|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reflections of Ken Towery
On the Subject of "Preemptive" Wars By Ken Towery What should we do? Should we do what the Jews do, and strike when we think someone else is about to strike us? Or, should we do what Christians say we should do? That is, turn the other cheek for seven times, or however long it is? Clearly George W. Bush has decided to do what the Jews do, and strike when he thinks someone else is about to strike the United States, or is contemplating a strike against the United States, or is siding with someone who might strike the United States, or someone who might think about striking the United States. And, is that a bad thing? Or is it a good thing? Variations of the "argument", if we can call it that, have raged for centuries. There are those who think that if we follow the logic of striking everyone who dislikes us, or who might someday strike us, we will always have people who dislike us, and who constantly scheme against us. We would then be in the situation, the argument goes, of a perpetual Middle East, with warring tribes and religions at each other's throat throughout eternity. There are others who think that if we eternally wait for other people to strike us, always turning the other cheek in any quarrel, we will soon have no country, or check, to worry about. As the present conflict unfolds, (and believe me, gentle reader, it is still unfolding, it is always unfolding) it would be well to remember the beginning of World War 11, and the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Philippines, and other points in the Far East. In fact, if one wishes to go far enough back in history, one can read biblical accounts of wars in the Middle East, or even further back, into the ancient history of China, to see how people, and nations, handled quarrels between themselves. To the Japanese, Pearl Harbor was merely a pre-emptive strike, a means of getting in the first blow, a first blow aimed at eradicating or disabling the U. S. fleet at Pearl Harbor and disabling the U.S. defenses in the Philippines and the Far East. What was publicly a "Day of Infamy" to President Franklin Roosevelt was a masterstroke to Japanese Prime Minister Hideki Tojo and the Japanese Admirals who engineered the attack. Most of the world, in our opinion, has long since rejected (or, has never adopted) the Christian approach of turning the other check and has adopted the Jewish approach on this subject. That amounts to the position that if you can find an excuse to make war upon you neighbor, then do it, as long as you have the power to do it, or as long as you have powerful friends who will fight the battles for you. (Readers may refer, if they wish, to the Bible's books of Kings for some indication that the attitudes have been around for awhile. There, one will find ample evidence of the proclivity among ancient Jewish Kings to send their generals against their neighbors, simply because they had a "vision" that they should do so.) Most of the world, and we are thinking here of the Chinese with their variety of religions (only the tolerated ones), and the Hindus, and the Moslems, and just about everybody else except the Christians, long ago adopted the Jewish approach to human affairs, and affairs between states. The United States, during the reign of president Ronald Reagan, publicly adopted a sort of modified Judeo-Christian approach to world affairs. Reagan championed the policy, in his running battle with the old Soviet Union, of "trust, but verify." Truth of the matter is, that if one trusted completely, there would be no incentive to "verify". But Reagan didn't really trust the Communists, and there was no reason for him to do so. The Reagan approach seems to come about as close to the Christian approach as can reasonably be expected of any nation seeking to maintain its own identity, or its own sovereignty in a world beset by conflicting ideologies. That approach served us well during the Cold War Reagan years, when our adversary was armed with nuclear weapons, and would serve us well, in our opinion, during the current difficulty. The chances of that happening, however, are not good. The President speaks frequently about "trust", but the only state in the Middle East he trusts, is the client state of Israel, the least trustworthy, in our opinion, of all the states in the Middle East. Obviously, the President has adopted a policy of publicly agreeing with the government of Israel on the assumption that it will translate into votes during the next domestic Presidential election, votes that have traditionally gone to the Democrats. Support in Florida, California and New York are of tremendous value to the younger Bush, and if war with his father's legacy is the price of political victory, then so be it. His father was generally regarded as friendly to Arab states. That position paid off during the Gulf War, when other Arab states came forth to help pay for the operation against Saddam. The son, on the other hand, is regarded as friendly to the Jewish state of Israel, and hostile to any state that is hostile to Israel. The younger Bush has, as far as we can see, completely adopted the convoluted Middle Eastern approach to politics…an approach that says, in essence, "the enemies of my friend are my enemies," and "the enemies of my enemies are my friends." no matter what. That may be acceptable personal behavior, but in the world of statecraft it is a blueprint for disaster. We are reminded of a story making the rounds many years ago when we were messing around in that region, trying to find a few friends for America. The story, as relayed to me by a Foreign Service officer on one trip to the Middle East back in the 70's, had a camel about to cross the Suez canal. One of those huge scorpions that inhabit the region was trying to hitch a ride across the canal on a camel. Most camels demurred, at first, but the scorpion was especially persistent and persuasive. Finally, he found a camel that would at least listen. Still, the camel was reluctant to give the scorpion a ride across the Suez. "Why should I give you a ride?", asked the camel. "As soon as we get out in the middle of the canal, you may sting me and kill me, and we would both go down, we would both die. Why should I do that?" "Exactly," said the scorpion, "Why would I do such a foolish thing. Then we would both perish. It would not be in my self interest to do such a foolish thing." The camel thought about it. That made sense to him. So he told the scorpion to climb aboard, and they started the swim across the Suez. Sure enough, mid-way of the trip, the scorpion stung the camel, and they both started down. The camel, as the water engulfed him, cried out to the scorpion, "Why did you do that? Now we are both going to die." The scorpion replied, "Ah, but you forget. This is the Middle East." It seems to me that our President has bought into Middle Eastern logic, probably with the help of Ariel Sharon and a few religious spokespersons here in America. If things keep going like they are at the present, both the scorpion and the camel will die. Then we will be presented with the classic "chutzpa" of the Middle East, wherein a child kills both his parents, is charged with murder, and then asks the court for mercy on the grounds that he is an orphan. In the United States, some judge would probably grant the court's mercy. Uncle Sam, as long as Ariel Sharon is acting as our surrogate Secretaries of State, plus Defense, will probably do the same. Mr. Bush has invested a lot of political capital in peace in the Middle East. But he seems unwilling to insist that his "road map" be followed. He threw it out there, got himself a lot of favorable press attention in the process, and then headed for the hills as soon as Ariel Sharon found fault with the plan. And Bush should know (and does know) that Sharon will find fault with any plan that calls for Israel to give up land seized from the Palestinians. In other words, in this instance, Bush is trying to have it both ways. He tries to appear, to the world, that he is working for peace in the Middle East, while each and every time Ariel Sharon voices his determination to enlarge the areas under Jewish control, Mr. Bush is "understanding." It is that one-sided approach to matters in the Middle East that has gained America so many enemies throughout that region. If Bush truly wanted peace in the Middle East, all he would have to do is lead the charge against our annual subsidy of the Israeli state. If Israel's money was cut off, or threatened with termination, peace would come very quickly. It is not unusual for politicians to try to "eat their cake and have it too." Despite the fact that it is most difficult to do, a good politician is constantly trying to accomplish just that. Bill Clinton mastered the technique, but it required a lot of lying, which he happened to be good at. Too, Clinton had a cadre of aides around him who were willing to lie and support lies. Not many other politicians are so fortunate. Mr. Bush, for instance, is a neophyte (compared to Clinton) when it comes to lying. True, Bush hasn't been faced with a Monica Lewinsky situation, or a Jennifer Flowers situation, or a host of other situations involving women in his past, and usually his half-truths are the result of hearing only what he wants to hear, but that can be a very dangerous thing in the conduct of foreign affairs. In the meantime, the argument goes on. Should we hit our enemies before they hit us? If so, who are our enemies, and who should we hit? Should we turn the other cheek? If so, how many times? And, pray tell, on what subject, and with which nation, are we supposed to insist on what position?
|
|
 |
|
