In which I extend a comment made to Alec82
which goes like this:
We have a major cultural difference with the people our military and culture otherwise interacts with in the Middle East. This is not sufficiently acknowledged or looked at. In many cases, the way we “interact” with people overseas, borne out of hubris and arrogance, has no chance whatsoever of solving the problems that are described as needing to be solved.For one thing, from what I understand, killing people at a distance and with no exposure to one’s own danger, as is done with Predator drone strikes, is deemed cowardice, not cleverness. It doesn’t matter who it’s done to or for what reason. It might kill people “we” want killed, but will probably exacerbate, long term, the very problem our military is ostensibly there to “solve”, which is global terrorism. For every terrorist we kill, are we not possibly creating ten more?
So, too, our military is seen as a universal hammer with which to solve all of our problems with foreign countries. We try to use them to solve problems that simply cannot be so solved .. but one argument can be made that we simply have no choice. So much of our national resources have been put into our military that one has to ask what is left to apply a more rational sensible solution to our national security and interest issues.
And, see, this is what bothers me about what I call “do-nothing faux-pragmatists”. These are people who propose to keep us away from the very bad as opposed to exploring any greater good. It’s all about what we must do to prevent Very Bad Political Outcomes, but almost nothing about how to create truly sensible and truly pragmatic change that directly addresses our most pressing problems.
That the political reality is as apposite and opposite world from real world reality — where such reality is threatening to our continued existence as a country is something I cannot and will not accept. To the extent there is a collision then we have to make the argument that these “political realities” have to be subordinate.
This is the quintessential argument that the go-along, self described “politically pragmatic” left tries to win through cynicism, extortion and dripping disdain, but ultimately will and can do nothing but lose in the long run.
Reality is reality. And true reality does not respect or dip its head to political artifice, no matter how hallowed, entrenched or deemed inviolable. Nothing is inviolable once the rubber meets the road and starts smashing the country. It might be wise to change course to meet these real realities before the smashing begins.
Without a political pragmatism that nods its head to true reality based pragmatism, the Very Bad Outcome cannot be avoided, only delayed.
(Please forgive me for the self quoting, but I am more interactive than in-a-vacuum a-priori creative, and want to use this as a launching point)
For me, this point weaves together a tapestry that I have been informed with and has been growing in my psyche for a while now. Various threads of it are found lying all over Docudharma in various forms.
One thing that struck me in my conversations with people today is what Edger brought up, which is the quote from Ron Suskind:
The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.