"Okay, Mr. Smarty Pants, what the hell do we do then?"

(I wrote this in response to an e-mailed response to yesterday's post by an individual who suggested rather eloquently that if the American people lacked the common decency not to do it, we could reduce the region to glass and knock them back to the stone age, then occupy and set up the new government, much as we did in Japan after WWII.)

I enjoy and invite your comments. In fact, if there is a way to win the war, what you propose is the closest I’ve seen to being feasible. I don’t condone it because I am, I suppose, putting it in your words, one of those possessed with the common decency not to nuke entire populations. But let’s pretend that this “common decency” didn’t exist and we were more than happy to wipe the enemy off the face of the earth. Well, where are they? They are spread across the globe in cells, they are in the mountains of Afghanistan on the Pakistani border, they are in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine. And that’s not to mention the African nations. There is no target. You could nuke one fourth of the globe and the next day a terrorist who was somebody’s suburban neighbor in London would bomb another train. We are not fighting a people as much as an ideology.

The next big question to throw back this way then would be, “Okay Mr. Smarty Pants, what the hell do we do then?”

Here is a very naïve and idealistic model: It seems to me that we cannot denounce violence while we are being violent. We must not become the enemy. Think about it: your saying that we must eradicate every Jihadist Muslim off the face of the earth, or as close to it as we can-- by reducing them to the stone age. Sounds eerily familiar if you listen to Jihadist rhetoric. Perhaps we can make a move in the name of a higher position. What about:

1: Announce that it has become self evident through history that violence begets more violence. That acts of aggression create acts of reprisal. That we understand that the enemy will use deadly force against innocent people to further their cause and that such a thing is wrong and that we won’t have any part in it.

2. Acknowledge that in all conflicts, both sides tend to believe that they are right and that either the people fighting or the governments ordering people to fight are willing to sacrifice lives for their “rightness.” This can make such conflicts go on for generation after generation after generation as these sentiments are handed down— look at the Israeli/Arab conflict.

3. Make a simple worldwide plea asking the world and it’s political and religious leaders to denounce violence, especially the killing of innocent people, in the name of their country or religion and stand together with the United States to make the first move towards a more peaceful planet. In this way, the world becomes allied with the US, further alienating the extremists.

4. Once global support can be rallied for a less violent approach to conflict resolution, the likelihood of an international coalition force giving support to the newly formed Iraqi government goes up and troop draw downs can begin for the U.S., improving public opinion. With less cost for operating costs of occupying Iraq with 140,000 US troops, support can be given to the Iraqi government in other ways.

If the US changes it’s position of being a known aggressor and acting police force for the whole world (whether they like it or not), and becomes a promoter of peace, it would take some of the wind out of the sails of those who hate the US. How do you continue hating a reformed nation that wishes not to use force against other countries but extend a hand in diplomacy and have a policy of non-violence? Statistics have shown and US generals and ex-cabinet members are saying that the actions taken by this administration have only stirred up the hornets nest and created a breeding ground for terrorists. We certainly can’t be doing any worse than we are on this tack.

Food for thought. Would love to hear more from you on this.

Cheers,

Tom