Be nice!
But it sure is seductive.
Hi KM
Another seemingly intractable conflict is Northern Ireland. I was speaking to an Englishman about that, and he was saying they worked to resolve it by appeasing those that could be appeased, thereby isolating those who could not be appeased.
Perhaps the biggest challenge to this way of solving a conflict is to put aside the issue of who is wrong and who is right. Take the Iranian president for example, who wants to eradicate Israel. Fine, he's wrong. But he is still there; he still has supporters; and those supporters must still be brought alongside a more moderate stance.
So, I disagree with your assertation that it's convoluted to attempt to achieve a temporary non-conflict. It's also not moral prostitution to work with bad people to achieve a temporary non-conflict, if that's what you meant in your post.
When working for a cease-fire and working to appease those that can be appeased, it's very easy to make the mistake of saying that bad people are nice, and we're all friends. We are not all frends. But in my opinion, we all share a responsibility to stop the violence, and the hate it fosters.
Erik raises an interesting dilemma. This was obviously an incomplete, evocative post but what I realize I left out was the sense that sides are being picked in a more fundamental, supernatural sense than ever before - a statement I make with full recognition that others have made it throughout history and been wrong.
The sense I meant to convey is one of evil being less and less shy - less and less feeling that it needs to cover its tracks. I sense a kind of cosmic polarization that's far beyond the temporary appeasement that Erik describes re. Northern Ireland.
Specifically on that topic, I find it fascinating to read Charles Colson's 1987 book "Kingdoms in Conflict" in which he spends a couple of chapters specifically on Norther Ireland, taking it on not from a macro, political perspective but from the perspective of individuals - most of them Christians in name only - choosing to truly accept Jesus into their lives and only as a result of that to change their behavior.
Net/net: pay no attention to the Gerry Adamses and the Ahmadinejad's and the "class struggles" of the world. Pay very very close attention to the hearts of individuals as they/we choose to embrace evil or embrace God. My point: there may soon be be much less room in the world to fudge it and "embrace" neither or both.
> and those supporters must still be brought alongside a more moderate stance.
Not at all. We could do this, if it seems worth the trouble.
On the other hand, we could just introduce them to the effects of a million degrees fahrenheit or so.
I'd prefer the former, but they really do have to make it worth our while, and most of them seem reluctant to do that.
More seriously, you're presuming, I think, that Ahmadamnutjob has a lot of honest popular support. He WAS overwhelmingly elected, of course.
But then, so did Saddam -- after all, how many Western leaders have 100% popularity at the polls...?
And yet... and yet.... I remember that statue...
Ahminajad has the support of some powerful mullahs who rule by fear and the ignorance and/or helplessness of their underlings. A nudge in the right place, some assistance in the right hand -- and perhaps we don't need to introduce anyone to a proto-matter state for a moment or two.
I certainly hope so.
OBH, it doesn't really matter how much honest popular support the Iranian
president has. You're marching straight into the trap of assessing his
legitimacy. Forget his legitimacy. What matters is that he has *enough*
support to run the country, and he wants to eradicate Isreal. Thus, his
supporters need to be won over -- period.
You say that could be done of it were worth the trouble. I'm not sure if
you're putting me on; I don't think that attitude will get you far. You
say that the Iranian president is supported by priests who spread fear. In
that case we could try to dispell some of that fear, and work to strengthen
those who are fearful.
President George Bush often talks of his unwillingness to put his soldiers
in harm's way. If bloodshed is to be avoided, appeasing those that can be
appeased and thus isolating the Iranian president is a technique that must
be fully exploited.
You might have read about how Hezbollah run schools, care for the families
of dead soldiers, and right now they're caring for refugees. That
obviously cultivates lots of support for Hezbollah among the locals. The
western countries need to be doing the same thing. We need to do it more
and better than Hezbollah are doing it. We need to win the hearts and
minds of people in the middle east, especially the violent and potentially
violent ones.
You can't simply kill people you disagree with. Passers-by will simply see
one person killing another, and will thus become the enemy of the guy
doing the killing. You may have killed one enemy, but you'll have made at
least one new one in the process.
One of the articles KM linked in the blog described how removing Saddam
had removed a supporter of Hezbollah and the more radical and violent
Palestinian organisations. The article even argued that this has now made
other powerful Arabs stop supporting Hezbollah. This was one the main
motivators of invading Iraq.
Though the Iraq invasion was poorly executed and ill-timed, it is an
example of removing supporters of bad people (ie Saddam supporting the bad guys) like I'm talking about. Not killing Saddam, only removing him, might be the most valuable foreign policy move the US is likely to make in
decades.
I know you called this post incomplete and evocative (and I also know I'm late to this party, it now being August and all), but I think I understood just what you meant. It was evocative, and that's what I liked about it. My husband and I often talk about the world choosing sides. People have named dates for millenia, despite the futility of that effort that Jesus makes clear in Scripture, but He did also say that there would be signs of the times. Are we seeing them? I don't know, but are we seeing something? Absolutely. Evil really is getting less shy, perhaps because it's getting more favorable publicity these days. Keep speaking truth, brother.
But... nothing I've seen from recent Russian nightlife is really all that glamorous. Trashy isn't quite the word. Expensively skanky? Limousine trailer park? Chav?
Russian pop music sounds really cool and the lyrics are interesting, but Russian music videos look like some bizarre form of ritual public humiliation of the bands.
Pitiful. No dignity, no shame, and no taste.
KM is on the right path. There is a "gradually sorting..", but only since Saddam was toppled. Although the "world" had been sorting itself out since 1979, our politicians and all the media in this country did nothing to either know it, understand it or acknowledge it. They thus failed the American populace by continuing on their socialist message and turning a blind eye.
The Middle Eastern countries, have never educated their masses in anything but the Koran and some only in their inhumane Wahabisims. I see hundreds of thousands in many countries "protest" with readily available, preprinted banners, placards, flags all on a moment's notice and on demand.
I have watched as the EU has been used to further the aims of the fanatics in the Middle East by the streams of immigrants allowed in these countries and saw the pillaging and burning just a few months ago.
'Dad' may be America, but I seriously wonder how in the world you negotiate, talk or try to find common ground with people whose belief system is based on the total annilhilation of everyone who will not convert or enslavement of those who may be necessary for the running of their countries?
It is very clear that they are committed to their "cause" in a way that you will not find Westerners committed. Westerners have become wussies without a backbone willing to be bent over in order to keep whatever type of life is allowed.
Even if, we became the socialist/communist or anarchist government the Left has been demanding for the past 100+ years, what difference does anyone suppose it will make to these "fanatical Islamists"?
The closest anaology I can come up with is: have you ever tried to negotiate or appease a cranky, hostile 2-year old? How about a 15 year old who has a completely different view of the world because of his "schooling"?
Sigh, we are in for a brutal, long term 'war' and I greatly fear for my great grandchildren for they may not be free, just dead or bowed.
Commenting by HaloScan
