Friday, December 22, 2006
... in our Time
There are two main varieties of the peace aficionados. The first - pure bred - rejects the use of force in all affairs. The second rejects the use of force here and now because it has costs.
The first is a utopian crowd. Many respect their idealism, but I do not. The practical effect of their ideology is that others must fight for their survival. The logical endpoint in any contest with their kind alone is that they must surrender or die. Their true numbers are few. I suspect most would fight when the choice of fighting or dieing is at their doorstep. They parade weakness as moral superiority.
The second group is larger, and in the proximate case of Iraq and more importantly Iran, becoming the determinant of the outcome of the national debate. Their motivations must be understood and addressed if the outcome of that debate is to be affected.
Emotional intelligence is sometimes defined as the ability to delay gratification for the sake of longer-term well-being. Fighting a war is an act of delayed gratification, for some the penultimate act of delayed-gratification.
The common thread to those who preach peace in the face of aggression is they are focused on the very near-term, their needs are now. They do not talk about surrendering, but that the war need not be fought today. A longer view forces consideration of the consequences of waiting - and there the peaceniks will not go. Their language reflects their focus. Peace Now. Chamberlain's formulation is the canonical form. Peace in our time. Yes, perhaps so, if your time is the next 3 months. Peace is always achievable unilaterally. Stop fighting, you're at peace, but the future may be pretty bleak.
So I want to change their views. I ask if they could have assassinated Hitler in 1939, would they pull the trigger? It's surprising how many would not. Would they agree to having someone else pull the trigger? There are many more positive responses. Then, if they haven't gotten away from me yet, I ask if they believe AhWantMyJihad is engaged in a program to develop nuclear weapons to be used in Israel (yes), United States (maybe), Great Britain (maybe). So I ask - if we can take him out now - should we? Usually - I get no. We should wait for the UN. We should negotiate.
It is these minds which must be changed if America is to engage the nuclear Imams before they go nuclear. But I don't know how to do it. They seem determined to wait for the blast.
The first is a utopian crowd. Many respect their idealism, but I do not. The practical effect of their ideology is that others must fight for their survival. The logical endpoint in any contest with their kind alone is that they must surrender or die. Their true numbers are few. I suspect most would fight when the choice of fighting or dieing is at their doorstep. They parade weakness as moral superiority.
The second group is larger, and in the proximate case of Iraq and more importantly Iran, becoming the determinant of the outcome of the national debate. Their motivations must be understood and addressed if the outcome of that debate is to be affected.
Emotional intelligence is sometimes defined as the ability to delay gratification for the sake of longer-term well-being. Fighting a war is an act of delayed gratification, for some the penultimate act of delayed-gratification.
The common thread to those who preach peace in the face of aggression is they are focused on the very near-term, their needs are now. They do not talk about surrendering, but that the war need not be fought today. A longer view forces consideration of the consequences of waiting - and there the peaceniks will not go. Their language reflects their focus. Peace Now. Chamberlain's formulation is the canonical form. Peace in our time. Yes, perhaps so, if your time is the next 3 months. Peace is always achievable unilaterally. Stop fighting, you're at peace, but the future may be pretty bleak.
So I want to change their views. I ask if they could have assassinated Hitler in 1939, would they pull the trigger? It's surprising how many would not. Would they agree to having someone else pull the trigger? There are many more positive responses. Then, if they haven't gotten away from me yet, I ask if they believe AhWantMyJihad is engaged in a program to develop nuclear weapons to be used in Israel (yes), United States (maybe), Great Britain (maybe). So I ask - if we can take him out now - should we? Usually - I get no. We should wait for the UN. We should negotiate.
It is these minds which must be changed if America is to engage the nuclear Imams before they go nuclear. But I don't know how to do it. They seem determined to wait for the blast.
Links to this post: BlogItemCommentsEnabled>
0 Comments:
<< Home
