on a hill declaring our greatness to the world.
So when did arrogance begin replacing weakness and distraction as the invitation for an attack? It happened after the First Gulf War, when the US people had shown they supported a fight. After that war, it became clear that the US public had changed since the Vietnam War. Kudos to President Reagan for reestablishing a fighting mentality in the people.
So why is arrogance and the willingness to fight an invitation for attack? In simple terms, the Cold War was a war of economic attrition with both sides betting that military spending would weaken the other side first. Enemies of the US took note, and knew that if the US was drawn into a protracted conflict, it would further weaken the US economy. If the US could be drawn into a preemptive or unilateral fight, then worldwide public opinion would also turn against and weaken the US.
This is the strategy of terrorism, peck at the king on the hill until he is overtaxed, spread too thin. Not so that victory can be achieved in a decisive battle, but so that the king will fall; fall from his own inability to stop reacting to the threat. Fall because rather than sharing the target on his back with allies, he will want to stand on the hill all alone. His arrogance will defeat his kingdom and not the enemy.
A fellow student recently mentioned the conventional nature of war in the conflict between Israel and Lebanon. This caused me to think about Israel and Iran.
Unlike Israel and Lebanon who share a common border and therefore can wage a conventional war rather easily, Israel and Iran are separated by a large land mass making direct conflict more difficult. On a smaller scale, they seem to be waging a “cold war” of rhetoric and defense build-up, but unlike in the Cold War, they have limited ability to “export” hot, conventional war.
This is where, I think, the US finds itself in a bad situation. Entangling alliances and diplomacy are threatening to pull us in to a regional battle that would leave us the big losers. While Iran does not seem like the ‘nicest’ of world players (especially with the crazy dude spouting craziness all the time), Israel is more dangerous because they seem to be looking for justification for a preemptive strike. When we made the preemptive argument for Iraq, we gave credibility to others who want to make the same argument. Worse, no amount of justification can overshadow the chaos left behind, or the reality that even with our best intentions, we cannot “build” a foundation others won’t tear down once we are completely pulled out. To keep the peace and preserve what we have tried to do, we have to be a modern version of an imperial power, i.e. we make the ‘sovereign’ nation dependent on our economic, political, and military strength. Or – the big elephant in the room – we pull out, cut our losses, and deal with the repercussions for the next few decades. If we take the second option, Israel will have further justification for preemptive strike, knowing they will not need to clean up any mess they make, because we set the precedent. I shudder to think what Pakistan would then do.
Then what, would we all take sides? Would it be like a game of Risk? Would we be lucky to end up in a new Cold War, or would we see a WWI chain reaction?
Just something to ponder…
News article found after posting – check it out. http://hamptonroads.com/2012/10/exdefense-chief-says-hit-iran-would-be-disastrous
These are the two points that still really make me uncomfortable voting for Romney. You see, Romney wants me to vote for him over President Obama, but he won’t clarify these points. Unlike the president, Romney has to sell me on the fact that he would be the better president. So while I will look past the pained expression he always wears, (I give him the benefit of the doubt that it is a pained and not condescending expression), I can’t look past these points.
So can someone explain to me how you cut the budget but not cut military spending, medicare, or educational funding, as Romney promised he would do if elected?
What does that leave? Foreign aid, arts, Post-It notes, what am I missing here? Because my understanding is that the real ‘pork’ is spent by Congress, and the President is limited in his influence in that regard. The President can only change the ‘discretionary’ funds, not the Congressional pet projects. He can veto, but that is tough when the pork is attached to the salaries of men and women serving their country, or other vital spending.
So, as far as I can tell, unless we rapidly and substantially downsize govt, which puts people out of work, Romney’s plan involves two things: a magic wand coupled with really scary, Reagan-like military build-up, which by the way will not make us safer, but will make some developers rich. Will they employ people? Of course, but 12 million people? Or even enough to offset bureaucratic downsizing? Even with a trickle-down effect, I can’t fathom how Romney’s plan will work without magic?
I am not looking at this from a partisan point of view, because I agree that the bureaucracy is too big, and because I don’t care whether the military spending on new war machine development is a Republican or Democrat idea. I’m looking at this from the point of view of someone who was really glad to see the Cold War end. I do not want to see another arms race started by our actions. If Romney really intends to ‘fix’ our economy and create jobs through military build-up, I am very concerned. Because historically, when the US fixes its economy with military build-up, it soon after, goes to war.
FYI – replacing old machines with new is not the issue, but dumping loads of money into experimental development beyond what we already spend, is the issue.
Think about it – we won’t pay to keep our people healthy, but we will pay to create machines that will kill, not only our enemies, but also our own people. How is this right?
