Enemies who are Enemies of Enemies, are as Dangerous as simple Enemies
I never cease to be astounded by the simple minded naivete abounding with regards to foreign policy. For example, how is it that so little attention is given to the fact that there are elements who would benefit from or enjoy the spectacle of a nation they dislike, such as say the USA, damaging itself while damaging another "enemy" nation in a war?
The USA's people, it seems, have let their guard down with regards to those who would benefit from us harming ourselves while harming an enemy in a war, due to the simple minded idea that nations face only one threat, never more than one threat, and the idea that the world is composed of two characters the USA the good guy, and then the bad guy the Islamists. This despite the fact that the source of unnecessary, harmful wars can reasonably suspected to be those out to damage both sides involved in such wars.
Often it is in doubt as to who has "won" a war, but usually both sides in a war are harmed by a war they fight with each other. In a sense war as a rule can be expected to harm both sides involved while resulting in not a victory or a loss but a tie. Still the simple-minded persist in quivering in fear of enemies while ignoring enemies who harbor malice for both us and our enemies.
Whereas simple enemies focused on damaging a nation will simply go about attempting to damage the given nation, enemies who want to damage a given nation, say the USA, who also want to damage the given nation's enemies, will attempt to stimulate wars between the target nation and enemies, wars which end up damaging both the target nation and also its enemies.
One would expect that enemies interested in only damaging a given nation, say the USA, would be less powerful than the more powerful enemies interested in damaging not only a given nation such as the USA but also the enemies of the USA. Little powers are more apt to consider one enemy to be enough, while they try to forge friendships with nations other than that one enemy. Still, even though strong powers are more dangerous threats than little powers, a blind eye is turned to the problem of enemies who might be inclined to harm a nation by inducing it to plunge into damaging wars with enemies other than itself.
Nations such as the USA plunge into wars in a kind of emotionalist jingo-istic flag waving delirium. Such nations, would be wise to look before they leaped, and ponder the possibility that an enemy, say enemy X, might wish to plunge them into war with some enemy, say enemy Y, while enemy X keeps itself at peace, strong, and prosperous.
@2006 David Virgil Hobbs
The USA's people, it seems, have let their guard down with regards to those who would benefit from us harming ourselves while harming an enemy in a war, due to the simple minded idea that nations face only one threat, never more than one threat, and the idea that the world is composed of two characters the USA the good guy, and then the bad guy the Islamists. This despite the fact that the source of unnecessary, harmful wars can reasonably suspected to be those out to damage both sides involved in such wars.
Often it is in doubt as to who has "won" a war, but usually both sides in a war are harmed by a war they fight with each other. In a sense war as a rule can be expected to harm both sides involved while resulting in not a victory or a loss but a tie. Still the simple-minded persist in quivering in fear of enemies while ignoring enemies who harbor malice for both us and our enemies.
Whereas simple enemies focused on damaging a nation will simply go about attempting to damage the given nation, enemies who want to damage a given nation, say the USA, who also want to damage the given nation's enemies, will attempt to stimulate wars between the target nation and enemies, wars which end up damaging both the target nation and also its enemies.
One would expect that enemies interested in only damaging a given nation, say the USA, would be less powerful than the more powerful enemies interested in damaging not only a given nation such as the USA but also the enemies of the USA. Little powers are more apt to consider one enemy to be enough, while they try to forge friendships with nations other than that one enemy. Still, even though strong powers are more dangerous threats than little powers, a blind eye is turned to the problem of enemies who might be inclined to harm a nation by inducing it to plunge into damaging wars with enemies other than itself.
Nations such as the USA plunge into wars in a kind of emotionalist jingo-istic flag waving delirium. Such nations, would be wise to look before they leaped, and ponder the possibility that an enemy, say enemy X, might wish to plunge them into war with some enemy, say enemy Y, while enemy X keeps itself at peace, strong, and prosperous.
@2006 David Virgil Hobbs
posted by David Virgil at 7:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home