Hi Everyone,
Since my mammoth post last March in which I laid out some ideas on how to create peace, the tpoic has been on my mind a lot. I have been thinking about it in conjunction with North Korea, the Middle East, particularly Iran. How to lay the groundwork for peace and stability in such a chaotic world? Well, I've been thinking, and yesterday, I came back to an old video clip I saw a while back.
The youtube clip comes from a May 2008 episode of Hardball with Chris Matthews. Then-President Bush had just implied, in an appearance in Israel, that then-Senator Obama's promise that he would meet with the enemies, principly Iran, without preconditions, was tantamount to the appeasement of Adolf Hitler in the run-up to World War II. Los Angeles talk radio host Kevin James went on Hardball to reinforce this point of view, and when Matthews started playing hardball, James struck out.
In the clip, James states that he wished the President (Bush) had been more direct in calling out the man who would become his successor. James began talking indirectly about how Obama's plans were dangerous for Israel and the US, and that he was an appeaser. Matthews then pressed James with a simple, but poignant question "What did Neville Chamberlain do wrong?" James continued with his line about appeasement and all the rest, but Matthews wouldn't let him get away. He kept asking, again and again "What did he do?"(If you watch the video, you'll see he asks at least 23 times) Finally, James just said "I don't know what [Bush] was referring to." This was probably one of Matthews' finest moments. I probably would have done the thing a little differently, but Matthews' point is right on the money.
What James and Matthews were referring to, what Chamberlain did wrong, was the Munich Agreement. When Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, Chamberlain traveled to Munich to meet with Hitler. He then signed an agreement allowing Hitler to annex part of Czechoslovakia, the Sudetenland, I think it was called, in September 1938. Chamberlain promised the agreement would bring "Peace in our time." Well, we all know how that worked out. Hitler violated the agreement, and when the Germans invaded Poland, everyone realized the only way to stop them was to fight.
The point here is that what Chamberlain did wrong was not talk to the enemy. What he did wrong was allow Hitler to grab up all the territory, on hopes that the problem would go away if they let Germany get what it asked for. This strategy of avoiding the issue does not work with any issue, whether personal or international. Regimes need to be confronted. This is the mistake that Chamberlain and others made, which eventually made the most violent war in history inevitable.
It is also important to realize that confrontation is not just about military might. This is the philosophy that fuels the tyrant. Confronting the issue also involves diplomacy. Diplomacy is different than just caving into demands. Tough diplomacy entails talking to hostile countries, offering deals, but also consequences. One strong point is knowing where the person is coming from. Matthews later elaborated to Rachel Maddow that perhaps if more of the leaders at the time had heard about Mein Kampf, they would have known who they were dealing with.
Matthews also talked about how these slogans, like "cut-and-run," "appeaser," are used irresponsibly to drown out criticism. The process and history of this warrants a post in its own right, but let's just look at this appeasement line. All negotiation with hostile powers is not appeasement; ceding territory for the sake of placating those powers are. They talk about "dealing from a position of strength." But it is possible to deal from a position of strength while acknowledging fault on both sides. Indeed, it seems to me that this is what is required to deal with the situation we now find ourselves in. Thankfully, this seems to be the strategy that President Obama is now implementing.
For all those people who think any talks or deals with hostile forces is appeasement, think of this. What about Richard Nixon? More importantly, what about Ronald Reagan? Did they not talk to the leaders of hostile nations? Nixon had his success with China, and more memorably, Reagan had his success with the Soviet Union. One of the things that people remember about President Reagan was that he was "a statesman." Doesn't being a staesman require talking to hostile leaders? Funnily enough, Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, at the time, was extremely concerned about Reagan's engagement of Gorbachev and the USSR. He, too, likened it to Chamberlain's appeasement.
So why is this important. Two, well, several, reasons: Iran, North Korea, Israel, Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan. All of these places are hostile territories, and they will all have to be dealt with with a strong diplomatic approach. Thankfully, it seems one of the President's strong points is comunication. Whether dealing with skeptical voters, critics, or audiences in the Middle East, he has shown talent for communicating seldom seen in anyone. Say what you will about his policies, who can doubt his intelligence when it comes to communication skills? So, going forward, we must not be afraid of dealing in messages of strength and perception. History has shown that strong diplomacy, not appeasement, works.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Showing posts with label War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War. Show all posts
Monday, June 29, 2009
Monday, May 25, 2009
Some Thoughts On Memorial Day: How to Best Honor Those in Our Service
Hi everyone,
Well, today was Memorial Day. I had a very good day off today, how about you? But seriously, I went out for a walk, did some reading, and played tennis with some of my family and friends. In the back of my mind this weekend, though, were the people this holiday was meant to honor. Those in our nation's uniform who sacrificed, some giving their lives, so that our land might be free, peaceful and prosperous. On Saturday, the President also paid tribute to them in his weekly youtube address to the nation. This post may be inappropriate, since this is a day of remembrance, rather than of excess commentary. But this is America, and free speech, even slightly inappropriate speech, is a right fought for by those veterans, so I am going to use it here. Even if it's painful, I'm going to use it.
On this subject, I have some conflicting feelings. Not about the men and women themselves. They are some of the best and most noble people around, in my view. They stand for the strength of our country's aspirations around the World. Giving so much in service of only those ideas, exerting so much energy and enduring so much hardship is something I admire very much in people. Some of my relatives, including my grandfather, a few of my uncles, and some of my friends from high school, have been or are now, in the US military. So the issue is not a question of my attitude towards those who serve; this has always been how I felt.
As much as I wish to honor our veterans and those who have been lost in battle, I wholeheartedly do not like war and I would like to see it prevented wherever possible. I realize, of course, that there were times were war was needed in the past, and I cannot appreciate enough the value of their struggle and sacrifice. Nonetheless, I see it as a task of mine to heal pain and suffering in this world. To me, this would mean preventing war and utilizing peace whenever possible. I mean these words I say about our veterans, I do. However, when I start hearing this kind of talk a lot, I find myself getting skeptical. It is often when these words are shouted the loudest that the words that need to be said are not heard.
Let's take our most recent struggle, that ongoing campaign against violent terrorism. As 9/11 happened, people all around the country gave something, from donating blood to a hospital to risking life and limb by rushing into the flaming towers, for fellow countrymen in need. It was on that day that ordinary people displayed these traits that we all prize in Americans, or indeed, in any person. In the following months, our soldiers, along with those from many other countries, bravely went into Afghanistan to oust the diabolical Taliban and Al Qaeda.
However, during this time, the government was preparing us for another war, subjecting prisoners to sadistic torture rather than legal interrogations, which work, by the way. And then, there is the fact that this was war, and as such, there are many tragedies that go along with it. Too often, civilans are incinerated, women and children maimed and killed in the midst of war. It is often in war that the basic elements of humanity are lost. Many soldiers who return safely from the battlefield are wounded or scarred for life. So this is why I grow skeptical of so much talk of military.
So then I am left with the question of how to best honor our veterans and those who fell on the battlefield. Now, the only thing coming to my mind is to make this country which they gave up so much for as good as I can make it. I love this country, American, I always have, and I always will. Even when I was deeply concerned about the direction it was going, I still loved it. I see as the best option for this end to make it the primary force for healing suffering, establishing common good in the world. Another way to honor our veterans and fallen is the obvious, to give them the care they need, and help them establish their life anew, because if anyone has earned the shot at a decent life, it's them.
A third way, perhaps, is to encourage peace. Our military is there for our defense, our security, and to put down threats so that peace can be established when the threat is past. The task of encouraging peace is no easy one, the world being what it is now. It is not easy, but necessary. The things most worth doing seldom are easy. How do we do this? There are a multitude of ways to go about this, which I don't have time to detail here.
One idea I'd like to throw out is the creation of another holiday. We have two holidays (memorial day and veterans day) dedicated to our servicemen and women, but none dedicated to the cause of peace. I'm not saying that these should be gotten rid of, on the contrary, they need to be respected. But a holiday, perhaps like Earth Day, could be set aside to promote peace, justice, working for the greater good, could be established. This may encourage people to do this in some way, large or small, in their own way at least one day a year.
