April 08, 2006

Misunderstandings and Wars - Jacksonian vs Intimidation

Wars are caused by misunderstandings. You might think that this is some Leftist Utopian slogan, but it really isn't if you look at the applications.

The Gulf War was caused by the misunderstanding that the US didn't care that Saddam would invade, that we were just showboating to the world with our build up.

The Iraq War was caused by the misunderstanding that France, RUssia, and China would veto any UN Resolutions calling for an Iraqi invasion, and thus without a Resolution the US would not invade. Regardless of how these misunderstandings came about, the net result is that misunderstandings cause war, even if war isn't about misunderstandings.

A lot of wars end up being caused by misunderstandings, and then being about something totally unrelated or just simply lenghtly related. Like the American Civil War. Or WWI for that matter. Or WWII. A simple misunderstanding about Hitler's intents and goals, causes a war about the future of Nazism, racial purity, and the exintinction of the Jews.

The purpose of diplomacy is to ease misunderstandings, to communicate in the language of the Other so that the Other understands your aims and can communicate their interests to you, without confusion. Thus wars can be prevented if the underlying causes are understood and a peaceful method reached in agreement by all parties. WWII, caused by the biggest misunderstanding yet. Hitler hath told them that he was out for world domination in his book, Mein Kampf. The Diplomads in ENgland just didn't believe it, so they misunderstood both his honest intent and his fabricated lies in diplomacy, and thus caused a world war to consume millions of innocents and combatants alike.

When a nation or a people declares their undying hatred of you and their manifesto to destroy you and your people, there is already a state of undeclared war between you. There is no need for diplomacy in an unstated declaration of war between 2 people or two nations. That is why diplomacy didn't work against Hitler and Germany, and this is why diplomacy doesn't and will not work against Al Qaeda or Iran. Diplomacy, in a state of undeclared war, simply becomes a tool of that war. As diplomacy was a tool to stall for time as the Japanese diplomats talked and talked about treaties, all the while while they knew their country planned for a pre-emptive first strike.

You can tell real diplomats from fake ones, simply by locating which diplomats understand the state of undeclared war and which diplomats seem to think war only comes if the other side declares it openly. Bush, seems to think war only comes if one of either two parties declare it. As on 9/11. Bush is wrong. Condi might understand it the other way, but she works for Bush so it doesn't matter. The UN is in a state of undeclared war against the United States. Most Americans seem to think we're still at peace, and that if we can keep the UN close, we can get an edge. It doesn't matter what edge you get, if you aren't willing to kill your enemy but your enemy is willing to kill you. Having that enemy close to you, gives him the advantage, not you.

The military hopes and prays that the diplomats solve problems peacefully. Because what the diplomats pock up, the military has to clean up. With blood and vigilance, no less. However, the longer the diplomats do nothing and let the military do nothing in a state of undeclared war, the more damage the military will incrue. I.E. the 6+ months given to Saddam increased military casualties dramatically simply because it allowed Saddam to implement Black Hawk Down plans, which the insurgency is still benefiting from, irregardless of all those weapons caches Saddam hid in the boondocks. It's not just Saddam, Syria and Iran planned for 6 plus months the weapons, logistics, and payment installations for suicide bombers while Bush dickered in the UN.

Do not dick around with diplomacy in a state of undeclared war. You'd think the diplomats would have understood the basic purpose of diplomacy after the lessons of Pearl harbor, 9/11, WWII, and a host of others.

When diplomacy works, like with Libya, that's fine. It is the way it should be. When diplomacy is contributing between a misunderstanding between two nations, like with Iran and the US, diplomacy is Not Fine.

As for the journalists, we all know that they are human, and humans are ridiculously easy to manipulate. Anyone who takes a journalist's word for it that they are reporting the truth, needs a second opinion. It's the idiots who say Bush is controlling the media, that don't understand how easy they themselves are susceptible to manipulation that is the problem. Journalists are not brave supermen, for one thing they don't carry weapons. People who don't carry weapons, nukes, and SF teams are called "prey" to violent people. When the prey say they are standing up to Bush Hitler for Truth and Justice, you got to understand that most people don't risk their lives for Truth or Justice. Most people who do, already went into the military and have gone out of it already. Or went into other fields of work, and then tried to join the military after 9/11. Or died on Flight 93 when the Truth came to them unbidden. The few reporters who are brave, don't have the influence, power, or weight of opinion as editors do. As is the case in most organizations. The front line troops know most of what is going on, the paper pushers in the back have a decidedly more narrow view.

who among us can face the sort of destructive prospect Dr. Sultan is suggesting be unleashed? Can there not be a Wilsonian solution instead? Please? Oh, pretty please?

I can get you a Wilsonian solution, but it requires some things you might not want to contemplate. You can get almost any solution you want, you just have to be able to pay the price. There are no free stuff in the world to be had at no risk. Except death anyway, that's always free.

They want to see the U.S. involved on a worldwide basis with a peaceful international community based on the rule of law.

If you want the US to be the police, then the US basically has to commandeer the military power of the globe and monopolize the use of lethal force. Reserving only self-defense to the rest. You're not going to have that without shedding some blood, preferably the other guy's. They're not going to give up their guns and armies just cause we say we're the police, and we are all going to live in a peaceful international community based upon the rule of law instead of the rule of guns. The use or presence of nuclear weapons would probably mean instant retaliation, like a SWAT or ATF raid. Except with more boom, like nuclear mushroom boom. The police can get ahold of crime, because the police has better guns than the criminals. What's a better gun than a nuclear bomb? Who is going to pay attention to the police and the rule of law, when they have a nuclear bomb? Nobody, unless of course you make it plain that the cost for having a nuke is less than the cost for not having a nuke. The fundamental implications of international rule of law is very easy, almost too easy, to figure out.

The problem with Wilsonians is that they're aren't willing to kill enough people to reach the critical mass for their rule of law. Plenty of people had to be killed before the Wild West was brought under civilization, and the Wild West wasn't even another country. The other problem with Wilsonians is that they are another Emperor Justinian, trying to conquer the Western Roman Empire and depleting vital resources and man power to do it. Sure, they may be honestly interested in law like Justinian, but what a waste of resources. Just cause you can conquer the world, doesn't mean you can keep it under the rule of law. As the Roman Empire found out soon enough when they succeded in reconquering the Western Roman Empire.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home