The rule of triadic interaction breaks down in the real world. The Cold War mentality of "The enemy of my friend is my enemy" and its corollaries are convenient simplifications, unsuitable for a complex policy of nonviolent solutions. Unforunately, few people are hip to nonviolence, or complexity. Here in America, simple is preferable; a simple answer is always more comforting, even if it's wrong.
We like good guys vs. bad guys, our guys and their guys. Even if it means supporting our death squads vs thier death squads. Even if it means supporting totalitarianism vs. democracy.
Violence begets violence. Once you accept the definition of someone as an 'enemy', you accept the possibility, or the necessity, of commiting violence against them.
If we had not supported Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden in the past, would we have the problems we have today? If we had not pursued the policy of enabling the violent in the past, would we be reaping the whirlwind of violence we reap today?
Do we miscalculate the corollaries of collateral damage?
I want to get deeper into this. I'll add more to this later.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment