Were the various bombings vile, destructive acts that should be punished and, if possible, avoided? Yes, this is the only natural answer that exists. Evil should never be permitted free assault on the innocent. But to create vast agencies for the tracking of our people in an attempt to root out dysfunctional persons from their places of hiding is somewhat inconsistent with the unalienable rights of any person. We should permit someone to be displeased with our government, lest it commit its own atrocities or be advised to act discordant with the needs of its people. I feel myself that is attempting to do so in our quest for security and safety. And this is in fact the truer aim of our world-wide efforts. We are not in the business of distribution of freedom, because that's not something that can be forced upon people. We are in the business of security. This is the inconsistency. We have long been called or called ourselves the global policeman. The police aren't by themselves an agency for the liberation of the people; they are a force of order and law. This is not to say our quest is necessarily a vile purpose, but it is an unfortunate necessity of human beings incalculable ability to create chaos and disorder, often destructively. If we were capable of convincing dissatisfied people toward peaceable demonstration, active political debate, and generally peaceful measures of achieving some compromise of position that would be more reasonable to their needs, then the need for this quest would cease to exist.
But for whatever the reason, human beings seek to violently express themselves when their needs or wants are ignored by others. This is perhaps understandable, but it hasn't shown itself historically to achieve much. Violence serves more of a purpose in defending interests than in accessing new ones beyond your power. Most wars are started by one side seeking something (land, resources, etc) that the other side has access to or control of. Most wars have in recent times been lost by the aggressor nations (something to keep in mind). Most civil actions have achieved more success when a peaceful movement has frustrated civil authorities ability to control whatever injustices were being committed. More notice of those injustices is taken when violence takes to the streets of our towns and cities. But really all that is achieved is further alienation of the 'middle ground'. If a solution is to be forged in most disputes, it comes not from the disparate parties that are in conflict, but the innocent middle that has no quarrel or interest and becomes drawn in by the fanning flames. At this stage, we are in the middle ground most of us, and we are indeed alienated by the measures of the 'aggressors', namely terrorists. There are indeed certain aims that are perhaps wished for by these men, aims which in general are unacceptable to our own. But at this rate there are two possible outcomes. Either we intend to hunt out and destroy any dissenters here or abroad, which is not entirely consistent with the behavior of a democratic free state. Or we will be annihilated ourselves. I do not mean the alarm that someone will kill us all. I mean that our system will have been degraded so thoroughly that our way of life will cease to exist and at which point our foreign aims would seem inappropriate or hypocritical. We are steadily approaching this second state.
I say this because it seems to me there is little debate or interest on the topic. We are indeed right to be united behind the purpose of eliminating violent terrorist activity. But it should be called to question the nature of our endeavours. How this should be best done would be a debate of greater interest than the fact that it must be destroyed. We are too often seeing a lack of debate not only the level of you and I, but the level of government where it was intended to serve a true purpose to do so. More often than not I see in government news what is basically a series of finger pointing. Person A is against person B's agenda, but little reason is given, nor an alternative method pointed out. Are we that petty as to be separated by political parties which have in fact so little tangible difference as to be essentially the same? I should hope not, but unfortunately my wishes were not accounted for.
Since I'm calling to question 'the how' of our agenda, I will purpose some possibilities. It is clear that there is no interest in negotiation on either side. At this stage it would appear this is because both sides view the issue as a matter of survival. Which, being the underlying necessity of all people, it is not going to be a matter of finding a solution diplomatically. No one is going to logically say, well alright you can live and we'll all just go away and suffer and die. So what must be appealed to is not the cause of danger, but the cause of humanity itself. We should strive to find a common ground with the disinterested middle ground of both our lands and theirs. It would not be the hawks in our government or the terrorist cells that would have peace or a desire for it. It would be the innocents of these lands who are suffering the atrocities. For the time being the middle ground of 'their' side seems to side with the terrorists, at least passively. This leads me to a conclusion. We as a country have done something which is offensive to people abroad.
Our past is often a reflection of our present state. In this case, the repressive security methods suggested by many are in form similar to the repressive means used by our country upon countries abroad over the past 50 years at least. Longer still in our sphere of influence, namely Latin America. Suppression of domestic groups in opposition to our interests in these places is commonplace, even with brutal use of the military or police forces. This has happened here as well, but after a successful stand was made in the form of the civil rights movement, it has been much obligated to be a more subtle suppression. If you examine the history of those times you see that our government was deeply concerned about the 'subversive' activities of these civil rights leaders. Partially this was the time; communism was rampant and feared, for some reason (on both counts). But the principal reasoning is simply that they represented change, a simple yet drastic change in the social fabric of the country. It became evident that the change was a positive one, at least to some of us, and was a necessary one. But it was resisted, often violently, at all steps.
This is not evidence of our country having an evil streak, far from it. It suggests that we are as any other society, defensive of how things are, and how they are run. Sudden shifts in social order are disconcerting for both people and society. They take a considerable time to sort themselves out, and often drastically affect how things are controlled and who is doing the control. What is then offensive is that we have meddled and drastically effected the government and social fabric of various countries when it has suited our interests. It is only natural that the people of these lands might absorb some animosity over this. Even when the changes were not suppressive, but progressive. The inculcation of freedom, in the form of free elections, forcibly upon some, has been an inconsistent policy interest at best anyway. What seems to be the major issue is stability. A dictator who runs the country in an orderly way, without the specter of mass killings and food riots, is as tolerable as any elected officials.
That our principal interest is in fact secure environments in which to conduct business is not a bad cause. Indeed it possesses no moral fabric at all. But to claim that our interests extend to supplying freedom is ridiculous double talk. If we were to supply it to others we would also need to be fighting to ensure it is supplied to the people of this country. As we are not fighting, but simply expecting it to be taken care of, there is a cause of concern. Voices of dissent are objects of hatred and ridicule, decried as anti-patriotic. If supporters of implemented governmental policy are to be the only patriots then we are not in possession of our basic freedom. Namely that we are able to make up our own minds and thus disagree if we find on that matter to do so. Patriotism, as it would be defined in America, is not the support of a country, but an idea of how to make that country a better place. We are all ultimately travelers from distant lands, abandoning homes and families in search of this idea and dreaming of its promise. We do not now have a country to defend, but an idea. And the battlefields here are strewn with promise and abandoned to realities. Yes, perhaps our homes and families are endangered. But when in life are we not at risk for something? Today, despite the many peaceful measures taken, Russia and the US stand minutes from nuclear annihilation. Biological research has taken on fearful concepts, putting things such as genetic manipulation or cloning in the forefront. Who would control such things, and what sort of potential is available? In an age that business and communications are increasingly global, the interests of our people should be as well. Not egocentrically controlled over the matter of how much higher we can raise our quality of life, but center on raising that of the entire world or at least understanding that not all peoples are inherently Americans.
Raising the stakes in this way is in fact the only way to make peace. The frustrations of a mass of people are always easier to make and to hear when so many of them are suffering from privations. Where a people are well-off, there is something of a functional society to risk by taking aggressive measures. More peaceful measures are sought to fight for rights and privileges. While there will always be a few aggressive dissenters who will strike at others violently and painfully, the matter should not be to seek to so control the other more docile persons in order to find and catch these few raw fish. If the majority is engaged in rational discussion or at least sitting and talking over things, these few rebels will stick out like a sore thumb for the advocacy and participation of more direct actions. Occasionally such people are even necessary to highlight our failures. It is a virtual impossibility to rationally sate all of our needs through interaction. But a functional society with a sense of law over lawlessness (and concurrently law through liberty, rather than the other way around) would seem to encourage us to take a different path to our satisfactions.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment