“Nazi Germany taught us that sometimes you have to stop talking peace and just start dropping bombs.” If only this were the case. It is simple in retrospect to conclude that such a lesson both presented itself and was understood; however, in my experience human beings are quite adept at shading the lessons of history to accommodate whatever ideology holds sway with them at the moment. Furthermore it is seldom so clear in the thick of events just when one has crossed that line.

Obviously I am referring to the current situation in the Middle East. There are diametrically opposed ideologies in the West regarding the correct method of dealing with threats both real and perceived and these positions are being shouted from the various vantage points of punditry and demagoguery for all to hear. In the meantime there is (as there has always been) a more centrist core of leadership attempting to both navigate through the current crisis and simultaneously avoid giving either of the polarized opponents in the western ideology conflict anything to latch on to as casus belli. I am certain that the people involved would be grateful for the opportunity to leap ahead fifty or one hundred years to see what the proper course should have been.

Unfortunately for all concerned my expertise is limited to human interaction first and history as a distant second.

What I can offer is a carefully crafted circumlocution: it has been my experience that no war is inevitable until it begins, but some wars simply must be fought. There is always an option to avoid war. Compromise, capitulation, surrender; it is simply a matter of what one is willing to do to avoid war. Whether or not such actions are desirable or even possible depends upon the basic nature of the conflict and the cultural imperatives of the potential combatants. When one side is willing to bargain and the other side is bent on total victory what exactly is there to discuss? Sometimes it is the blatant display of the willingness to fight that brings the other side to the bargaining table- no rational nation/state launches a war they do not expect to win. If the potential opponent appears formidable it is likely that the belligerent party may choose another path. This is the “If you desire peace, arm for war” philosophy, and it does have its place.

War is an immensely complex cultural interaction, one that humanity has been practicing and perfecting for millennia. Even in its earliest manifestations it served multiple purposes, such as the expansion of territory, the mixing of gene pools, redistribution of wealth, testing of social structures and more. War has always left cultural change in its wake and the results are usually, though not universally, to the long-term good. When the results are not to the long-term good war is usually, though not universally, the correcting mechanism.

So, where does the Middle East fit in to all this? I noted earlier that we are embroiled in the midst of a true paradigm shift that has been on going for approximately a century. Many very wise people saw the Cold War as the defining issue; however, it is my contention that the Cold War was nothing more than a side issue, such as a sporting event where two teams must play to see which will move on to the next level of competition. In the midst of that competition both sides facilitated the growth of other combatants whose driving ideologies were far divergent from those of the two major Cold War powers. What was seen as a victory in the Cold War was merely gaining to opportunity to attempt to put to rest the vestiges of religious/intolerance motivated aggression. What makes this issue slightly more pressing than it might have been is the threat of so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction and the world dependence on oil reserves located on what could easily become major battlefields.

Interesting times indeed.

Posted on December 11th, 2002 by Zsallia
Filed under: Politics