Slanted Viewpoint

In almost every kung-fu/karate/samurai movie I have ever seen, there is usually one scene where the master teacher instructs the younger student in one of the key concepts of these Eastern fighting techniques. Paraphrasing, it goes something like this:

“You must learn to use your opponent’s strengths against him. If a bigger opponent comes lunging towards you, don’t stand your ground. That’s how you lose. Instead, step to the side at the last second, grab his arm and continue to pull him forward. That will cause him to accelerate his forward motion beyond his control. The next thing he knows, he will slam his head into the wall behind you.”

There are other variations of this theme. But you get the idea. Often, in these cases, the object of such deftly administered defeats is some lumbering Western fighter, trying to use old-fashioned boxing techniques, or simply wild punching, in the erroneous belief that size and muscle power advantage will inevitably determine the outcome.

The message behind these lessons is that you don’t have to be bigger and stronger than your opponent to beat him. Sure, you have to be in good shape, but after that, it’s more how you use what you have that matters. Take advantage of every weakness of your opponent and capitalize on all of your strengths. Don’t fight the battle that your opponent is prepared to fight; fight the one he does not expect and can not win.

All of this comes to mind in recent weeks, as I continue to watch the deteriorating situations in Iraq, especially the escalating violence in Baghdad, and in Lebanon-Israel.

In both cases, the traditional Western power (the U.S. in one case, Israel in the other) expected its size advantage and superior weapons to carry the day.

In the case of Iraq, the Bush administration could not have been more wrong. With generals now admitting that the country is already in a state of civil war, and the prospects for peaceful future looking bleaker than ever, our hopes for anything that resembles a “victory” are fading fast. It almost brings me to tears when I think of the damage that Bush has done both to our country and to the world at large in pursuing his misguided foreign policy: alienating friends, creating new enemies, weakening our domestic resources, destroying our civil liberties and polarizing our citizens—while lost in some deluded world where flying a “Mission Accomplished” banner could ever be seen as reflecting reality. The Bush administration simply did not have a clue as to the consequences of their actions in Iraq. And they continue to fail at every attempt to tilt the situation to their favor, precisely because they continue to lunge forward while the opponent steps to the side.

Israel now finds itself in a similar predicament in their fight against the Hezbollah in Lebanon. Air superiority and a well-trained superbly-equipped ground force have been unable to stop the enemy. Hezbollah rockets continue to pummel the Israeli landscape. And Hezbollah continues to win the political war. Despite the fact that their rockets deliberately target civilians, while Israel is at least attempting to stick to military targets (while admitting the difficulty of doing this when the enemy intermingles with the civilian population), it is Israel that receives the brunt of the world’s criticism for civilian deaths. As with the U.S in Iraq, Israel lumbers forward while Hezbollah steps to the side.

As others have pointed out, we are in a new generation of warfare. And western powers must learn to adjust, learn the new rules, or perhaps learn that their is no longer a fixed set of rules, if we are to come out on the winning side.

Still, returning to movie metaphors that led off this piece, I am reminded of the endings of many of these movies, such as The Last Samurai or even the non-Eastern but similar in theme Dances With Wolves. In these movies, while the Samurai/Indian strategy worked in small battles and even succeeded for awhile in larger ones, eventually it was doomed. Eventually, the sheer numbers and overwhelming firepower of their enemies carried the day. Today, the Indians and the Samurai no longer exist as powerful forces within their countries.

Perhaps, the same fate eventually will come to Islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East. Perhaps, a generation from now, the “war on terror” and its related battles will all be relevant only in history books.

Or perhaps not.

Every great and powerful civilization in the past eventually met its downfall, from the Greeks and the Romans to the British Empire. Perhaps, the time of our own downfall is near. Personally, I doubt it. But I suppose that’s the way Romans felt before the fall as well.

But one thing I am certain of. A sustained peace is nowhere on the horizon. We have never lived in peace for long and I doubt we ever will. In the last hundred years alone, the U.S. has fought in at least seven “wars” (WWI, WWII, Korean War, Cold War, Vietnam War, Gulf War I and Gulf War II). The number of others wars that have gone on during this period, ones where we were not a major participant, probably number in the hundreds. There must be some irony in the fact that, despite all the technological and biomedical advances of the last century, our political world remains as bloody as ever.