I am a proud supporter of the military and the purpose of the military, but I really want leadership who will think of the lives of people before the pocketbooks of people. There has to be a way to achieve health, safety, and economic prosperity, but I did not hear solutions tonight. And as far as I am concerned that does not make anyone a winner, but all of us losers. We just have to decide how we want to lose, healthy but poor in the short term, or rich but facing the potential of another arms race and war in the future all because we, again, only see US national interests, and not the world’s.
A link on the deficit crisis supplied by Leigh Ann.
Joseph S. Nye, Jr. has developed a definition of Soft Power versus Hard Power. Hard power is based on coercion (military, economic, etc.). Soft Power is based on creating a system others want to emulate. He says,
“This soft power – getting others to want the outcomes that you want – co-opts people rather than coerces them.”
and
“When a country’s culture includes universal values and its policies promote values and interests that others share, it increases the relationship of attraction…”
“Narrow values and parochial cultures are less likely to produce soft power.”
So are we going about all this wrong? Are we, with our polarization of politics and talk of enemies, making ourselves less likable and thereby less attractive to the rest of the world?
Once we were seen as the Yanks who came to save the day. Then we became the worlds police force, or peacekeeping force. But something seems to have changed, and often we are disliked more than liked. In our attempt to protect ourselves from bullies, have we crossed a line and become the bully?
Just something to ponder…
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Nye, Joseph S., Jr. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: PublicAffairs Books, 2004.
War, like music, has all been done before, it is just a matter of how the tune gets played.
So is there any point to keeping the notes secret, when all that must be kept a secret is the order in which the pianist plays the notes? Or the singer sings the words?
Too Much School and My Brain is Done.
I went to bed last night thinking how sad it is the way people go about fitting in with a crowd, often putting down others to do so. Popularity is a mighty strong enticement for our youth. We try to teach them to ‘be themselves’ and not copy the behavior of others.
As adults, do we follow the same advice? In our attempts to gain the favor of one group, do we feel we must offend someone else?
As youth, our influence on others is often limited, either by locale or by relative anonymity, but our adult influence is often greater than we realize.
It is probably safe to say that we all slip-up time to time by putting down others in order to fit in with a crowd, but do we take the time to rectify our actions? When we get caught, do we apologize? Do we do the very thing we ask our children to do? Or do we feel we are justified in our speech or actions more than our children are?
During an election, much will be said that will irritate others. Much will be said for the shear campaign value of it. This is, and has been, part of our political culture, but is there a line we cross when we move from putting down our opponent and instead put down our opponent’s followers, the very people we want to represent?
While Mitt Romney is the latest to be called out for this, by no means is he the first to attempt gaining favor of a smaller group of citizens by insulting a larger group. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I am going to conclude that if one of his children or grandchildren acted in a similar manner, he would require them to make amends. This is probably the greatest reason for my sadness today. For as a fellow Christian, especially as a fellow Mormon, and certainly as a fellow citizen, I recognize most of us make mistakes such as Romney’s, and most of us struggle to make amends.
The expectation of doing what is right should be an equal expectation placed on all of us, but sometimes I wonder if it is of greater importance for those with a greater audience to hold a higher standard of themselves than they might expect of others. Making mistakes is part of human nature, but amending one’s mistakes is somewhat divine. It shows greater character and a greater humility. It should not be seen as a weakness, while often it is labeled as such by detractors. But these same detractors are the ones who would require we gain their favor by insulting and offending in the first place.
So I went to bed last night feeling sad, but this morning I woke up with a song running through my head, a song that says, “I need a hero!” Maybe instead of counting the number of mistakes a person makes in their life, we should spend more time evaluating their reaction once they have made a mistake. For a hero is not a perfect person, but is rather a humble person willing to serve others and who attempts to make amends for their mistakes. For while they may often seem to fall short of our standards, they should never fall short of their standards without making amends.
Other YouTube versions of Holding Out For A Hero:
Tribute for Peace (this one chokes me up, but it is a must see)
If anyone can find a link to the Paramount VHS promo, the romantic one not the violent one, could you please share it with me.
The ignorant youth love their fits of rage and acts of violence. Their discontent with themselves and the world around them erupt in vandalism, cruelty, and intolerance. Sadly the ignorant old will hear the tales of ignorant young and say, “Good for them! That’s the way to show those ____.” Thereby they provide justification and acceptance for the acts of hate and rage and intolerance.
In every region of the world there is suffering which, in turn, people will use as justification for violence and hate. Sadly, there will always be those who will take their own suffering out on others, and are so willing, and often so eager, to hurt their neighbor.
During these times of heightened displays of rage, it is good, although sometimes difficult, to remember there are so many who still focus on the positive, so many that despite their own suffering will wake up each day and embrace the blessings of life with gratitude even if liberty and love are in short order around them. These wise people, who choose love over hate, tolerance over ignorance, and kindness over violence, remind us all that there is hope in the world.
The ignorant youth and the ignorant old can never be the majority as long as the wise and grateful do not join their ranks.
Pithy Ponderings 