Balance
Tonight, Dave and I spent time talking life, politics, the world and everything over at Four Courts in Arlington. We ended up, as usually, talking heated politics.
I have, of late, been raging against Radical Islam in my head. I am frustrated with their inability to tolerate a country of non-believers. I am frustrated with their desire to lock up women in their homes, to use them only as baby-factories and playthings. I am deeply frustrated with the violence that they've chosen to espouse against my country just because we're not like them.
I am angry that they've forced us to strike down rights that we used to have. That they've commoditized dissent between parties and among friends. That they've killed innocents just because of where they were working. That they've brutally oppressed for no reason beyond the God that they worship, or choose not to worship.
What it comes down to is freedom. Freedom of conscience. Freedom of choice. Freedom of will.
Those are what I want. I want the freedom to get up in the morning, unafraid that some crazy people want to kill me just because I'm an American by birth. I want the freedom to go to work, unafraid that I might be sitting next to a suicide bomber on the bus. I want to go to Church on Sunday, or not go to Church on Sunday, unafraid of mortal consequences of that action.
We have a tough row to hoe here. It's easy to say "Fuck'em," and for the past week, that's what I've wanted to say. It's easier than saying "We can help you."
And there are times when we must help them and do what is right and difficult, and there are times when we can take only so much and respond with force.
It is knowing that the difference between the two that I can only pray we have the wisdom to discern.
Of late, I am not that person.
Comments:
I'm afraid force never worked, which is why the average US citizen is reaping the sins of government foreign policy and clandestine activity. In fact in the tv series West Wing, a comment on their 9-11 special said no rise to arms ever succeeded. I couldn't believe it but then couldn not think of examples. All that I thought of had been achived without violence. And I have to remind myself of this everytime I think otherwise.
Interaction, education, sharing of ideas is so important. And it is the isolated opressed who subscribe to radicalism. I just re-read Asimov's Prelude to Foundation and realise all these thoughts are not new. Just that now more of us have to grapple with it. Most of us can no longer ignore the issues.
We wil emerge into a better time. But then I'm an optimist.
Posted by Otterman on May 28, 2004 — 6:10 AM
Force drove back the Nazis in the 1940s, and the Germans under the Kaiser in the 1910s.
Force drove back the French and the British in turn in the 19th, 18th and 17th century.
Hell, Force drove back the British from our own soil in the 1770s.
Force DOES solve things, Otterman.
Interaction, education and sharing of ideas IS very important, but you cannot educate someone who wants to kill you just because you don't believe in the same God.
Posted by Tom Bridge on May 28, 2004 — 7:51 AM
Yeah, I'm not sure where people get the idea that force never solves anything. Of course it does.
It's not generally the PREFERABLE option, of course, but ultimately, violence does solve things. When a madman is marching across Europe and won't stop unless you kill him, well, kill him! When crazed zealots who think that murdering you is an instant ticket to paradise, it's time to let them go without you- you don't have time to educate and worry about root causes- when it's them or you, well, sometimes it's just gotta be them.
Posted by Tiff on May 28, 2004 — 9:24 AM
I think most rational people feel that violence is only the solution of last resort. The problem is determining when all the options are spent.
And in Iraq that is a hard determination to make. There are people there who want our help and there are people there who want to kill us. We're in a situation now where we can't extricate ourselves either.
Personally, I feel we have been too soft. During World War II we treat all parties in the field of battle as combatants and sorted it all out when the gunfire died down. While I'm definitely one of those violence as a last resort kind of people, I definitely think we need to get a GREAT deal tougher with the insurgents.
Posted by Amy on May 28, 2004 — 10:09 AM
I started commenting on this and found I had more to say than a brief comment. To read my "comment-turned-post" please come over.
--sorry for that.
Posted by Veda on May 28, 2004 — 10:23 AM
Yeah, oversight. I definitely concede force did work in WWII, especially since I read so much about the Pacific war.
This scenario is different though, due to its guerilla-nature.
A lot of nonsense is propagated to people in villages by charimatic nutcases (sound familiar?), and much of it in mediums they call schools. And teachers have unrestricted access to an enthralled audience. People in social and economic need, neglected by governments, are a good hunting ground for fiery solutions and easily swallow incredible tales.
In southern Thailand, a respectable village youth soccer team attacked their police stations (mark of central authority), walking into bullets against which they carried weapons but no firearms - they were all killed and left family and relatives astounded. The (peverted) idea of matyrdom makes such things possible.
And religion is just tool. Behind the thin veneer is a grapple for finance and power. So people get manipulated. They say the Germans weren't all Nazis and the Japanese weren't all fanatics. Economic greed allowed them to be hijacked. As I read more, I begin to believe this was somewhat true.
But do you believe force would solve the current situation, or were you just letting off steam? Somehow I don't see force helping, only encouraging more resistance.
I can see how economic progress would dilute the effectiveness of fundamentalism. And education would set in. Old story though, and won;t happen overnight especially with rampant government corruption. However, Malaysia and India both got rid of religious fanatics out of government recently, so we can afford to be optimistic.
Sorry for late reply - computer was down.
Posted by Otterman on May 29, 2004 — 12:39 PM
As Otterman points out, the current situation is significantly different from those in which force worked in the past. They were all invasions, involving the physical presence of invading forces on territory that was not their own. Force is clearly a feasible mechanism for making them retreat.
Terrorism isn't like that. Radical Islam isn't invading the United States, or anywhere else for that matter. It's sitting in people's heads. No matter how many unpleasant regimes the US may overthrow, in the Middle East or elsewhere, it'll do nothing to change what these zealots think and indeed, will probably just lead to more people thinking that way.
The scourge of radical islam and terrorism must be fought, but a far more subtle form of warfare is required than anything we've seen in the past.
Posted by Phil Wells on June 1, 2004 — 1:26 PM