It's hard to be Right...
I find it hard to believe that this is the 6th anniversary of the attack against the USS Cole in Yemen. It was on this date 6 years ago where I sat down to write a letter to the editor of my college paper, saying that American needed a more aggressive stand against terrorism which involved taking the fight to them, and if we didn't than we were likely to face something much worse. The paper of course didn't publish the letter, instead publishing a screed from some other group about how American policy brought on the attack. It took September 11th, 2001 to get even a small portion of people over to my side of the argument and I still doubt its a majority anywhere but on my blogrolls.
While arguing the point in a water cooler discussion at work yesterday, I was asked the question, "is there any situation were you don't think we should respond with military force?"
It's typical of the kind of comment I draw in discussions. I don't know if I'm not doing a good job of explaining myself, or if its just the nature of arguments to reduce them to oversimplification. One can be childish and say, "Is there any situation where YOU believe we shouldn't negotiate?" But that's stupid, because its likewise an oversimplification.
In my formative years I was on the freshman football team as an 8th grade student. One of the tasks we were charged with as a team was bringing in the practice bags after practice. Well one particular evening, I was lugging the bag all by myself, with several players were simply lounging around. I stopped and yelled at them to assist me, (which they did not do.) When I made it into the field house, one of the players who was not holding up his end approached me, and accused me of calling him the N-word.(As you can imagine he was african-american, otherwise this story wouldn't make a whole lot of sense.) Approximately 90% of the team was African-American, and everyone freezed at this, as my accuser offered up the standard high school challenge. "wanna fight?"
It became immediately apparent to me that my response would determine whether I was perhaps in no-fight, one fist fight, or the recipient of a full on gang beating.
I replied by saying, "I didn't call you anything, but alright, just let me put on my shoes."
At which point he offered a few more words of profanity, and skulked off. The remainder of the team erupted with amusement at his expense.
I am convinced that if I had apologized and/or declined to fight, I would have been forced into one, an unwillingness to fight would have been immediately translated as both guilty and weakness.
This particular episode convinced me, as a later study of international relations and history would reaffirm, that there are some individuals, organizations or regimes which do not have appreciation for any method of expression but violence and the capacity to do violence. As in the situation above, what I had or had not said was utterly irrelevant. Everyone in the room knew exactly what I had said, including my accuser. Despite what had factually happened, had I equivocated in anyway I would have been judged guilty.
Likewise I believe our nation must be prepared to do violence in defense of our beliefs and way of life. We know what we do or do not believe. We know that we are a peaceful, friendly nation, which would prefer to be left alone for the most part.
If we are unwilling to defend ourselves and our point of view, our neighbors will sit and watch as we are assaulted. Certainly there is no sense defending us if we will not defend ourselves. And our enemies abroad are vast. No because we have insulted them or done them wrong, but because we are bearing the weight of human progress, and they are slacking and falling behind. If we hem and haw, and "feel their pain", they will be on us, and those surrounding us will see weakness and join in.
While arguing the point in a water cooler discussion at work yesterday, I was asked the question, "is there any situation were you don't think we should respond with military force?"
It's typical of the kind of comment I draw in discussions. I don't know if I'm not doing a good job of explaining myself, or if its just the nature of arguments to reduce them to oversimplification. One can be childish and say, "Is there any situation where YOU believe we shouldn't negotiate?" But that's stupid, because its likewise an oversimplification.
In my formative years I was on the freshman football team as an 8th grade student. One of the tasks we were charged with as a team was bringing in the practice bags after practice. Well one particular evening, I was lugging the bag all by myself, with several players were simply lounging around. I stopped and yelled at them to assist me, (which they did not do.) When I made it into the field house, one of the players who was not holding up his end approached me, and accused me of calling him the N-word.(As you can imagine he was african-american, otherwise this story wouldn't make a whole lot of sense.) Approximately 90% of the team was African-American, and everyone freezed at this, as my accuser offered up the standard high school challenge. "wanna fight?"
It became immediately apparent to me that my response would determine whether I was perhaps in no-fight, one fist fight, or the recipient of a full on gang beating.
I replied by saying, "I didn't call you anything, but alright, just let me put on my shoes."
At which point he offered a few more words of profanity, and skulked off. The remainder of the team erupted with amusement at his expense.
I am convinced that if I had apologized and/or declined to fight, I would have been forced into one, an unwillingness to fight would have been immediately translated as both guilty and weakness.
This particular episode convinced me, as a later study of international relations and history would reaffirm, that there are some individuals, organizations or regimes which do not have appreciation for any method of expression but violence and the capacity to do violence. As in the situation above, what I had or had not said was utterly irrelevant. Everyone in the room knew exactly what I had said, including my accuser. Despite what had factually happened, had I equivocated in anyway I would have been judged guilty.
Likewise I believe our nation must be prepared to do violence in defense of our beliefs and way of life. We know what we do or do not believe. We know that we are a peaceful, friendly nation, which would prefer to be left alone for the most part.
If we are unwilling to defend ourselves and our point of view, our neighbors will sit and watch as we are assaulted. Certainly there is no sense defending us if we will not defend ourselves. And our enemies abroad are vast. No because we have insulted them or done them wrong, but because we are bearing the weight of human progress, and they are slacking and falling behind. If we hem and haw, and "feel their pain", they will be on us, and those surrounding us will see weakness and join in.
3 Comments:
Very Interesting Article Kyle. Your personal antedote was a particularly compelling way to describe the situation. The United States is often faced with the difficult challenge of judging how to react, as the whole world waits to see what we are going to do. If we do too much we are jeered for cultural imperialism and the world cheers at our failures. If we do to little we are jilted for having the means but failing to react. We are massacred in the press for responding to the despotism of Saddam Hussein, and then crucified for our failure to take action in the Sudan. Even if the other nations wanted to act, the United States is the only nation with the power to act and enforce change. Even with a coalition of the willing America will always do the Lion's share of the work.
We are therefore stuck with a difficult dilemna, in which no matter what our course of action we will inevitably cause criticism and scorn.
With this being said, I think that valor is the better part of discretion and it is better for our country to have done too much then to have done too little.
David...one question...is our job to police the entire world or only the part of the world that we need something from?
Well you know Adam we thought that we were okay letting them sit in their mud huts screwing up their own lands and damaging their own people, but if 9/11 should have taught us anything, it taught us that there isn't a part of the world we can ignore as irrelevant to our peace and security.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home