In my post “Some Thoughts …on using Newtonian Physics in an Einsteinian universe” my attempt at “showing instead of saying” has been misinterpreted by some as a moral equivalency argument. In focusing on the trees, the forest is being missed.

Leaving aside all attempts at eloquence and stating my point simply, I was not making any moral equivalency arguments. In fact, I was contending and still do assert that we must remove “morality”, aka “evil”, completely from the equation if we wish to win the war against the quasi-ideology of Islamic-inflamed hatred of the United States and Western culture in general.

My use of the history of World War II was intended to show two things:

1) It is possible to use the language of “evil” when confronting nation-states, but impossible when confronting a stateless, inchoate enemy whose commonalities lie mainly in hatred of our culture. In using this language, we are using the same language they themselves use to recruit their suicidal attackers, and this language requires apocalyptic resolutions to the conflict. The resolution of World War II was indeed apocalyptic to the regimes in Germany and Japan, yet how can that total physical destruction be wreaked on ideas that are not even coherent enough to be called an ideology and shadowy groups that are spread worldwide?

2) The tactics used in World War II by the US and Allies were justified, but they were indeed tactics of terror when viewed by those on the receiving end, and in many cases the fear-inducing nature of the tactics was deliberate on the part of the Allies. In other words, we are not lily-white virgins when it comes to deliberately creating fear and death among civilians in the communities of those we perceive as enemies. The very approach we used in the Cold War, MAD, Mutual Assured Destruction, was itself based upon a “Balance of Terror”. If we allow ourselves and our strategies to be driven emotionally by the tactics used against us, not only will we not win, but we are at risk of committing actions that in the end will prolong the conflict rather than end it.

We must remove the “moral” aspect of this conflict and take the Machiavellian approach. If we continue to frame it as a “good versus evil” conflict, the victory conditions imposed thereby force the use of tactics that will be counterproductive and require the avoidance of strategies that would result in the accomplishment of our ultimate goal, to reduce the danger of attacks against our citizens.

The recent announcement by the Irish Republican Army to disarm can provide us with some lessons.

This development, which hopefully marks the end of large-scale terrorist activities in or because of Northern Ireland, did not arise out of killing or imprisoning most of the members of the IRA.

The history of Ireland is long and complex, but a large component of “The Troubles” arose out of the historical domination of the island by a foreign power, England.

Much of the support for the IRA in Northern Ireland was driven by a feeling of powerlessness in a community that had historically been oppressed by England. At the time of the beginning of The Troubles, that community was not necessarily being “oppressed” in the definition we currently associate with the word, yet there was still a feeling that their culture was attacked and they had little or no say in their future.

The road from the start of The Troubles to the recent announcement of disarmament by the IRA was long, rocky, and even recently looked to lead to more violence and death.

In the end, the IRA had lost the support of the community, as evidenced by the outrage over the murder of Robert McCartney. This outrage would not have existed if the community that had supported the IRA for decades continued to feel attacked and that they had no say in their future.

In other words, the underlying problems were assaulted and at least a partial resolution achieved so as to deny those who practiced the terrorism of the support they needed to continue their violence.

The current, fragile peace is a result of using the indirect approach of which I have written before, a strategy that works not solely in the context of war.

Yes, there are IRA murderers out there who likely will never come to justice. Which is more important, vengeance, or creating a situation where there are no more murders?

If you take the emotional response path of framing it in terms of “evil”, the conflict must continue because the “evil” has not been destroyed.

Is that path better than the situation now, where it appears that the terrorist tactics have been rejected by the community and likely will not continue?

It is an old Chinese proverb that those who seek revenge should first dig two graves. The repeated and seemingly endless conflicts in the Balkans, based in part upon grievances centuries old, should provide us all the object lesson needed. Still, much of the “discussion” regarding the current conflict, which cannot be a “War on Terror” if we wish to win, has sounded like a clarion call for retribution instead of seeking to develop ways to remove the wellspring of support for our enemies, developing ways to reduce the risk of terror by stopping the source of the attacks rather than ineffectually attempting to prevent attacks once planned.

As is taught in every class on Military History, victory is not achieved by killing the enemy, it is by removing his ability and will to fight.

