OK, so I had an idea shortly after we began the campaign in Afghanistan. It might be a bad idea but I'd like to try it out here and perhaps get an opinion or two. Here goes...
What if our tactic for reacting to the WTC bombimgs was to do absolutely nothing? I don't think there is any way to avoid the changes we are seeing within our own borders, but I mean what if we did not declare any kind of campaign or retaliatory action globally?
I am a pacifist. Not because I am convinced that war is intrinsically wrong; on this points I am uncertain. I am a pacifist because it is the most effective fighting tactic I know.
In my experience, when someone hits you they give you the upper hand. It is a loss of control that gives you all kinds of power over them, if you can control your own emotions. Many of you have been hit at one time or another... imagine your attacker's reaction when they strike out and hit you, and you simply stand there and do nothing... as if it did not happen. What would they do? Thety are assuming you will hit back, but what if you don't?
If you hit back you do two things: validate the other person's use of violence and reveal your own limitations. Hitting someone is sort like telling someone you love them; unless they reciprocate you will feel like an ass. The moment after they hit you, the moment before you retaliate, you hold all the cards. You have a moral upper hand, because you have been wronged and people will support your cause unless you do wrong also. You have an emotional upper hand over your attacker, who is angry and confused. You also have the mental edge because they have no idea how powerful you are or what you are capable of.
Immediately following the WTC bombings we held these advantages. One might argue that we have lost all of them since we started fighting, and that we are using propaganda to reestablish some of that which we lost.
I am not being idealistic here. If it were my own decision, I would take this into serious consideration. However, I do not think I would make it my policy in the end, because I believe that such as policy would not be accepted by the people. Hell, there'd be a revolution if the government didn't drop some bombs. But if it were my own personal fight, I would win it without a single strike.
Spread the peace, brothers and sisters, and you will prevail.
What if our tactic for reacting to the WTC bombimgs was to do absolutely nothing? I don't think there is any way to avoid the changes we are seeing within our own borders, but I mean what if we did not declare any kind of campaign or retaliatory action globally?
I am a pacifist. Not because I am convinced that war is intrinsically wrong; on this points I am uncertain. I am a pacifist because it is the most effective fighting tactic I know.
In my experience, when someone hits you they give you the upper hand. It is a loss of control that gives you all kinds of power over them, if you can control your own emotions. Many of you have been hit at one time or another... imagine your attacker's reaction when they strike out and hit you, and you simply stand there and do nothing... as if it did not happen. What would they do? Thety are assuming you will hit back, but what if you don't?
If you hit back you do two things: validate the other person's use of violence and reveal your own limitations. Hitting someone is sort like telling someone you love them; unless they reciprocate you will feel like an ass. The moment after they hit you, the moment before you retaliate, you hold all the cards. You have a moral upper hand, because you have been wronged and people will support your cause unless you do wrong also. You have an emotional upper hand over your attacker, who is angry and confused. You also have the mental edge because they have no idea how powerful you are or what you are capable of.
Immediately following the WTC bombings we held these advantages. One might argue that we have lost all of them since we started fighting, and that we are using propaganda to reestablish some of that which we lost.
I am not being idealistic here. If it were my own decision, I would take this into serious consideration. However, I do not think I would make it my policy in the end, because I believe that such as policy would not be accepted by the people. Hell, there'd be a revolution if the government didn't drop some bombs. But if it were my own personal fight, I would win it without a single strike.
Spread the peace, brothers and sisters, and you will prevail.