Fighting Fire with Fire, Does It Work?
Patrick Carlock
April 25, 2007
Giuliani has warned us of a "new 9/11" if America elects a Democrat President.
That's funny, I seem to recall that 9/11 happened under a Republican president, in a city with a Republican Mayor.
This is just more scare tactics among the litany of scare tactics which has been the mainstay of the neoconservative movement for the last six years.
But, while we are being partisan using twisted logic, how about this logic: let's have a president with a name such as Barak Hussein Obama, because such a name would perhaps be more middle east friendly than that of a McCain, or Giuliani, eh? If they like our newly elected president a lot more than they like Bush, it is not unrealistic to assert that they might want to hurt us less, right?
Actually, the truth is that both ideas are silly. The truth is that, because as long as our "enemy" sees us as the intruder on their land, it won't matter who is president.
It doesn't matter what the Saudi Royalty, or other Arab leaders think, all that matters is what their citizens think, the majority of Arabs. And, I think it is fair to say that they see us as intruders in their land.
Republicans love to stigmatize an otherwise meritworthy idea of total withdrawal as "cut and run". But the idea that a complete withdrawal is tantamount to a "cut and run" is based on an assumed premise, that our presence is legitimate. If our presence was legitimate, then "cut and run" might be a fair characterization, but is it?
What it is, is an assumption, a grandiose, arrogant, assumption, an assumption which is needlessly resulting in the deaths of Americans, innocent Iraqis, and our Allies.
So the right wing has found a concept which they believe is bullet proof; a cute little sound-bite called “cut and run”, because, of course, how could any intelligent person worth his self-esteem advocate "cut and run" as a viable policy in the middle east? It’s a slam dunk idea, right?
Not so fast.
It all depends on the point of view.
Allow me to ask the question this way:
An intruder forces himself into your home, would it be more moral if that intruder continued to intrude than if he cut and ran?
I bet that the vast majority of citizens of the middle east view us as the intruder.
To say that to cut and run would appease the enemy might satisfy the "let’s-kill-the-bums” mentality of those who can only see trees, but when you look at the forest, the idea just might be based on a false premise, i.e., an assumed premise, which when scrutinized, is demonstrably false.
If we are in an territory against the wishes of the majority of its population, we are the intruder. That will spawn hate. The argument that such hate is the result of an archaic mentality doesn't mean much, what does mean much is the result, which is more, not less, terrorism.
Despite the fact that kings and leaders of a few of those regions might approve of our presence, keeping in mind that they don’t have to answer to their population, it's the overall desire of given country's population, which, for me, is the correct criterion on which to base this sentiment. The moral thing to do is to cease being the intruder in those regions that see us as such.
I've heard the right wing argument that if we pull out, terrorists "win". This is a strawman argument. If we are intruders, I say that we are intruders, that intruders of any kind or shape have no right to "win". Even if we had the moral right to "win", if the policy that flows from that view is to fight fire with fire, a policy which begets only more fire, then something is wrong. We must look at it from another angle.
My reasoning is to arrive at a policy that will reduce terrorism. Pride is not important, who wins or loses is not important, good guys and bad guys, us against them, the "war" on "terror" are all misguided concepts; all that matters is what, indeed, will result in more peace in the world.
The current policy of fighting fire with fire is definitely not the answer.
Complete withdrawal, in my view, is the first thing we should do, because until we do, we haven't a moral leg to stand on regarding policy in those regions. Yes, once upon a time, western corporations helped the middle east with regard to developing oil, but, of late, the west is percieved as exploiters. Perception, right or wrong, has a lot to do with finding the source of the problem, and learning how to best create a policy which results, ultimately, in less terrorism.
The entirety of the neocon foreign policy flows from an assumed premise, a false premise, and they want you to believe that a "new 9/11" is more likely with a Democrat as president, as if it would really make a difference.
What is needed is a President who has the courage to get America's butt completely out of the region, corporations, military, everything--let's get the hell out, period.
Then let us see what their justification for hating us is, because, in my view, our presence is the ultimate source of their hatred. All this about their so-called "kill the infidels" attitude never was a motivation for terrorism against us (on the scale that we are now seeing it) until after we intruded in their territory, so such rhetoric is just rhetoric born out of hate which was ultimately caused by our acts, policies, etc., in the region, and Republicans are using it to further their false argument that "no matter what we do, they will hate us anyway, so lets bomb them", etc., and it doesn't work.
With regard to middle east terrorism, fighting fire with fire begets more and more fire. If that isn't obvious, open your eyes wider.
Of course, it would be foolish of me to suggest that "fighting fire with water" as a philosophical approach, is appropriate for all types of terrorism, but, here, I'm referring to the terrorism arising out the middle east.
Republicans are fond of saying, "we need to fight them there so they won't be fighting us here". That's bass-ackwards; they are here because we are there.
The foreign policy regarding the middle east of fighting fire with fire is a flawed foreign policy, and what we should do is fight fire with water, i.e., water being the moral high ground; we shouldn't be torturing prisoners or holding prisoners in secret prisons without some level of due process, invading sovereign nations as a "preemptive strike", or meddling in the affairs of nations whose populations do not want us there.
Unfortunately, I fear that Bush has completely destroyed whatever water we had left, except, perhaps, the one last whirlpool of H20 he cannot destroy: the current movement for impeachment.
That's funny, I seem to recall that 9/11 happened under a Republican president, in a city with a Republican Mayor.
This is just more scare tactics among the litany of scare tactics which has been the mainstay of the neoconservative movement for the last six years.
But, while we are being partisan using twisted logic, how about this logic: let's have a president with a name such as Barak Hussein Obama, because such a name would perhaps be more middle east friendly than that of a McCain, or Giuliani, eh? If they like our newly elected president a lot more than they like Bush, it is not unrealistic to assert that they might want to hurt us less, right?
Actually, the truth is that both ideas are silly. The truth is that, because as long as our "enemy" sees us as the intruder on their land, it won't matter who is president.
It doesn't matter what the Saudi Royalty, or other Arab leaders think, all that matters is what their citizens think, the majority of Arabs. And, I think it is fair to say that they see us as intruders in their land.
Republicans love to stigmatize an otherwise meritworthy idea of total withdrawal as "cut and run". But the idea that a complete withdrawal is tantamount to a "cut and run" is based on an assumed premise, that our presence is legitimate. If our presence was legitimate, then "cut and run" might be a fair characterization, but is it?
What it is, is an assumption, a grandiose, arrogant, assumption, an assumption which is needlessly resulting in the deaths of Americans, innocent Iraqis, and our Allies.
So the right wing has found a concept which they believe is bullet proof; a cute little sound-bite called “cut and run”, because, of course, how could any intelligent person worth his self-esteem advocate "cut and run" as a viable policy in the middle east? It’s a slam dunk idea, right?
Not so fast.
It all depends on the point of view.
Allow me to ask the question this way:
An intruder forces himself into your home, would it be more moral if that intruder continued to intrude than if he cut and ran?
I bet that the vast majority of citizens of the middle east view us as the intruder.
To say that to cut and run would appease the enemy might satisfy the "let’s-kill-the-bums” mentality of those who can only see trees, but when you look at the forest, the idea just might be based on a false premise, i.e., an assumed premise, which when scrutinized, is demonstrably false.
If we are in an territory against the wishes of the majority of its population, we are the intruder. That will spawn hate. The argument that such hate is the result of an archaic mentality doesn't mean much, what does mean much is the result, which is more, not less, terrorism.
Despite the fact that kings and leaders of a few of those regions might approve of our presence, keeping in mind that they don’t have to answer to their population, it's the overall desire of given country's population, which, for me, is the correct criterion on which to base this sentiment. The moral thing to do is to cease being the intruder in those regions that see us as such.
I've heard the right wing argument that if we pull out, terrorists "win". This is a strawman argument. If we are intruders, I say that we are intruders, that intruders of any kind or shape have no right to "win". Even if we had the moral right to "win", if the policy that flows from that view is to fight fire with fire, a policy which begets only more fire, then something is wrong. We must look at it from another angle.
My reasoning is to arrive at a policy that will reduce terrorism. Pride is not important, who wins or loses is not important, good guys and bad guys, us against them, the "war" on "terror" are all misguided concepts; all that matters is what, indeed, will result in more peace in the world.
The current policy of fighting fire with fire is definitely not the answer.
Complete withdrawal, in my view, is the first thing we should do, because until we do, we haven't a moral leg to stand on regarding policy in those regions. Yes, once upon a time, western corporations helped the middle east with regard to developing oil, but, of late, the west is percieved as exploiters. Perception, right or wrong, has a lot to do with finding the source of the problem, and learning how to best create a policy which results, ultimately, in less terrorism.
The entirety of the neocon foreign policy flows from an assumed premise, a false premise, and they want you to believe that a "new 9/11" is more likely with a Democrat as president, as if it would really make a difference.
What is needed is a President who has the courage to get America's butt completely out of the region, corporations, military, everything--let's get the hell out, period.
Then let us see what their justification for hating us is, because, in my view, our presence is the ultimate source of their hatred. All this about their so-called "kill the infidels" attitude never was a motivation for terrorism against us (on the scale that we are now seeing it) until after we intruded in their territory, so such rhetoric is just rhetoric born out of hate which was ultimately caused by our acts, policies, etc., in the region, and Republicans are using it to further their false argument that "no matter what we do, they will hate us anyway, so lets bomb them", etc., and it doesn't work.
With regard to middle east terrorism, fighting fire with fire begets more and more fire. If that isn't obvious, open your eyes wider.
Of course, it would be foolish of me to suggest that "fighting fire with water" as a philosophical approach, is appropriate for all types of terrorism, but, here, I'm referring to the terrorism arising out the middle east.
Republicans are fond of saying, "we need to fight them there so they won't be fighting us here". That's bass-ackwards; they are here because we are there.
The foreign policy regarding the middle east of fighting fire with fire is a flawed foreign policy, and what we should do is fight fire with water, i.e., water being the moral high ground; we shouldn't be torturing prisoners or holding prisoners in secret prisons without some level of due process, invading sovereign nations as a "preemptive strike", or meddling in the affairs of nations whose populations do not want us there.
Unfortunately, I fear that Bush has completely destroyed whatever water we had left, except, perhaps, the one last whirlpool of H20 he cannot destroy: the current movement for impeachment.
Print
Email
