It’s Time to Come Home (Part TWO)

[This article is presented in two parts; this is the second. Part ONE was posted Friday. It would be best to read the two parts in order.   Thanks for reading.   –Gryphem]

“It’s Time to Come Home” (Part TWO)

WHAT WE NEED TO DO 

Just like we accept our inability to manipulate the world of the 22nd century, we must accept our inability to change radically some distant branches of our human family. We should think long and hard about trying to impose change on societies or nations (1) to whom we are only distantly related culturally, (2) with whom we do not share strong bonds based upon geography, economy, or common history, and (3) who are not committed to the effort themselves.

We should realize that sometimes other cultures function as they do because that is how the people of those cultures have chosen. We should admit that there are admirable qualities in many different exotic cultures, and that we might even find some ethical role models among them. To believe that everyone should be like us is xenophobic, arrogant, and closed-minded. Our American and Enlightenment cultures are admirable, yet we must admit that we still might have a thing or two to learn. We must admit that our way is not the only valid way to build a society.

We need a good strong dose of humility. In the absence of oppression, we should extend to other nations and cultures the same respect we expect from them.

We can uphold universal values such as the sanctity of human life and at the same time affirm that differences which are not ethical in nature are a matter of tradition and choice. There are undoubtedly situations in which we should intervene in an unjust or morally repugnant situation, but we are far too quick to disparage any culture that is different even when the differences are benign. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, not every cultural difference is a matter of principle.

For the present, we need to step back and stop trying to do for the Afghan people what they, collectively, do not want us to do. It is consuming our increasingly scarce resources and dividing our people. It is of questionable ethical justification, and perhaps not very effective anyway. Besides, we need our resources to be available to counter other more immediate threats. And we need a break. We ourselves need time to recover and heal.

I do not mean that we should disengage from the world. We know from experience that isolationism does not work. We should converse with all peoples and nations. We should travel abroad, do business abroad, share our values and our best practices in all areas of public life, suggest things others might do to enhance the quality of life for their people. We should be open to learn from others, and stay engaged in a two-way dialogue.

I do not suggest we become isolationists. I do propose that we move away from foreign intervention, refocus our energy and effort on our own situation rather than on other people in other places. I do suggest that we stop overtly trying to change other cultures (1) on a large, unsustainable scale, (2) in places which are not in our sphere of influence, (3) among people who are culturally distinct from us, and who do not share our history or values.

I categorically affirm the right to self-defense, a right which is always valid, whether defense of our own nation or defense of vulnerable others. If we recognize a valid need to engage in a far-away and culturally distant part of the world in order to protect our nation or our vital national interests, then so be it. The right to self-defense justifies striking back when attacked. It justifies removing the enemy’s ability to do us harm.

We must remain prepared to defend innocent life in cases in which a moral imperative is obvious. The Holocaust comes to mind. We must maintain avenues of individual assistance and immigration.

Self-defense does not justify genocide. Self-defense does not justify the unnatural transformation of a culture against the will of persons who are not partisans, even though they may share geographic or ethnic or cultural characteristics of our enemies.

Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, and we must always be on guard to preserve our liberty and security. This does not imply that self-defense justifies endless military engagement.

I do not believe we should attempt to remake other portions of the world in our own image. Especially we should not do so by means of military force. Truth, justice, and compassion must be practiced, demonstrated, and modeled. But those values will ring hollow if they are imposed on a people forcibly by a foreign power.

We, the United States and NATO, should begin now to withdraw our military forces from Afghanistan. It is both geographically distant and beyond our cultural sphere. We should be careful not to withdraw too suddenly, because pulling out too suddenly when successor authorities are not yet strong enough might undo what good we have accomplished. It might create an opening for anarchists or tyrants. But we should begin the process.

At some time in the future, if the Afghan people find themselves inspired by their memories or observations of our open society and our respect for human rights, then they may undertake to reform their nation and culture. If and when that happens, we should help them to the best of our ability. But until that happens, we are meddling where the indigenous people do not really want us, and we are wasting our time and energy in the process.

If a certain nation which shares many of our values, a nation which is geographically and historically closer to the Afghans, should choose to get involved, then we might consider supporting the efforts of that nation morally, politically, and in other ways. But, with appropriate humility, we should withdraw.

Once we have pulled out of the combat zones, we need to: (1) Regroup, cut costs, and recover psychologically and fiscally from a decade of war. One benefit of a pullout will be a reduction of the impact of continual violence on our collective psyche. We need to think of PEACE instead of war for a while.  (2) Redirect the efforts of our military toward the threat at our doorstep. We should assist Mexico with the incipient insurgency it faces in the form of drug cartels. This would NOT be an action against the nation of Mexico, our neighbor and ally. It should be a cooperative effort with a neighbor to solve a problem we share here in our North American home. The goal of helping Mexico fight the drug lords and cartels should not be eradication of illicit drugs, but eradication of violence and criminal influences that threaten to undermine and corrupt our two nations.  (3) Rebuild neglected relationships with our allies, those with whom we share close cultural or historic ties, and our geographic neighbors.

CONCLUSIONS

Our idealistic attempts to right all wrongs may be noble in intent, but our efforts are ultimately impractical and doomed to fail. Hopeful optimism, grounded in reality and patience, should replace naïve utopian ambitions.

We are overextended, emotionally weary, becoming poorer by the day, and stressed. Reassessing our commitments, priorities, and methods of dealing with adversity overseas will begin to repair some of these problems.

One definition of stress is being responsible for things over which we have no control. If we reexamine our objectives, reassess our priorities, accept our limitations, and modify our behavior accordingly, we will reduce our collective level of stress. We will become saner, happier people. We will undercut the criticism (however unjustified) of those who malign our motives and cry “imperialist.” At the same time we will improve our financial situation.

We should continue to be committed to doing the right thing for our fellow human beings. We should continue to extend a helping hand in response to injustices and disasters whenever and wherever doing so will solve problems and increase the greater good. But we have no warrant or responsibility to remake entire societies, no responsibility to reform the ethical priorities of the entire human race. 

When innocents are oppressed, we may find a moral justification to act, but we should only do so if we can honestly expect to make a positive difference. Oppression which provokes warfare but does not end the oppression makes the situation worse, not better.

When a group is apart from our American and Enlightenment traditions of human rights and liberty, and when that group is committed to maintaining that distinction, then we are not obliged to change their minds or to force them to comply with our values.

When a culture is opposed to our intervention, actively or passively, we must realize that we will not be able to change their ancient and ingrained ways any more than we can control their weather.

We do not need to force our ways on others. If our ways and values are as attractive as historical precedent demonstrates, then ultimately many others will adopt human rights reforms voluntarily. People have been flocking to America for centuries because we represent to the world freedom, dignity, and opportunity. For the past 50 years, they have been flocking to many nations of Western Europe for the same reasons. If we believe in our free society and our commitment to human rights, then we should also have faith that others will ultimately choose, of their own accord, to adopt similar values and standards.

No approach can ever prevent us from taking military action when necessary in the defense of our own national interests. We reserve the inalienable right to take whatever action necessary to preserve our own freedom and security. With this in mind though, our situation will be improved by reducing involvement in places where our presence is not really appreciated.

We can offer our hand in friendship to all who wish to join us, without using coercion to spread our ideals. We can encourage others to affirm human dignity, create justice, improve standards of living, and live in accordance with the ethics of human rights. In common cause with all who show interest in our system of government, with all who demonstrate appreciation for our values, we can continue to work together cooperatively for the greater good of all.
- - - - - - - - - -

So what should we do about Libya now? That is a difficult decision which will require a great deal of wisdom. Military action may be necessary in the short term to prevent another episode of genocide.

Given the demands for freedom echoing throughout the Arab world over these past months, though, the prospects are encouraging. But this much is certain. We should not allow Libya to become another nation-building exercise for the United States. Our resources are too far spent, and the job can be better done by the Libyan people and their neighbors from the Middle East and the Mediterranean region.

Certainly we should continue to help the Libyan people in their quest for justice, liberty, and human rights. However, once the immediate crisis is resolved our assistance in a military capacity should end. We should continue to help in the role of cooperating equals, allies, supporters in common cause. This approach will be best for Libya, best for the United States, and best for all concerned.
- - - - - - - - - -

ONE FINAL COMMENT…

I fully understand the controversial nature of my conclusions. I fully understand the claim of many honest people that leaving Afghanistan now would be a betrayal of trust, that once we depart it will only be a matter of time until the violent, immoral forces of the Taliban make rivers of innocent blood run in the streets. I cannot argue. There would likely be pain, oppression, abuse, and killing. I have difficulty saying that we should withdraw for these very reasons. Yet when I am able to put aside my emotional reactions, these comments represent my best judgment about what we should do. Of course, I could be wrong. You’ll have to make up your own mind about that.

Gryphem