« Watcher's Council Winners | Main | Fixing the Government »

December 08, 2006

The Peace Myth

Former Minnesota Twins manager Tom Kelly used to drive observers crazy with how he would manage his players. He might have an absolutely terrible shortstop playing for him, but Kelly would never cut him from the team until and unless he had a known quantity with which to replace him. The press hated that, and the fans hated it still more. Get rid of him now...anybody would be better than what we've got now, went the cries. But Kelly ignored those calls, and during his tenure in Minnesota brought two World Championships to town.

One of the most interesting beliefs of the 21st century is the idea that peace is the default condition of mankind. This belief is helped along in America because we have been uniquely fortunate to have been relatively peaceful during much of our existence. I say relatively, because the United States has certainly seen its share of war. But most wars we have fought have been wars of choice, where the average American did not have to feel any great threat to his well being. Even during World War II, unless you lived in Alaska or Hawaii, the war posed very little threat to you, although you doubtless felt the pinch of rationing. Today, despite having been at war for over five years, it is difficult to see much different in the day-to-day life of most Americans, and because we could bring the troops home whenever we so choose, it's easy to think that war is just something we choose to do.

While comforting, the idea that peace is the default state of mankind is belied by several millenia of human history. It is difficult to find a time in the world's history when some group or nation-state wasn't using force against another in hopes of getting its way. If the Bible is to be believed, it didn't take very long at all for people to figure out they could get things they wanted by force. One of the primary justifications for government is to prevent people from using force against one another. It should hardly be surprising that in parts of the world where government is often only observed in the breach, people still tend to resort to force to try and get what they want. Even in nations with a strong history of government such as the United States, crime remains a problem for many citizens.

Doubtless because the U.S. does have such a long history of strong government, many Americans continue to cling to the myth that peace is the normal state of mankind, however. And as with all false beliefs, this assumption leads to incorrect conclusions when applied to decision making. The most important case in point at the moment is Iraq. For the average American, the ongoing violence in Iraq is almost incomprehensible. Iraqis have an admittedly-imperfect central government, but there is a method in place to make changes to the government to improve it, and the vast majority of Iraqs would be far better off if the violence in Iraq came to an end. Yet the default position of many Iraqis is not only to act to stop the violence, but to perpetuate it, as Shia and Sunni continue to push for deaths from the other sect to avenge deaths in their own sect, a cycle that solves nothing and that makes it that much less likely Iraq will become a decent place for people to live. It makes no sense to us, but it clearly makes enough sense to the Iraqis that it continues.

Most human beings want to just live their life unfettered by outside influence. But it only takes a very small number to cause a great deal of trouble, and there are more than enough people who want to tell other people how to live their lives to cause all the trouble the world could ever need. And while the west is fortunate enough to have political channels for those people to funnel their energies into, the rest of the world isn't so lucky. Particularly when a power vacuum occurs, those people are willing and able to kill a lot of their fellows to gain the power they want.

This all sounds obvious enough, and to a great extent it is, but it seems clear that those who run the United States' foreign policy didn't think of it. In both Iraq and Afghanistan our policies were predicated on the assumption that peace was the default state in those nations, and that once the fighting was over, things would settle down and we would have peaceful, republican states where autocracies once stood. A great number of Iraqis and smaller numbers of Afghans and Americans have paid the price for these miscalculations. Peace doesn't just happen; it requires work, maybe more work than war does. We have forgotten that, because most of the work that has allowed us to live largely in peace was accomplished before we were born. Now we should have relearned the lesson, however, as it is more clear every day that bringing peace to Iraq and Afghanistan is a challenge, one that may be beyond our abilities to resolve.

A lot of people on the right are concerned about thoughts of discussion with Iran and Syria about Iraq. Iran is Hezbollah's sponsor and is also aiding Shia insurgents in Iraq. Syria is in the process of trying to return Lebanon to its orbit and is aiding Sunni insurgents in Iraq. There is some question of what we have to offer those two nations without simply capitulating to their demands and further undermining our position in the world. Being seen as a paper tiger is not a bad thing because of trite notions of pride or embarrassment. It is bad because it increases the odds of someone doing something that will force us to respond because they assume we won't. Had Neville Chamberlain's accession to Germany in 1938 truly led to peace in our time, it would have been called statesmanship. Because it instead led Germany to assume Britain wouldn't fight for Poland either, it was a disaster. (Yes, I know, it's a hideously overused example, but bear with me.) I'm not overly concerned that either Syria or Iran is poised to become the next Nazi Germany, but it is not unreasonable to worry that either or both of them could cause a still-significant number of deaths by miscalculating American resolve, so I think that those on the right who are leery of negotiations have a valid point. Extricating ourselves from Iraq is of only limited utility if we set ourselves up for something worse down the road.

I am still-more sympathetic to those who are angry about the aid Syria and Iran have provided to those seeking to kill American soldiers. That is, arguably, an act of war, and our decision not to strike back at those powers can be maddening, as it may act as encouragement to those nations that they can strike at us with impunity. However, I think that American forbearance towards Iran and Syria marks one of the wisest decisions the Bush administration has made during the war. However frustrating it is to realize that Iran and Syria are waging a proxy war against us, turning that war into a hot war would not make the situation better. Yes, if the U.S. turned its mind to it, we could probably eliminate the regimes of Iran and Syria, albeit at great cost. But then what? Other than some mild emotional satisfaction, what would we gain? Now we would be responsible for a territory far larger and more heavily populated than Iraq, filled with yet more people looking to kill us with our forces spread still thinner.

The peace, such as it is, between the U.S. and Syria and Iran is hardly the best position we could be in. It does have the virtue, however, of being mostly peaceful. If we destroy that, we would open a bigger Pandora's Box than the one we kicked over in Iraq, having already established we're not sure how to return to peace there. Like Tom Kelly's shortstop, the situation with Iran and Syria has a lot of flaws. But before we replace it, we ought to be damn sure the new shortstop will be an improvement.