The Islamic fundamentalists may some day fade into history. But, if they do, another “enemy” will soon take its place. Battles may end. Wars may end. The fighting never ends.

Whatever else you might want to say about the current Bush administration, one thing is clear: they are a bunch of hypocrites.

Yesterday, North Korea made good on its months-long threat to launch short and long range missiles. The lone long range missile crashed shortly after take-off, but at least they get an A for effort.

As to the Bush administration, their response is to express “outrage,” look for a U.N. resolution supporting economic sanctions, and push to resume the six-party talks. Nowhere was there a mention of any possible invasion.

The comparison to Iraq is illuminating. North Korea has demonstrated the intent and capability of producing weapons of mass destruction, with the potential of these weapons actually reaching U.S. shores. Iraq never showed the least indication of any intention to attack the U.S., the evidence that it even had WMD was muddy at best, and the end result, of course, was that no such weapons even existed. So guess which country we invade?

Now I am not in the least suggesting that we should seriously consider invading North Korea. I support the restraint currently being shown. What I am saying is that the irrationality and inconsistency of the Bush administration here points up the basic hypocrisy of the decision to invade Iraq. While Condoleezza Rice urged the invasion of Iraq lest the smoking gun we find too late turned out to be a “mushroom cloud,” the same logic does not seem to apply to the more real threat of North Korea.

The explanation for this hypocrisy is that the invasion of Iraq was never really about WMDs. I doubt we will ever know for certain exactly what the internal justification was. Getting control over Iraqi oil? Putting a U.S. friendly government in the middle of the Islamic Mideast? Finishing up the unfinished business of the first Iraq war? Whatever it was, it was not sufficient to justify an invasion. So the threat of WMDs was exaggerated. Even worse, the presumed existence of WMDs was claimed to be sufficient for a preemptive strike. Yet, the more real threat from North Korea does not clear the same bar.

The Bush administration has continued to rewrite history over the past 4 years, coming up with a new rationale for the war in Iraq each time the old one proved in error or no longer relevant (eradicate WMDs, depose Hussein, set up a democratic government, eliminate the insurgency). I guess it’s time to get ready for a similar list of rationales for why North Korea is not the same as Iraq, a list that will similarly evolve each time North Korea’s increasingly belligerent behavior makes the old rationale obsolete.

Often, when I listen to or read conservative viewpoints on global warming, I confess to being a bit mystified. It’s one thing to be opposed to something because you believe the facts are on your side. But that presumes that, if you could be convinced that the facts told a different story, you would change your view.

I believe this is the case for most people who argue that we should be concerned about global warming. Presumably if, over the next few years, a series of respected scientific reports came out that all argued against global warming, and if the initially predicted effects failed to occur or were seen to start to go in the reverse direction, we would all cool off (no pun intended).

But I don’t get that sense from global warming opponents (if “opponents” is indeed the right word here). Instead, the level of rehtoric suggests that if you could present irrefutable evidence that global warming was truly a serious threat, opponents (who almost always are political conservatives) would be at best disappointed and at worst would irrationally cling to their false beliefs anyway.

Why is this? On the surface, there seems nothing political about the subject. Either global warming exists or it doesn’t. If it does exist, it will not single out liberals for its harmful effects. So why have such a vested interest in one side of the debate?

I believe that one reason (as described by George Lakoff in an article I strongly recommend reading) is that an acceptance of global warming would require that something be done about it. That something would inevitably include increased environmental restrictions and more government oversight of industry. It is this that conservatives are against. They prefer to believe that global warming is not a threat because it is consistent with their overall political agenda.

This is not entirely unlike the tobacco industry, decades ago, insisting that cigarettes are not harmful to your health, despite the mounting evidence. They clearly had a vested interest in what was accepted as “true” and facts be damned. It’s the same sort of position now taken by conservatives and global warming.

Even if it turns out that the global warming threat is less serious than Al Gore is suggesting (which I doubt), it would not change the fact that the conservative position is based primarily on a desire to defend a conservative philosophy, whether it fits with the truth or not.