The Cold War was not won by a direct attack, but instead by allowing the internal contradictions of our enemy to destroy them from within. If we do not create internal contradictions in ourselves through poorly thought out reactions to terrorist attacks, then the internal contradictions of our current enemies will put them on the road to defeat.

History rarely repeats itself exactly, however, that does not mean there is nothing to learn from history. Yet, equally important, using the wrong analogy from history can lead you father astray than even ignoring history would.

In focusing on my examples, some missed the point of my argument. I hope the trees here don’t distract from the forest this time.

It is often said of Steve Jobs, the charismatic founder and current leader of Apple Computer, that he has a so-called “Reality Distortion Field” (or RDF) around him, where susceptible souls can be caught up in his enthusiasm for whatever he is proselytizing at the time.

I now wonder if each extreme of the political spectrum has its own RDF, because what I see from both sides has little to do with the reality of blood, death, danger, and loss that I see.

Of course, I could be within an RDF of my own.

Such is our curse, we never know for certain anything other than death and taxes.

Technorati Tags: commentary, weblogs

So of course, I am wrong more than occasionally.

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.
   -F. Scott Fitzgerald

Unfortunately, there are many in blogworld that fail this test, some of whom I thought would pass.

Technorati Tags: quotes, weblogs

…from outside the United States, Spiegel Online, the English language, Internet edition of the German magazine Der Spiegel, is a useful source:

On Monday, US President George W. Bush bypassed Congress and installed the pugnacious John Bolton as UN Ambassador. While diplomats are trying to smile graciously, academics and European specialists insist the appointment is a direct slap in the face to Europe and to the UN.

To put it in other words, Europe is reacting to this appointment exactly as I predicted, as Bush giving an upraised middle finger to the international community.

For those who feel this appointment is “needed” to “shake things up”, allow me to remind you, pissing off allies, even if they do not agree with you in all respects, is not a good way to ensure continued success.

The article continues:

Officially, politicians in Germany, France and Spain are being quietly diplomatic about United States President George W. Bush’s somewhat back-handed installation of the controversial John Bolton as US ambassador to the United Nations on Monday. But political scientists and academics fear the move could increase tensions in trans-Atlantic relations.

“Bush is sending the message that the UN in general is not on the front burner anymore for the United States,” said Professor Frank Unger, a professor at Berlin’s John F. Kennedy School of Foreign Relations, who specializes in international relations and US policy. “It’s not a message Europeans like hearing.”

Europeans still believe in the idea of the UN as an independent world player, an institution that can and will act independently from the US, he said. “For Europeans, the UN is a body that can function as an antagonist to the United States. What Bush is saying is that is not true. He’s saying the UN is not a real power and cannot replace the power or influence of the US.” He’s also showing his disdain for international diplomacy in general, Unger said.

But others disagree, pointing out the UN’s many scandals and its inability to act quickly enough to stop the genocides of the 1990s in the Balkans and Rwanda. The UN, they say, is in desperate need of serious reforms.

“The reason why Bolton was nominated is because Bush needs a tough guy at the UN, and wants bottom up reforms,” said Jan-Friedrich Kallmorgen of the German Council on Foreign Relations. “Bush is committed to reform, that’s why he put someone like that in there. I don’t agree with some analysts who say it’s a punishment of the Senate or because he’s anti-democratic or all that … He chose Bolton because he needs someone tough enough to take on the bureaucracy.”

As is plain to see, there is more than one opinion in Germany on the motives behind Bush’s appointment of Bolton as United States Ambassador to the United Nations.

However, this is not the only ambassadorial appointment causing heartburn in Germany. Again from Spiegel Online:

How Bush’s Berlin Ambassador Pick Profited from Protective Tariffs against German Companies

By Georg Mascolo and Juergen Dahlkamp

Washington’s choice for future US ambassador to Germany has all the makings of a political bombshell. For years, a company owned by the multimillionaire and newly-appointed diplomat William Timken, Jr. has been profiting from anticompetitive tariffs — at the direct expense of German companies.

