Still on the middle east thing

So, there was an interesting editorial in the Post But I gotta say, I don't completely buy it.

Reading my yesterday spot, you can see,I'm not a fan of the US middle east policy. Nor am I a fan of just ending the war. But claiming that Isreal has no culpability in how they're carrying out their response . . .?

But that's the conundrum of modern warfare. The US government cannot condemn Isreal's approach, because it is the same as the US has undertaken in Afghanistan and Iraq. Go in with massive superior fire power, hope that you eradicate the enemy or leave them paralysed with fear, and then go home.

Except the fight isn't with governments anymore. Terrorists cannot wave the white flag. There is no way to end a war on terrorists. Let's consider: if the terrorists (Hezbollah or Al Quaeda or even the SLA) were to enter into a truce (the normal way to end a war) - who would they be speaking for? Who is it that could be held to the terms of the treaty? And wouldn't the other country be conferring on it the authority of a government if it agreed to a surrender?

Let's say they broke the treaty. What is the repercussion? Who pays?

War with terrorists should not be fought with the army, they should be fought with the police. Extremely well trained and well-armed police, but it's not for the army.

Or, I suppose, it should be fought with assassins. The US won the revolutionary war (with help from France and Spain), by adopting the tactics of the Indians who had been beating them. I suppose there's a bit of "fire to stop a fire" that may need to happen.

Lebanon

I found myself in the odd position of agreeing with Condaleeza Rice the other day.

Before I go any further, I should explain: I think Condaleeza is one of the most dangerous people in the world. I have been following her work since the Cold War days and I have to say: she scares me.

Generally, people are looking for a voice behind the neo-conservative movement. I mean, who's come up with this crap. Well, here's the thing. The neo-cons are just like the proto-conservatives. They have the same theory as the 50's, they've just moved the pieces around. Condaleeza is leading the way, her whole middle east policy is just a recycled version of the domino theory. Except this time we get to be the people to push the dominoes over, not try and keep them standing. Much easier to be on the side of gravity.

Of course, cultures aren't dominoes and the middle east is only one culture from the perspective of Westerners. And since Ms. Rice and company have been selling capitalism as the equivalent of democracy for 26 years, and the Middle East definitely has capitalism (in a much hungrier form than even we in the West know) - there's a bit of confusion.

Anyway, back to my shocking synergy with Ms. Rice. I had just turned to my wife and said, "It'll sound strange, but I hope that they don't just call a cease fire without anything being accomplished. I mean, if this exercise doesn't move the situation forward at all, then all those people will have died in vain." Not 1 minute later, Ms. Rice was on CNN saying effictively the same thing.

So, what could be done? I have to say, if there were an easy answer, someone would have come up with it. But I would hate to force a peace without a reason for peace. The situation must change. But if they just stop without dealing with any of the fundamental causes, this whole thing will not only have not improved the situation, it will likely have made it worse.

Whatever happened to dialogue?

It occurs to me, as I read about podcasts, that we have become a culture of talkers. (And yes, I realise the irony of laying this out in a Blog.) Or of passive receivers of information - television having conditioned us in the rightness of this. What we are not is interactive.

Compare podcasts to their ancestral forbear: the ham radio. Like podcasts, the ham radio allowed indvidual control over a mass medium. It allowed the little guy to get his voice into the world. But the true enthusiast wasn't looking to broadcast, he or she was looking to connect. The thrill (I assume) came from knowing that someone thousands of miles away shared your interest in radio and could hear your voice. You, sitting alone in your bedroom in Wisconsin, could talk to Florida. On a clear day, you swear you'd could hear Chinese voices just below the surface of the static.

With that kind of connection commonplace - as we IM our friends in California from an internet cafe in Sapa, Vietnam - we have forgotten what it's like to discuss an issue. The art of verbal jiu jitsu is no longer valued. There is no give or take, there is merely the polite pause in speaking to allow the other person to speak. We simply do not listen.

I suppose it's most clear in the political realm. I have a lot of friends from across the spectrum, but it is getting harder and harder to have the discussion. We have all become hardened in our positions, as if ceding that the other person has a point weakens us. Really, it is our inability to accept that another viewpoint has merit that is the weakness.

I think that the appetite for dialogue has been degraded that we don't even accept to hear it in others. "Talk shows" no longer allow for dialogue, political debates the same: it's all just speeches. I was on a flight before the election with a friend who has different political views than I do. We were debating back and forth - a really enjoyable discussion - when someone said, "Hey, we'll be back in Washington in an hour, can you hold it until then?" (It must be said that there were no obscenities, vitriol or volume at play here.)

Ok, I've said my piece. No I can go back to ignoring everyone else.