Anyway, these are my ideas for how to best honor those who sacrificed for our country, even if, like me, you seek to establish a more peaceful world, and a more perfect union. If these ideas are inappropriate, so be it. My ideas and vision aren't perfect, but to even have the chance to begin from these imperfect ideas is to have a chance given by those who fought for that freedom on battlefields where it was threatened. For that, I will always be grateful to them. These are just my ideas, though. I'd like to hear yours.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Well, today was Memorial Day. I had a very good day off today, how about you? But seriously, I went out for a walk, did some reading, and played tennis with some of my family and friends. In the back of my mind this weekend, though, were the people this holiday was meant to honor. Those in our nation's uniform who sacrificed, some giving their lives, so that our land might be free, peaceful and prosperous. On Saturday, the President also paid tribute to them in his weekly youtube address to the nation. This post may be inappropriate, since this is a day of remembrance, rather than of excess commentary. But this is America, and free speech, even slightly inappropriate speech, is a right fought for by those veterans, so I am going to use it here. Even if it's painful, I'm going to use it.
On this subject, I have some conflicting feelings. Not about the men and women themselves. They are some of the best and most noble people around, in my view. They stand for the strength of our country's aspirations around the World. Giving so much in service of only those ideas, exerting so much energy and enduring so much hardship is something I admire very much in people. Some of my relatives, including my grandfather, a few of my uncles, and some of my friends from high school, have been or are now, in the US military. So the issue is not a question of my attitude towards those who serve; this has always been how I felt.
As much as I wish to honor our veterans and those who have been lost in battle, I wholeheartedly do not like war and I would like to see it prevented wherever possible. I realize, of course, that there were times were war was needed in the past, and I cannot appreciate enough the value of their struggle and sacrifice. Nonetheless, I see it as a task of mine to heal pain and suffering in this world. To me, this would mean preventing war and utilizing peace whenever possible. I mean these words I say about our veterans, I do. However, when I start hearing this kind of talk a lot, I find myself getting skeptical. It is often when these words are shouted the loudest that the words that need to be said are not heard.
Let's take our most recent struggle, that ongoing campaign against violent terrorism. As 9/11 happened, people all around the country gave something, from donating blood to a hospital to risking life and limb by rushing into the flaming towers, for fellow countrymen in need. It was on that day that ordinary people displayed these traits that we all prize in Americans, or indeed, in any person. In the following months, our soldiers, along with those from many other countries, bravely went into Afghanistan to oust the diabolical Taliban and Al Qaeda.
However, during this time, the government was preparing us for another war, subjecting prisoners to sadistic torture rather than legal interrogations, which work, by the way. And then, there is the fact that this was war, and as such, there are many tragedies that go along with it. Too often, civilans are incinerated, women and children maimed and killed in the midst of war. It is often in war that the basic elements of humanity are lost. Many soldiers who return safely from the battlefield are wounded or scarred for life. So this is why I grow skeptical of so much talk of military.
So then I am left with the question of how to best honor our veterans and those who fell on the battlefield. Now, the only thing coming to my mind is to make this country which they gave up so much for as good as I can make it. I love this country, American, I always have, and I always will. Even when I was deeply concerned about the direction it was going, I still loved it. I see as the best option for this end to make it the primary force for healing suffering, establishing common good in the world. Another way to honor our veterans and fallen is the obvious, to give them the care they need, and help them establish their life anew, because if anyone has earned the shot at a decent life, it's them.
A third way, perhaps, is to encourage peace. Our military is there for our defense, our security, and to put down threats so that peace can be established when the threat is past. The task of encouraging peace is no easy one, the world being what it is now. It is not easy, but necessary. The things most worth doing seldom are easy. How do we do this? There are a multitude of ways to go about this, which I don't have time to detail here.
One idea I'd like to throw out is the creation of another holiday. We have two holidays (memorial day and veterans day) dedicated to our servicemen and women, but none dedicated to the cause of peace. I'm not saying that these should be gotten rid of, on the contrary, they need to be respected. But a holiday, perhaps like Earth Day, could be set aside to promote peace, justice, working for the greater good, could be established. This may encourage people to do this in some way, large or small, in their own way at least one day a year.
Anyway, these are my ideas for how to best honor those who sacrificed for our country, even if, like me, you seek to establish a more peaceful world, and a more perfect union. If these ideas are inappropriate, so be it. My ideas and vision aren't perfect, but to even have the chance to begin from these imperfect ideas is to have a chance given by those who fought for that freedom on battlefields where it was threatened. For that, I will always be grateful to them. These are just my ideas, though. I'd like to hear yours.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Tonight's Anniversary, and the Evolution of Peace
Hi Everyone,
Well, you are all probably aware of the anniversary we observe tonight. Six years ago tonight, shock and awe was visited on Iraq. The reasons for this and the controversy surrounding the War in Iraq are not the central issues of this post. My purpose is to take this anniversary to talk about the opposite of war: peace.
As some bumper stickers proclaim, "Peace, An idea whose time has come". That is a pretty accurate assessment of the process going on. I have spent a lot of time pondering questions of war and peace and good and evil. And something has occured to me, and what occured to me is the central theme of this post.
It occured to me that peace, like many other things in life, has had to evolve over time. Like democracy, even, which had only existed in a few scattered places in the past, but then began to fully bud with the foundation of the US, so too has peace had to go through an evolution process, often a long and imperceptible growth process.
In the past, fighting was a very simple way to settle problems. It is an instinct, a primitive urge, which is probably why children often get in fights. Back then, in the caveman days, all they could do was swing their fists or maybe swing a club at someone. Without many other ways of communicating, this was an easy way to settle disputes.
As societies developed, these fights involved more and more people, hence the development of war. As time went on, these wars got larger and larger. The tools of war became more sophisticated, and thus, more destructive. People moved from clubs and rocks, to swords, to guns, to rifles.
Last century, the 20th Century, was one of almost continual warfare (the word continual means literally nonstop). In 1914, World War I broke out. At this point, a new level of warfare was reached. What makes this significant is all the new technological advancements in ammunition: tanks, poison gas, machine guns, so on. The business of war was far more catastrophic at this point.
In the aftermath of this war, which cost millions of lives and left a generation and the continent of Europe in shambles, some new depth was reached. People with the most toxic, the most hateful ideas were able to seize power. They utilized the most ruthless methods, put so many under subjugation that soon, another war broke out, World War II.
The human cost of this episode was far more horrible, far more evil, than anyone could imagine: a machine of death, a Holocaust which crushed 6 million lives, truly hell on earth. This was, without a doubt, the darkest chapter in human history. And still another depth had been reached. By the end of the war, scientists had discovered a new weapon: the atomic bomb.
For nearly 50 years after 1945, the world was slowly torn apart by a Cold War. For all that time, the US and the Soviet Union pushed their ideologies and those who would toe the line for it in poor nations around the world. In places like Iran, Guatemala, Hungary, Cuba, and more significantly in Vietnam and Afghanistan, the Capitalist and Communist superpowers backed leaders, often brutal ones, were backed to forward ideology, regardless of consequences.
Then still another frontier was reached on the weapons front: nuclear weapons. For four decades, the prospect of a total war involving these new weapons was a terrifying reality. One of these superpowers was also an incredibly grim and repressive regime, which embraced an extremist view of the world and put down anyone who didn't accept it. This was the reality of life for nearly 50 years from 1946 to 1991.
And that was the 20th Century. The 21st Century has gotten off to quite a start. So far, we've had 9/11 and this new conflict, the War on Terror. Plus, now we have a whole new level of warfare: biochemical weapons, dirty bombs, anthrax. These are things that are worse than you could imagine in your worst nightmares, and people make them. They're out there. And all those nuclear weapons the Soviets used to have, they're out there too. All this adds up to make the next few years, perhaps the next few decades, a very treacherous landscape for us to navigate.
