First, like Ike’s comment before him, C made reference to my language when he discussed the “Lehrer joke/trap.” Both seem to refer to language of judgment or right/wrong. There appears to be a level of anger or righteousness in my language that I don’t see (and that I certainly took pains in my writing to eliminate). I think their observations accurately identify how I feel on the inside, so it serves as another lesson how our true feelings come thru even when we try to hide them…

There was much to learn from your comments, and I tried to soak it all in. However, your last thoughts on the polarization that we are experiencing reminded me of a high school history lesson I received from my favorite US history teacher. We were examining what led us into the Civil War, and one of the key factors that at last allowed our society to go over the edge, and the war to break out, was the loss of “the Great Compromisers”: key statesman in Congress like Henry Clay, John Calhoun and Daniel Webster. I suppose that today it is easy to judge the word “compromise” but these men were able to see beyond their differences in upbringings, beliefs systems and economic priorities, understand the other side (enough to build bridges anyway), and craft a path forward that preserved the union. As the decade of the 1850’s waned, these gentlemen retired, leaving more ‘extreme’ leaders in their stead. There was no longer the ability(?), commitment(?), awareness(?), desire(?) to fend off the unthinkable by finding a path forward. The leaders that replaced them knew to employ invective language, but not build from huge differences a common commitment to peace, to the preservation of society — or whatever it was that pushed the Compromisers to hold the North and the South together for so long. As you say at the end, it was we who voted them into power, so we reaped what we sowed? And so what are we sowing now?

I have often thought of these men in the past few years, as I’ve watched Bush, Putin, Ahmadinejad, Bin Laden, Ehud Olmert and others speak in extreme language and act in bellicose ways. ‘You will do it MY way, or else.’ We are on a slippery slope; does any of us really know when we will pass the point of no return? I’m not sure that we recognize it until it is behind us. I personally think that we are far closer to a regional war with the Muslim world than we think. US aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf and captured British soliders are all smoldering kindling; WWI was started with less. Tonkin Gulf, anyone?

I didn’t mean to be flip above (well, yes I did), but this question of leadership is a crucial one. Not a swaggering tough guy leader (which we Americans seem to feel comforted by), but one who can empathize with the enemy, who gives a measured and thoughtful response when attacked, not a defensive one. Doris Goodwin in “Team of Rivals” (biography of Abraham Lincoln) gives a stunning account of AL’s ability, time and again, to act on his long term goals of what he wants to build and what society he wishes to see, instead of vindictively, angrily, destructively. It is time for statesmen (or women, I don’t care). If we (meaning the people of each of the pivot countries in our current stalemate) elect another set of leaders a little more on the extreme than those we have, I doubt we’ll make it thru the end of the decade. In this sense, I agree with the comment Bravo made on this site re: the change of the US’ role in the world. We need a strong leader to help us understand that we are no longer the ruler of the fiefdom called Earth.

A few thoughts. My own vision is not that we cease to have group identities or that they cease to matter (one world). I don’t believe this is desirable or possible. We really fundamentally need these “handles” to understand ourselves and social situations and make decisions–I don’t think it would do for men to treat women the same as they treat men or vice versa. I think what is important is being more conscious about them and mastering many of our fears surrounding them. And I think there’s something to this Buddhist thought of seeing the myth of our individuality.

I believe there are more and less constructive group identity constructions, and we need to find a way to help ourselves beyond some of the self-defeating ones when we fall into them (e.g., “we’re the victims of X”).

Our host fell into that old Tom Lehrer joke/trap: “there are people who don’t love their fellow man. And I hate those people!” What’s important for me here is that choosing not to live in the space of judgment and right/wrong is not the same as complete moral relativism. It is one thing to regard an act as a mistake or to have an ethical standard, and it is another to demonize and disrespect others when they disagree or act out of accordance with our standards. This is important to me because I believe many people dismiss the ideas our host presents because they miss the distinction and believe they would have to give up their standards to agree with him. In the specific context, one issue here is that we are dealing with societies that have been unsuccessful by many standards–economic, human misery, human rights, advances in arts and sciences, gov’t by the consent of the governed, etc. This doesn’t mean that “we” have the right society for all and “they” have the wrong one. It does mean that humiliation is not just stemming from being conquered by foreign invaders, but also from failing to achieve desired goals on their own. And inequality is not merely military or monetary.

I’ve spent a good deal of time trying to apply the psychological principles and tools we know to group egos and even to nations, and I find it all very puzzling and challenging. I do believe that public government apologies can and have mattered. The South African processes after Apartheid were very interesting–focused more on making the truth public and giving voice to those who had none than on trying and punishing the guilty. Meanwhile governments are not people–are not monolithic–and we look at others sometimes as individuals and sometimes as representatives or agents of groups, organizations, or governments. Whether we see an other as an individual or a group member can change in the blink of an eye, or merely because they changed into or out of a uniform. We don’t know and can’t entirely control whether we are being viewed as an individual or a part of a whole we may or may not even avow.

