Obama's Plan to Solve this Mess

Today in Salon.com's War Room, they posted an "excerpt from the Obama campaign", which laid out his differences with the current adminstration vis a vis foreign policy and our answer to whatever war it is we're in. Now, it's only a campaign pledge, it doesn't mean much this early out, but I have to say, I do agree with this theory. The details may vary in yummy goodness, but this at least shows some intelligent thinking...

"Just because the president misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them. The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent extremists who are a small minority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, but the threat is real ... To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for.

"The president would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is part of al-Qaida's war against us, not an Iraqi civil war. He elevates al-Qaida in Iraq -- which didn't exist before our invasion -- and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan. He lumps together groups with very different goals: al-Qaida and Iran, Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. He confuses our mission.

"By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

"When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland."

Obama hit two key points I agree with:

• the Pres has got us all confused. There are major differences in the different groups O mentioned. Al-Qaeda, for example, will NEVER be supported by Iran, because AQ is Sunni and Iran is Shi'a. They are not on the same side. These distinctions are not clear to the American public, and in this smoke and mirrors, the Pres can make anyone seem like an enemy.
• drying up support for extremists. The Pres once famously divided the world into those "with us" and "against us". The truth is, if you were inclined to divide the world in two, the split is over extremism v. moderation. Guess what, kids? We are extremists in this fight. The Islamic extremists, by Allah, want one world in their image, and the NeoConservatice extremists, by God, want another. We are caught between the two, and both seem intent on bloodshed. If, however, we had pressed for moderation, consideration, unity, and friendship with the nations of the world after 9/11 (and before), we could have helped to "dry up" extremism with moderation, much like a rash dries up with Caladryl.
  

Most people just want to live their lives in peace and freedom. Most people in the world are more concerned, truthfully, with their family budget, sick cat, carpools, their children's health, their parents' aging, and all the rest. They will only rise to arms when they feel like their well-being is threatened, either by their own society's or another's extremism. We excite these regular folks with our imperialistic "remaking" of the Muslim world. We are doing this, and it's time we realized it. We must remake ourselves into a voice for moderation, tolerance, freedom, and peace. I can't say this is what Obama was thinking, I can only go by the quote above, but I think his words represent a new way of thinking of our relationship with the world.

I am still not endorsing any candidate. It's too early. But I will report when they say something that rings true... or false.

Tolerance vs. Conformity

The inherent difference between the two parties is that the conservatives embrace conformity while the liberals embrace tolerance. This is the root cause of their two different approaches to the political realm.

While the conservatives might have many (as you* said, "messy") points of view, they are trained to conform, or appear to conform, and as Craig234 [another letter-writer on Salon.com*] wrote, attach to brand loyalty. They also connect one brand-loyalty (for example, their church affiliation) with another (their party). ("I'm a good Baptist so I must be a good Republican.") If they disagree, they are discouraged from showing it, and if they must show it, they must still hate Dems and vote Republican.

The liberals, on the other hand, embrace tolerance for many points of view. They not only freely disagree with each other while appreciating the other's point of view, but they even embrace the right's right to their point of view. While Craig234 suggests that they should "have as their 'unity' message that they are the party which broadly repesents the most Americans' interests" (which is true, they do and they should), by virtue of saying "We support you and your right to your opinion," the message is already split.

The right are a lot like a trail of ants, all marching along in a line (some wandering off occasionally, but for the most part, all going the same way). Corralling the left is more like herding cats. I don't know if there is an answer to the "unified message problem" when its roots are so deeply ingrained into who we are as people.

(*originally published by me as a letter on Salon.com-- chosen as an Editor's Choice!)