So we know what the stakes are, judging from this. So what's gone well? How has peace evolved? Well, pacifism has been an underground movement as early as WWI and probably earlier than that. During Vietnam, the revelation that one's own leaders could be wrong and could lie shocked many people, and galvanized a generation of people to resist war, en masse, for really the first time. Again, the revelation that the government has been corrupted has stirred up a painful, but worthwhile, questioning process, particularly in me.
Earlier, I likened the development of peace to the developing of democracy and our own country. Just as those men took a gamble that a government of, by, and for the people could work, so too can we now bet that a more peaceful, more just, more compassionate world, can exist. Until the time of the founding, a large, impoverished mass of peasants ruled by a single monarch was the accepted norm of government. Philosophers everywhere predicted that a democracy would fail. But a collection of people bet that they were wrong. And neither they nor the naysaying philosophers would live to see their bet pay off. But it did.
Do I, or anyone else have all the answers for how to make this peace possible? No. The world remains a threatening and dangerous place. There are threats that still need to be addressed. We need to stay strong and do what we have to to keep the decent people safe. Sometimes this requires the use of military and warfare. This is the central challenge of trying to create peace. Pacifism is a wonderful wish, but it is still only a wish. What do we do about the world as it is? Because it is this way, with some scumbags who would give anything to harm our country and others still roaming around out there. So how do we get from here to there?
No answer will be easy. This sort of "world peace" that many people talk about, while possible in theory, is likely to be along, long way off. But, again like the Founding Fathers, their vision and dream didn't materialize right away. It didn't even materialize fully in their lifetimes. Their vision is still evolving. But while the Founding Fathers' dream took long to evolve, and had its flaws, who today can doubt that there is something to it.
I don't wanna get really preachy here, but I just wanna share this thought, cause I think it's important. My point is that often, people have written goals off as impossible. Sooner or later, there was that impossible reality staring them in the face. It seems that when people decide that as the saying goes, "Where there's a will, there's a way." I often end up repeating this to myself.
So why do I keep bringing up the Founding Fathers and America? Again, I don't mean to get overly preachy, but it seems to me that this country can be as helpful for this purpose as anyone else. Remember how I detailed how I have fallen in love with my country again. For all of its flaws and mishaps, I think this country still is one of the most conducive to the peace, justice and compassion I spoke of earlier. Is there work to be done? Yeah. But as Martin Luther King said, "The moral arch of the universe does bend toward justice." It does, and wherever the path ahead takes this observer in the coming years, I will do what it takes to turn these lofty words and dreams and quotes into hard, solid reality.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Well, you are all probably aware of the anniversary we observe tonight. Six years ago tonight, shock and awe was visited on Iraq. The reasons for this and the controversy surrounding the War in Iraq are not the central issues of this post. My purpose is to take this anniversary to talk about the opposite of war: peace.
As some bumper stickers proclaim, "Peace, An idea whose time has come". That is a pretty accurate assessment of the process going on. I have spent a lot of time pondering questions of war and peace and good and evil. And something has occured to me, and what occured to me is the central theme of this post.
It occured to me that peace, like many other things in life, has had to evolve over time. Like democracy, even, which had only existed in a few scattered places in the past, but then began to fully bud with the foundation of the US, so too has peace had to go through an evolution process, often a long and imperceptible growth process.
In the past, fighting was a very simple way to settle problems. It is an instinct, a primitive urge, which is probably why children often get in fights. Back then, in the caveman days, all they could do was swing their fists or maybe swing a club at someone. Without many other ways of communicating, this was an easy way to settle disputes.
As societies developed, these fights involved more and more people, hence the development of war. As time went on, these wars got larger and larger. The tools of war became more sophisticated, and thus, more destructive. People moved from clubs and rocks, to swords, to guns, to rifles.
Last century, the 20th Century, was one of almost continual warfare (the word continual means literally nonstop). In 1914, World War I broke out. At this point, a new level of warfare was reached. What makes this significant is all the new technological advancements in ammunition: tanks, poison gas, machine guns, so on. The business of war was far more catastrophic at this point.
In the aftermath of this war, which cost millions of lives and left a generation and the continent of Europe in shambles, some new depth was reached. People with the most toxic, the most hateful ideas were able to seize power. They utilized the most ruthless methods, put so many under subjugation that soon, another war broke out, World War II.