The utility I have found so far for translating the psychological to the political is specifically in oppositional identity–when my group’s defines its own identity in opposition to other groups (we are the people oppressed by, superior to, inferior to, the saviors of, etc.). Oppositional elements are always present, so it’s really their significance and whether these are “healthy beliefs” that matters. These can be very complex. George Schopflin cites the Turkish/Romanian/Balkan identity of being the buffer zone that kept out the eastern hoards and enabled Europe to bloom and prosper (i.e., we were martyrs for Europe, we can never catch up to Europe, and Europe owes us bigtime (and we hate those eastern hoards). This doesn’t strike me as a healthy belief.

When it comes to negotiating, changing practices, making promises, etc., I get very lost and don’t yet find that I have anything to offer the diplomats. I’m glad to see our host contining to search for something.

Finally, I think it’s very important (and also useful for those trying to avoid demonizing their own leaders) to think about how we create our own leaders and what leverage we have. George Bush’s decisions after 9/11 were fueled by American passions–our passions. The war in Iraq is sustained with our consent. The French Revolution went on for eight or ten years–a time when it was acceptable to drag nobles out of their houses and dismember them–fueled by ordinary folks. Somehow norms were created that made totally unacceptable behavior acceptable. We have all witnessed this and partaken in it, at least on a small scale. I do believe the same forces that lead us as children to join in ridiculing some kid on the playground are at play in national politics and enable poor decisions and bad leaders.

This weekend I got to thinking about the (in my perception) growing Christian/nonChristian identity conflict when I read a church billboard that said “No bunny ever conquered death!” I know many Christians who are afraid that moral relativism and diversity efforts are a threat to their existence. And I know many non-Christians or non-fundamentalists who believe that fundamentalism is a danger to our freedom, our health (abortion, etc.) and is a significant cause of our foreign policy. At first I thought both of these things can’t be true. Either we are at one end of the pendulum and at risk of outlawing religion, or at the other, and at risk of a religious state, but not both. Now I think that it is true–that when these conflict grow, they create polarization and continually increase the possibility of radical solutions on either extreme–fueled equally by the two parties.

And so it is not just George Bush or the military leaders, or those of us in national security–it is all of us.

Curtis

That doesn’t mean however that dialog can’t be rekindled, in a less bold ways.

I have only read the initial posting and not the replies ( even though they seem thoughful and interesting). So I hope I am not repeating something that was already discussed.

My 2% disagreement is about whether declaring defeat and apologizing for our sins will be enough. I learned in elementary school, back when physical punishment was allowed in school, that when I was a bad boy, I got a whipping. Hiding out on the playground or in the bathroom only delayed the punishment, and sometimes made it worse. I agree that the USA and the other “coalition” members should pull out of Iraq, but I don’t think there is any way of doing so without horrendous bloodshed. The author rightly points to the “conundrum” that there will likely be almost as much bloodshed, and much more American bloodshed and pointless spending if we stay. In 20 years, the results will likely be the same either way. By the way, you can now buy Kentucky Fried Chicken in Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon).

Declaring defeat does have a chance, however, if the USA is sincerely apologetic, engages with Iraq’s neighbors, including Syria, Turkey, Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, and its internal combatants, including Al Queda, with commitment to act in the most constructive possible way to leave behind a peaceful resolution. Unless the Bush administration has a revelation radically different from the biblical one now being pursued, the USA will not engage with the adversaries that matter most, and will not be willing to support a solution that would likely be developed if all the stakeholders were fairly engaged. But let’s be optimists and pray that the key decision makers on all sides will realize what could be done with the more than $8 billion per month the USA is spending if it were diverted from fighting insurgents to rebuilding a country.

Paradigm shift in US policy towards the world
To begin with, John reminded me of a point that I forgot to mention and that seriously undermines the practicality of my proposal (as if there weren’t enough problems already in my idea of declaring defeat): this strategy would require that we actually change our strategy of engagement in the world. Today, we operate like a swaggering cowboy, ignoring the pleas and arguments of our allies and other third parties (I’m avoiding the word “enemies” here as Iran, for example, is an enemy that really doesn’t need to be one).

We (meaning the US in general over the past half-century and the current Administration in particular) don’t listen particularly well to opinions that differ from ours. Nor do we take orders from anybody (and why should we, WE’RE AMERICA!), and for the most part rules are things that apply to others. This is part of our cultural charm. It does have its drawbacks, however, and the rising death count in Iraq is a good example of one of them. May be the day we learn our lesson, we’ll stop creating these situations for ourselves.

