SUPPOSE the WORLD IS ON
July 2006
After Weapons of Mass Destruction flunked the truth
test, no longer grounds to make war on Iraq, the administration switched causes
in mid-stream. The new Causus Belli focused on
eliminating Saddam Hussein in order to bring Democracy to Iraq and its
neighbors. We are still working on that, but the idea took hold in the West
Bank. Israel pulled out of Gaza to give Democracy a chance. The death of Yasser
Arafat brought the moderate Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen to his friends) to power. Sure enough, the international
community cheering the arrival of democracy in the Middle East, certain that
Abu Mazen and the Fatah
party would win, the Palestinians held elections. But lo and behold, the Hamas Party an organization of dedicated terrorists whose main
goal is the destruction of Israel was elected to power. That’s the juicy part
of democracy, brisk, jaunty gaudy, risky and unpredictable. Just after WW II
during the Communist scare, humorist Art Buchwald described the Communist Party vote for its Presidential
Candidate. He said that the party was so completely infiltrated by FBI agents
that J. Edgar Hoover was declared the winner. We should have taken a page out
of that book before allowing the Palestinians to hold a democratic election.
They might have elected Bush or Cheney.
Of course the
election of Hamas terrorists was unacceptable, but
could they be drawn into the political process? Before they were given a chance
Israel, the United States and assorted allies publicly demanded that Hamas give up its goal of destroying Israel. Predictably Hamas couldn’t publicly submit to coercion, so funds to the
Palestinians (other than basic necessities) were cut off. Instead of
politicizing these guys and weaning them away from Terror, Hamas was
now running a failed government. The more radical faction of Hamas dug a tunnel under an Israeli outpost, captured an
Israeli soldier, then demanded that Israel free all
Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the soldier. Israel refused and the War
began. In order to woo back the Palestinians, most of whom were looking for
work, Israel bombed Gaza, destroyed it’s infra structure and killed some
bystanders. Since that failed to improve
their living conditions the Palestinians did not consider the bombing a
conciliatory move. Nor did Hezbollah, which went on its own
rocket and kidnapping spree from southern Lebanon.
SUPPOSE: that Israel decided to wait before attacking
terrorists in Gaza. Would that have been perceived as weakness and invited
further attacks from Hamas or would it have
encouraged them to assume the responsibilities of governance?
SUPPOSE: that Israel stated that it would negotiate
to get the soldier back, and that it was instituting new military procedures to
prevent future kidnappings. What might have happened? Well for one thing the
Hezbollah kidnappings might have been avoided, and a hundred or so people in
both Gaza and Lebanon would be alive as well as a dozen Israeli soldiers.
SUPPOSE: that the West and Israel had accepted Hamas as part of a democratically elected Palestinian
government instead of cutting off funds and impoverishing the place. Would that
have generated good will rather than cynicism? Didn’t the attack on Gaza, the
destruction of roads and bridges that removed all routes of escape spawn armies
of hatred that called for revenge not friendship? Would patience and diplomacy have trumped
Hezbollah and avoided the war on Lebanon?
SUPPOSE: after 9/11, we had maintained a low profile,
prepared our defenses, and quietly without fanfare, established policy that
would continually disrupt Al Qaeda operations. Would that have avoided
inflaming Muslim youth and succeeding generations the world over?
SUPPOSE: hate is a stronger and more unifying emotion
than love, and war more unifying than peace, and that from time to time
tranquil people have to have some outlet for their excess energies! Is war the
preferred outlet?
SUPPOSE:
science discovers that humans and other animals possess a feral gene,
that War is in our genes, inevitably our destiny, that war is our game and we
can’t help ourselves. Then what?
SUPPOSE: we realize that moderation loses to ferocity
every time that the ruthless always prevail over the ruths
and only by becoming ruthless can moderates win and isn’t that an oxymoron?
SUPPOSE: that
to tame the enemy we must activate our feral genes (and those of some of
our “allies”). Can that transformation
be triggered by the brain? Is it reflex or can we think our way out of this
mess? Can the brain exercise control? Over sex? Over money? Over war?
SUPPOSE: we conclude that we must destroy North Korea
before it starts selling Plutonium to Osama bin Laden and other Terrorist
organizations. After all we aren’t overwhelmed with guilt for having
obliterated Hiroshima and its citizens and incinerated Dresden and its
inhabitants. We can do it again. That’s
what armies and bombs and guns and bullets are for. No one can call me a
pacifist and get away with it.
Will the legacy of President Bush be that of the
President who went to war when he should have appeased, and appeased when he
should have gone to war? Who Cares!
SUPPOSE: that three kidnapped soldiers are returned. Would that end the crisis? Are they really the centerpiece of this crisis?
An Ill Wind
July 18 somewhere between 9 and
SUPPOSE: