I find it interesting as I read the Bloggerverse.
On the one side, the idealistic peaceniks, who want to “give peace a chance” (we had, until 9-11), who want us to stop bombing (“What should we use, harsh language?”), and to somehow get folks who have systematically oppressed their populace in the name of their reading on their faith, who have harbored and even provided a government/military post to someone who has bombed embassies and whose organization has essentially admitted to hijacking planes and running them into buildings, to see the error of their ways and join us in a big hand-holding ring of love, joy, and peace. War is clearly not an option, assuming it ever can be. Maybe trade embargoes? No, their people are starving, and we’ve seen the Evil of Embargoes in Iraq. Ah, so, yes, harsh language? No, we need to be understanding. If we simply bribe our ways into their hearts (sending them food, technology, whatever they want), give in to what they want, stop being so “provocative” and “bullying” and and “Western-centric” (even though they base their philosophy on Western, if not US, concepts of tolerance and civil liberties), not to mention stop being “racist” and “imperialistic” and “capitalistic” (even though it is that capitalist system that has provided the surfeit of food and technology that they would have us hand over), then there will indeed be pie in the sky, by and by, and we’ll all sing “Kumbaya” (oops, that’s Christianocentric) and live in peace and harmony.
Basically, the frustration and shame of every sin, shortcoming, and past offense of the US, pent up, has found a new target — US violence against Afghanistan.
Then, on the other side, there are the idealistic hawks who basically say, “Nuke ’em all, and let God sort ’em out.” Bomb them into the Stone Age. Kill every Arab (which Afghanis aren’t) and convert every Muslim (yeesh!). Root them out of Afghanistan, then move on to Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt, and, ultimately, all the other — ah, I’ll pass on what sometimes borders on (or crosses over into) ethnic slurs. Do this, these folks say, enforce a Pax Americana by dint of arms and the ruthless will to use them whenever our interests are crossed, and we will be safe and happy and there will be pie in the sky, by and by. And, yeah, we’ll sing “Kumbaya,” too, because dammit we’re all good Christians, and we’ll live in peace and harmony.
Basically, the frustration and shame of every weakness, failure, and embarrassment of US foreign policy, pent up, has found a new target — the violence unleashed against the US on 9-11.
The latter list is shorter in my obvious condemnation of it merely because it is a less elaborate philosophy — one that dates back to cave folk bashing each other over the head in the middle of the night. The former is a more elaborate structure, but no less simplistic, ultimately, as it relies on wishful thinking as deluded as the latter philosophy. The former says everyone can be friends. The latter says every enemy can be defeated with a rock. Both are ultimately destructive, since both are based on unreality.
And here I sit in the middle. I do believe that armed intervention against bin Laden, Al Quaeda, and the Taliban is necessary. And there will be people hurt, not intentionally, but predictably, in that effort. I’m sure there were French, Belgian, and Dutch civilians who were killed during the Allied march on the Rhine in WWII. I’m sure there were slave laborers in the German factories we bombed. That’s a cost of war. That’s why it should be a last resort — but a resort, when necessary, that needs to be pursued to the end.
Can we wage this war unjustly, wrongly, in an evil fashion? Absolutely. But that is not, per se, the case for all wars. And sometimes you don’t have a choice between doing good, but only doing lesser evil to avoid a greater evil. Freedom cannot be always won by civil disobedience, or by sticking flowers in the rifle barrels of your enemies. Sometimes chains need to be broken, not simply held out for removal. Nor, conversely, can peace always be won by killing everyone who looks at you cross-eyed. Sometimes a kind word is better, more effective than a threat. Sometimes — even most of the time — making friends is better than taking aim at enemies.
The media res, folks. That’s where it’s at. It’s messy, because it has to deal with the real rather than the ideal. But that’s its strength, too — because it deals with the real rather than the ideal.
Because the ideal is what leads you to do things like send jets into buildings. Ideal is what leads you to stone women who seek higher education. Ideal is what lets you treat human lives as unimportant in the face of ideology.
Well, I suppose that’s an ideology, too, but at least it’s one I can live with.