Commentary:

Forests and trees

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.

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.