Think on it...

Well since all is quiet on the Western front today (no reply from anyone resembling a Washington State University Senate member) I’ll have to just move on.

Today’s philosophical discussion comes from a book I read recently. It is, admittedly, an older science fiction novel but a well loved one to be sure. I started reading science fiction/fantasy novels as brain candy and to clear the cobwebs between the history books I usually read and found a pleasant surprise. The better sci-fi novels have lots of veiled political and philosophical commentary running all through the narrative. Thankfully most of the better sci-fi/fantasy writers have done their homework and are students of the greats. I’m not talking about Tolkien or Vern (great writers though they are).

I’m speaking more of the ilk of Orwell, Rand and Huxley. Writers who, in their time, foresaw the traps and pitfalls of government, technology, law, and life in a society of pure equality. Those who recognized the hell on earth that was the utopian ideal and that all attempts to achieve it would inevitably fail.

Now that the preface is out of the way I’ll get to the subject at hand. The book I read is called “Ender’s Game” by Orson Scott Card. I have a close friend who has been trying to get me to read this book for about 10 years or so and I finally broke down and read it in about a week and a half. (I read mostly at night before bed and it’s been pretty busy lately).

In the book a small prodigy is taken at 6 years old (ala the old Spartan warriors) and sent to a combat school because his intellect and ability to strategize will eventually save the human race from an alien threat. A reoccuring theme in the book (written in 1977) was modus and extent of attack in a conflict. In other words, if you are planning to attack (or defend) against a physical threat how far do you go to achieve your objective.

A good example from the book is when the main character, Ender, is picked on by a pack of older, larger boys lead by a sadistic 10 year old. Surmising that this torture will continue unendingly unless something is done, Ender realizes that he must make the consequence of attacking him so unbelievably dreadful in the minds of his attackers that the mere thought of attack would send them running. Well, in the book it works, Ender beats the leader so viciously that the rest of his gang are dumbstruck and dared not get involved ever again.

This leads me to think; is it wrong to meet small force with overwhelmingly large force in order to create a lasting peace, even if that peace is based solely on the fear of further reprisal. There are so many levels of “preemptive strike by reprisal” it’s hard to make a blanket statement. In the book there was no question as to the validity of the ideal, only how to achieve it.

Looking around the world today it’s apparent that this exact scenario will play itself out over and over as we reach the age where many third world countries are able to create or acquire nuclear armament. The question stands: Do we eliminate a perceived threat in favor of maintaining peace, or are we going to end up back in the cold war shuffle, where M.A.D keeps the peace.

I think it’s a question of how far you go, because in all honesty the type of retaliation is really just a lesson you’re teaching your enemy. How do you best create distaste for conflict without creating a blood vendetta that was stronger than their original reason for attacking? Or do you just destroy them outright?

I remember a story my father told me about his time in the Army. While stationed in Germany he knew some wild guys, most of whom had fought in Korea and were serving the rest of their time in the Army on base. He talked about a certain soldier who became extremely violent when he drank. It got to the point many times that this person (who was rather large and well muscled) would beat the crap out of some smaller, unexpecting soldier. Well, to make a long story short several soldiers had watched this happen enough and decided to take care of the problem. They waited for the individual to get tanked up again to initiate their plan. When the drunk went for yet another smaller soldier the five men jumped in, carried the drunk fighter out into the parking lot and proceeded to break about 10 of his bones, cause some internal bleeding, and land him in the hospital for about 3 ½ weeks. The only item he received during his stay in the hospital was an anonymous note saying that he was there for a reason, and he’d better think about that the next time he decided to get drunk.

It sounds like an urban legend, and I can only assume that it’s true since my father has never lied to me, and it happened in the 50’s when things like that happened. Even if it is just a story the point is timely and real.

Some people call this type of thing a “Come to Jesus” meeting, or “Wake up call”. Whatever you call it there are times when they need to happen. I’m afraid the next “wake up call” for America will be worse than 9/11 and I hope there are enough people in this country with the stones to stand up and protect it. The longer I live the less of a problem I have (if any) with “pre-emptive measures” where American freedom is concerned. This doesn’t mean that the measure has to begin with violence; on the contrary we should seek peace first in every situation. But we damn sure better not EVER rule out the use of armed force when dealing with a potential threat to the sovereignty of this country, because without the threat of war, peace means nothing.

Simple ideas in a complicated world.


“Don’t Tread on Me”

“Do Unto Others as You Would Have Them Do Unto You”

“With Freedom and Justice for All”

God help us all if we continue to let the Black and White fade to gray.


Cheers,


Captian.