Various Revelations IV

A few days ago, as a response to Syria's gas attack on its own citizens, the United States struck the airfield from which the planes dropping the gas had come. The attack was roundly condemned by those nations that routinely condemn us for any action and applauded by some of our allies. Interestingly it was not condemned by other countries that usually find fault with us. And that includes many states in the Middle East.

This morning (April 9, 2017), I heard on the radio a criticism of the action by one of our “experts” who claimed we had acted without a strategy. It has become clear that the Syrian regime, among others, takes inaction as irresolution and it provides a background for the furthering of its goals. A few years ago, after a gas attack, President Obama declared the use of gas a “red line” that couldn't be crossed without response. Of course it was crossed and the “response” was a pact with Russia to demand the removal of all chemical agents from Syria. Russia opposed any action against Syria, which was its ally. So Syria was free to act, and it did. Our threat about crossing the red line was not followed up by any real action even though Assad had challenged the president by his continued use of chemical agents.

I don't know the response of the expert mentioned above to the failure of the US to take more definitive action earlier, but it is clear that the “strategy” that accompanied our pact with Russia failed. Perhaps a show of force will have more long-lasting effects than a verbal display of anger. That appears to be the assessment of Middle East nations which have remained silent. They're better aware of the situation than we, and they haven't protested our actions, although they usually join together in opposition to anything we do in the area if it doesn't contain criticism of Israel. Are they beginning to recognize the risks of terrorism? Are our strength and determination welcome signs? Can they identify a strategy we're missing? We'll see.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Two Coptic churches in Egypt were blown up today, Palm Sunday, by ISIS members. (How typical to attack on someone else's holy day, but that's the way you make “holy war.”) Imagine. There are still Christians in the Middle East despite the attempts of some Islamists at ethnic cleansing. It's clear they're not welcome since there has been war against Christians in the area for years. Numbers are dwindling for which the world usually blames Israel. The smallest of the Abrahamic religion is blamed for the attack on the largest, while the one like to take over the lead in a few years is pitied and defended. Meanwhile the Christians seek a place in the region where they can pray openly – and only Israel provides that.

What's most striking is the lack of world response. It's not an issue of consequence to most nations. Christianity may, for the time being have a lead over Islam in number of adherents, but most Christian leaders seem to have little interest in the problem. It seems to be better for liberal church leaders to overlook the actions of Islamic terrorists and blame all problems on Israel and the Jews. Islamophobia is sinful, but antisemitism is not. Antisemitism has a long history and takes precedence over the deaths of Christians, and condemning Israel and the “zionists” overrides any other consideration.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It strides me that Big Brother had the right approach – at least in one way – although he didn't apply it the way I'd prefer. “Newspeak” (and “doublespeak”) makes a lot of sense conceptually. According to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, we can only think about things for which we have words. For example, nadi in Balinese refers to the idea of “temporarily inhabit[ing] another dimension” (Rheingold, They Have A Word For It) which is not an idea that has much meaning among westerners. We wouldn't think in such terms.

Big Brother redefined words, giving them meanings that suited his political agenda. “Minipax,” which is the “Ministry of Peace” is actually the ministry of war and responsible for perpetuating conflict as justification for the actions of the government and for its longevity; “Miniluv” (the Ministry of Love”) is in charge of brainwashing. After a while people accepted concepts which might be contrary to common sense, but, repeated often enough while excluding all other uses of particular words from public use, became the only meanings that could be associated with those words. Those were the definitions and that became the only thoughts imparted by them.

It works the same way for the rest of us, especially with the rapid changes that occur in slang (and abbreviations and solicisms in the social media). As an example, what used to be “good” or “great” became “bad.” Repeated often enough, and with adequate manipulation the definition could be made to change. And with time, pejorative uses of the word would disappear from our consciousness.

If Sapir and Whorf were correct, and we changed the meaning of “war” to relate to positive interactions of nations – if the idea of fighting were made to disappear – perhaps the reality would disappear with it. Similarly, by establishing a “national language board” or its equivalent, charged with the responsibility of changing the language to meet social and political “needs” we might, at the cost of language, civilize civilization. We have a violent vocabulary much in need of softening. Some changes might be beneficial.

Wishing Will Make It So

 

God, grant me the serenity

To accept the things I cannot change;

Courage to change the things I can;

And wisdom to know the difference.

This was Reinhold Niebuhr's prayer dating back to the mid-1930s. It was known as the “Serenity Prayer,” and its message carries that emotion.