So, for the Victory thru Defeat plan to work (I’m trying to put a positive PR spin on it), we would need to be willing to engage the world on different terms: as an equal among equals as opposed to an authoritative parent directing recalcitrant children (some of whom seem to be entering their teenage crisis…). I’m not sure that we are ready for that psychologically or culturally, but our time is coming and it would take us out of the terrorist crosshairs a bit. This transition to a different rapport with the world is an entire line of thought worthy of exploration, but too long for tonight.

Our behavior contributes to international insecurity and the creation of enemies
I’ll mention, in case I don’t come back to this point in another posting, that one of the other consequences of our cowboy behavior above is that we make other countries afraid of us. We are a threat. I believe that Iraq, more than any other single factor, has incited countries like Iran to develop nuclear weapons. In some ways, they have no other choice. Were I Iran, I’d being doing it. Since the US didn’t listen to the UN Security Council re: Iraq, and invaded and decapitated that country despite a strong coalition of international disapproval, why wouldn’t they do the same w/ Iran? Who is going to protect me, little mid-eastern country? France? NATO? Saudi Arabia? No, probably the only thing I’m sure will give me security is a nuclear weapon.

Right, wrong and the paradigm of blame and punishment
Ike’s comments regarding my language of right and wrong were striking feedback, as you picked up on something embedded in my language/point of view that was invisible to me. I didn’t see myself as being in the paradigm of thought that created the war, but rather as trying to step out of it. Catching me red-handed like that, in public, well… luckily there aren’t enough people reading this blog for me to feel publicly embarassed. Still, it shows just how hard it is to step out of our own paradigm of right/wrong, the evaluations and judgments that we carry around with us. Most of us never even think about it, and even when we aim with all our might to clean the slate, we’re reminded we’re human.

I think this simply reminds me of the size of the mountain that we need to climb in order to create something different in the world.

It’s worth mentioning that “Defeat” was meant to be provocative to my readers and leaders, as well as startling to our enemies. Not provocative in an aggressive sense, but more to say that the most constructive path out that I see is located in a very different place than “fight to the end or withdraw” argument currently going on.

I do have a question, though: I think that acknowledgment of our realization that actions we have taken have negatively impacted others, and a sincere apology and commitment to do something different, can be an important part of the healing process. Is it the idea that I’m proposing that you disagree with, or simply the language I used? I don’t think you are saying that there is no place for admission/acknowledgment/taking responsibility for our actions.

I more get the impression that you are warning against the type of thinking that Dan raises - where angry punishment seems to be the focus. It appears to me that this could put us back into the type of “you are wrong and must suffer the consequences” thinking that characterized the Treaty of Versailles at the end of WWI and sowed the seeds of Hitler’s rise.

How else might we own something in this situation? What language would you propose?

John’s question #5 [”Is there any consensus as to what “they” want us to do (heck, it seems “they” can’t agree with each other let alone come to consensus specifically about what “we” are to do)?”] raises more complex issues that my proposal clearly doesn’t address. Perhaps if we had a goals in our foreign policy that were not blindly focused on our self-interest, but actually sought to genuinely support other nations in an even-handed way, we could actually become a player in helping them create peace, or at the very least not be giving them opportunities to create war. This question would need to be explored using specific examples, and is probably a second stage after getting us out of the quagmire we are in.

Identity and Us vs. Them
In terms of John’s comments re: no longer “drawing lines in the sand” and in/out groups (accompanied by his reference to that great social scientist, Dr. Seuss (and I’m not being sarcastic one bit), this is a primary concern of mine in writing this piece. We are in an enormous Us vs. Them with the Muslim world, no different than the Us vs. Them’s that we find in organizations all over America, or in the Red - Blue divide. As is typical, we only experience it as “They” who are doing all these inappropriate, dishonest, evil (fill in your favorite pejorative adjective), and totally miss the fact that we are their “They”. Their list of complaints and beliefs about us is just as long and well-documented as ours.

Still, your question of identity is a crucial one. A fellow thinker named Curtis Johnson who works in the national security community has been exploring how a powerful, hereto unaddressed component of the War on Terror is that of “Cultural Identity Threat” (his term). When a culture or people feels threatened, judged, attacked in its core values and identity markers, they go thru an intense emotional reaction as a peeple. The more they talk about it, the bigger the monster (the other side) becomes. And when people (whether it’s your co-worker, spouse/partner, child, or an ethnicty or country) feel threatened, they attack. This human component is totally missing from our approach. And as we are seeing, a purely or even primarily military approach to exterminating terror is a fool’s cause.

So can we develop a sense of identity that isn’t based on what the other is not? Do we need to prove that our way is the right one and that others are off-track? Hoping that we’ll all realize that we are “one species” seems, as you point out, unachievable, like a utopian dream from the 60s. But is it really that hard to take concrete steps day by day to step out of this downward spiral we are in with the Muslim world? I’ve seen it happen in organizations, so I’m sure that it can happen here. It has to. The stakes are too high.

tm