As Washington’s new ambassador to Germany, William Timken, Jr. will face, among other things, the task of patching up damaged relations between the two countries. But there’s one small problem with this picture. The multimillionaire who US President George W. Bush nominated to the position two weeks ago also happens to be Chairman of the Board of Directors of The Timken Company, an Ohio-based firm that claims to be the biggest manufacturer of roller bearings in the world. And ever since the 66-year-old Timken, a major donor to the Republican Party and decorated with the honorary title of “Super Ranger,” (reserved for those who contribute more than $200,000) has been slated to take over the position in Berlin, his company’s questionable business practices have suddenly become taboo among German politicians and industry lobbyists.

Here are some good examples: Last Tuesday, the usually outspoken Bavarian Minister of Economic Affairs Otto Wiesheu said he was not the right person to talk to about the Timken Company. On Wednesday, Randolf Rodenstock, the head of the Bavarian Business Association, also declined to comment on the matter. Even Germany’s federal Minister of Economics and Labor, Social Democrat Wolfgang Clement, has opted to discreetly downplay the issue.

In other words, no one wants to talk about the fact that the Bavarian roller bearing industry is suffering because it’s being forced to pay protective tariffs for products it exports to the United States as a result of charges of price dumping. To make matters worse, the Bush administration is funnelling the proceeds directly to the Bavarians’ US competitors, primarily Timken. In response to a complaint filed by the European Union and other states in January 2003, the World Trade Organization, or WTO, ruled that this practice is clearly illegal. Yet, no one dares speak out against it — or against America’s newest ambassador.

Fascinating, an accusation of a “conspiracy of silence” by the German Government with respect to how the company for which the newly minted US Ambassador to Germany serves as chairman of the board profited from certain tariffs imposed by the US on German products.

More details from the article:

Jürgen Geissinger, CEO of the Schaeffler Group in the northern Bavarian town of Herzogenaurach and also president of the Federation of European Bearing Manufacturers Associations, complains: “Timken, one of the biggest beneficiaries of a trade policy that violates the WTO ruling, has been named ambassador to a country whose businesses suffer as a result of this policy.”

Schaeffler’s holdings include roller bearing manufacturers FAG Kugelfischer and INA which are responsible for about 26,000 German jobs. According to Kugelfischer, the company has already paid more than $35 million in tariffs, with most of the money going into the coffers of Timken’s company. And, according to Geissinger, the proceeds from the tariffs could even enable the Americans to sell their products at rock-bottom prices on the world market, “which would not only deprive us of revenues, but would also jeopardize German jobs on a massive scale.”

To this day, hardly any other US company has insisted so steadfastly that the United States should continue to ignore the WTO’s 2003 decision. More importantly, no other US company has profited as much from America’s anticompetitive protective tariffs since 2001 as Timken (including its subsidiary, the Torrington Company, which Timken acquired in 2003). But the companies that are paying the lion’s share of these tariffs include German industrial bearing manufacturers — and at $70 million in tariffs, the Germans are only in second place behind the Japanese.

Merely by filing the appropriate forms, Timken managed to cash in on $52.7 million from the US customs jackpot in 2004, twice as much the second-largest beneficiary of the tariffs. Timken’s take was even bigger in 2003 — $92.7 million, or five times as much as the number two company on the receiving end. Even President Bush believes that there is something wrong with this practice of milking the competition despite the WTO decision. He attempted — albeit unsuccessfully — to overturn the 2000 legal basis for the tariffs, known as the “Byrd Amendment.”

So, to put it simply, in addition to nominating as Ambassador to the United Nations a man who said in a speech that the top stories of the UN building could be removed with “no loss” to the world, the President of the United States nominated as Ambassador to Germany, nominally an important ally, the chairman of the board of a company that not only profited from tariffs imposed upon German imports to the United States, but a company that also lobbied to continue the punitive (from the German point of view) tariffs.

If that is not a second upraised middle finger to our allies in Europe, especially Germany, I do not know what else would be.

Think about it a while. Do what your mother always asked of you, put yourself in their place.

Is there any wonder that the United States is losing support in the world, even among formerly strong allies?

Is this any way for us to win a “war of ideologies”?

This ain’t rocket science….

Technorati Tags: commentary