Quote:
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
So, ideas and the words used to express them matter?
|
As I've been saying since the beginning, I think ideas are ultimately of paramount importance. And I think our floundering effort there, in spite of our obvious military superiority, is certainly evidence of this.
Sticking to the carrot and the stick analogy, I don't think the realization that we need to use the stick eventually is some kind of incredible insight. I think the majority of Americans, as exemplified by the commentary on the matter posted on this website, realize that a more forceful approach is needed. But why don't we see these ideas come to fruition? Because there is a contradiction in the ideas that form the basis of our policy.
When we watch the evening news, we feel frustration that our people are dying and Iraq is not turning into the kind of place that America would like it to be - a free, peaceful, friendly nation. But Iraq is turning into the kind of place that the Iraqis choose for it to be. It is breaking up along tribal lines, the citizens are lining up behind their respective tribal or religious authorities, and the stage is being set for a showdown as to who will rise to become the next autocrat as soon as America is far enough withdrawn. This is what the Iraqis are choosing on their own. And why is this taking shape? Why are we failing in our attempt to prevent it? Because
the primary justification we offered up to the world for going in the first place was to make Iraqis happy.
We dressed the situation up in a cloak of selflessness because we thought that would make the mission more sexy when presented at the UN and to the world. The price we are paying is that it is impossible to claim to be acting as the selfless servant of the Iraqi people, while you forcefully change the culture in a process that, in the short term, will be painful and unpopular. When you tell somebody, "I'm only doing this for you," and they say, "go to hell, I don't want your help," you've got a serious problem. When you say, "this may hurt a little, but we're doing this for ourselves, and if you go along you will benefit from this also," then the moral force of your argument is not undercut by their, "go to hell."
So we have a contradiction. The American people want Iraq to turn into the kind of place that is going to help secure our rights: a free, peaceful, rights respecting nation. And Iraqis want to see whatever tribal or religious affiliation they subscribe to seize power and dictate. In a conest of ideas like that, the one that will win is the one supported by policy, and the one supported by policy will be the one given ideological and moral validity in that policy's justification. Our Iraq policy has been justified at home and abroad on the basis of the happiness of Iraqis. Our popularity with Iraqis is the foremost barometer in the media and in many people's minds of our success. If the primary basis for us being there was explicitly named and our policies justified in terms of American security interests, then I think forcing that region by whatever means necessary into becoming free and peaceful is the policy that would emerge.
Quote:
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
The "grammar" of conflict and strategy is important?
|
I don't think "grammar" emphasizes the right points. It is the content of one's statements, IMO, that make the difference, rather than their particular form. Eloquence, while nice, is entirely secondary to content. That is why I have to roll my eyes at those who criticize George Bush's style and lack of "polish." I always ask these people how, in the context of all that has happened since September 10th 2001, they can conceivably focus on something as insignificant as style as the central reason for liking or disliking our President.