The human cost of this episode was far more horrible, far more evil, than anyone could imagine: a machine of death, a Holocaust which crushed 6 million lives, truly hell on earth. This was, without a doubt, the darkest chapter in human history. And still another depth had been reached. By the end of the war, scientists had discovered a new weapon: the atomic bomb.
For nearly 50 years after 1945, the world was slowly torn apart by a Cold War. For all that time, the US and the Soviet Union pushed their ideologies and those who would toe the line for it in poor nations around the world. In places like Iran, Guatemala, Hungary, Cuba, and more significantly in Vietnam and Afghanistan, the Capitalist and Communist superpowers backed leaders, often brutal ones, were backed to forward ideology, regardless of consequences.
Then still another frontier was reached on the weapons front: nuclear weapons. For four decades, the prospect of a total war involving these new weapons was a terrifying reality. One of these superpowers was also an incredibly grim and repressive regime, which embraced an extremist view of the world and put down anyone who didn't accept it. This was the reality of life for nearly 50 years from 1946 to 1991.
And that was the 20th Century. The 21st Century has gotten off to quite a start. So far, we've had 9/11 and this new conflict, the War on Terror. Plus, now we have a whole new level of warfare: biochemical weapons, dirty bombs, anthrax. These are things that are worse than you could imagine in your worst nightmares, and people make them. They're out there. And all those nuclear weapons the Soviets used to have, they're out there too. All this adds up to make the next few years, perhaps the next few decades, a very treacherous landscape for us to navigate.
So we know what the stakes are, judging from this. So what's gone well? How has peace evolved? Well, pacifism has been an underground movement as early as WWI and probably earlier than that. During Vietnam, the revelation that one's own leaders could be wrong and could lie shocked many people, and galvanized a generation of people to resist war, en masse, for really the first time. Again, the revelation that the government has been corrupted has stirred up a painful, but worthwhile, questioning process, particularly in me.
Earlier, I likened the development of peace to the developing of democracy and our own country. Just as those men took a gamble that a government of, by, and for the people could work, so too can we now bet that a more peaceful, more just, more compassionate world, can exist. Until the time of the founding, a large, impoverished mass of peasants ruled by a single monarch was the accepted norm of government. Philosophers everywhere predicted that a democracy would fail. But a collection of people bet that they were wrong. And neither they nor the naysaying philosophers would live to see their bet pay off. But it did.
Do I, or anyone else have all the answers for how to make this peace possible? No. The world remains a threatening and dangerous place. There are threats that still need to be addressed. We need to stay strong and do what we have to to keep the decent people safe. Sometimes this requires the use of military and warfare. This is the central challenge of trying to create peace. Pacifism is a wonderful wish, but it is still only a wish. What do we do about the world as it is? Because it is this way, with some scumbags who would give anything to harm our country and others still roaming around out there. So how do we get from here to there?
No answer will be easy. This sort of "world peace" that many people talk about, while possible in theory, is likely to be along, long way off. But, again like the Founding Fathers, their vision and dream didn't materialize right away. It didn't even materialize fully in their lifetimes. Their vision is still evolving. But while the Founding Fathers' dream took long to evolve, and had its flaws, who today can doubt that there is something to it.
I don't wanna get really preachy here, but I just wanna share this thought, cause I think it's important. My point is that often, people have written goals off as impossible. Sooner or later, there was that impossible reality staring them in the face. It seems that when people decide that as the saying goes, "Where there's a will, there's a way." I often end up repeating this to myself.
So why do I keep bringing up the Founding Fathers and America? Again, I don't mean to get overly preachy, but it seems to me that this country can be as helpful for this purpose as anyone else. Remember how I detailed how I have fallen in love with my country again. For all of its flaws and mishaps, I think this country still is one of the most conducive to the peace, justice and compassion I spoke of earlier. Is there work to be done? Yeah. But as Martin Luther King said, "The moral arch of the universe does bend toward justice." It does, and wherever the path ahead takes this observer in the coming years, I will do what it takes to turn these lofty words and dreams and quotes into hard, solid reality.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)