In January, 1946, addressing the Confessing Church in Frankfurt, Pastor Martin Niemöller said

“They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

It was for the wrong reasons, but Pastor Niemöller made the right decision. He acted from apathy – from a lack of concern about others – but had he spoken up, nothing would have changed, except for the likelihood that he, himself, would have been taken away sooner. It wasn't that he had the wisdom to be able to distinguish between what could and could not be changed; it was simply that he didn't want to get involved. But that was because even in retrospect – his poem was composed after the war – he saw words as his only option. Words. As if the pen were mightier than the sword. But it isn't. Words are certainly powerful, but that power has its limits.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

More words: Every now and then I see a bumper sticker that reads, "An eye for an eye leaves the world blind."

It's nonsense, of course; it's the kind of self-righteous and vacuous pronouncement that characterizes much moralistic rhetoric; the kind of philosophy that, some decades ago, produced "Make love, not war" and "Suppose they gave a war and nobody came" stickers -- stickers sported by people blinded to reality, who felt morally superior to those aware that the world contained individuals who preferred war to love -- who would come to a war -- people with whom we had to deal.

The unwritten message is that if someone attacks you, turn the other cheek; don't fight back. But that leaves you blind while the attacker can see. Or perhaps you are already blind. Turn a blind eye to evil and only the good are disabled.

An eye for an eye won't work. Certainly no eye for an eye rewards the "bad guy," putting him further ahead of the good. Even "an eye for an eye" merely allows him with more eyes to continue, coming out even or benefiting from the situation. It's the strategy of the war of attrition, of the uncaring who force those who do care to capitulate in order to prevent further loss of life. It's carried out by those who don't value the lives they sacrifice – especially if they're other people's lives, most especially women and children. President Reagan said, "History teaches us that wars begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap."

But must we wait to be blinded before responding? Should we not care when we're not directly involved? We tried isolationism and it failed. And what's a "proportionate" response to mass murder? Should the relatives of those who died on 9/11 be satisfied that those directly involved were killed? How do you dissuade those willing to die, or have others die, for their cause: those who know they'll ultimately be freed if captured before completing their missions – given another opportunity to murder? How do we discourage terrorist acts, apart from giving in to the terrorists or blaming their victims for existing? Sadly, the views of too many are governed by politics and economics rather than concern for right, wrong or justice. But I doubt that the families of the Lockerbie victims are comforted by the "rehabilitation" of Muammar al-Qaddafi,ⁱ or that the families of those killed on September 11th, 2001 get closure knowing that Saudi Arabia is our "good friend" and ally.

But what, if not "an eye for an eye?" If we cannot prevent murderous acts, two eyes for an eye or three or four will lessen the advantage, punishing those who choose violence. Disproportionate? Not really. They who would try only to limit rather than stop terrorists may feel morally superior, but any tyrant will gladly yield the moral high ground for the terrestrial low ground. They'll concede morality in a shot. But it's you who will be shot.ⁱⁱ Terrorists mustn't be appeased. Those who send others to murder are themselves murderers and should be punished appropriately. In times of peace the death penalty may be fit for debate, but wars must be fought with complete victory as the goal. Were we too quick to reject Senator Goldwater's 1964 "[E]xtremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!" and to veto our generals' call to fight wars to win rather than to achieve a stalemate? Nearly one hundred years before Goldwater, President Lincoln spoke of "firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right ..."ⁱⁱⁱ Perhaps these should be our watchwords. "Firmness" and "Right." We shouldn't be embarrassed by fighting for what we know is right. We mustn't be blinded to what is right by moral relativism or self-defeating breast-beating. Our actions should be swift and overwhelming. "Shock and awe" may have been too limited geographically, and ended too soon. If our acts seem harsh, the costs of inaction must also be considered. After the "War to end all Wars" came the Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928) which outlawed war entirely. Then came Chamberlain's proclamation of "Peace in our time." But these were followed by the Holocaust and, more recently, Cambodia. And now we have Darfur, Rwanda and Mumbai. Still we have not reacted. The world is not Hollywood. Wishing won't make it so. Action is required.

Turning the other cheek, accepting less than justice may make us feel morally superior, but there is no superiority in death over life, no virtue in slavery over freedom. Refusing to fight back may make us feel good, but it will leave us, and the world, blind and in chains. Words have meaning. But without actions to accompany them – to back them up – they are self-indulgent tributes to our vanity, to moral superiority irrespective of the physical cost.

Though he believed we must accept the things we cannot change, it is worth noting that Reverend Niebuhr, in his “Serenity Prayer,” urged us to have the “Courage to change the things [we] can.” He was a “liberal” but supported interventionism and power politics, rather than depending on words and hope alone. We can all learn a lot from him.

Next episode: “Invitation To The Dance”

i     Or the “compassionate” release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.

ii    Of course your mortality will be accompanied by morality. You'll die happy and virtuous.

iii    Was President Lincoln a war-monger and extremist? Should we reevaluate him, or our criteria for “extremist?”