SUPPOSE the WORLD IS on FIRE

After Weapons of Mass Destruction flunked the truth test, no longer a valid reason to make war on Iraq, the administration switched causes in mid-stream. The new Causus Belli became doing away with Saddam Hussein in order to bring Democracy to Iraq and that part of the world. We are still working on that, but in the meantime the idea took hold in the West Bank and Israel pulled out of Gaza to give Democracy a chance after which the Palestinians held elections. But lo and behold, they elected the Hamas Party an organization of dedicated terrorists whose main goal is the destruction of Israel. That’s the juicy part of democracy, it’s brisk, jaunty gaudy and risky.

Just after WW II during the Communist scare, humorist Art Buchwald described the Communist Party vote for its Presidential Candidate. He said that the party was so completely infiltrated by FBI agents that J. Edgar Hoover was declared the winner. We should have taken a page out of that book before allowing the Palestinians to hold a democratic election. They might have elected Bush or Cheney.

Of course the election of Hamas terrorists was unacceptable, but could they be drawn into the political process? Israel the United States and assorted allies demanded that Hamas give up its goal of destroying Israel. Predictably Hamas couldn’t publicly allow itself to submit to coercion, so funds to the Palestinians (other than basic necessities) were cut off. Instead of politicizing these guys and weaning them away from Terror, Hamas was now running a failed government. We were hoping perhaps for--who knows what we were hoping for! The more radical of Hamas dug a tunnel under an Israeli outpost, captured an Israeli soldier, then demanded that Israel free all Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the return of the soldier. Israel refused and the War began. In order to woo back the Palestinians, most of whom were looking for work, Israel isolated Gaza and destroyed its infra structure. That failed to improve either the temperament or living conditions of the Palestinians.

SUPPOSE: that Israel decided to wait before attacking terrorists in Gaza. Would that have invited further attacks from Hamas or encouraged them to assume,e the responsibilities of governance?

SUPPOSE: that Israel stated that it would negotiate to get the soldier back, and that it was instituting new military procedures to prevent future kidnappings. What might have happened? Well for one thing the Hezbollah kidnappings might have been avoided, and a hundred or so people in both Gaza and Lebanon would be alive as well as a dozen Israeli soldiers.

SUPPOSE: That the West and Israel had accepted Hamas as part of a democratically elected Palestinian government instead of cutting off funds and impoverishing the place. Would that have generated good will rather than cynicism? Didn’t the attack on Gaza, the destruction of roads and bridges that removed all routes of escape spawn armies of hatred that called for revenge not friendship? Would a more conciliatory policy have trumped Hezblollah and avoided the war on Lebanon?

SUPPOSE: after 9/11, we had maintained a low profile, prepared our defenses, and quietly without fanfare, established policy that would continually disrupt Al qaeda operations. Would that have avoided inflaming Muslim youth and succeeding generations the world over?

SUPPOSE: we conclude that we must destroy North Korea before it starts selling Plutonium to Osama bin Laden and other Terrorist organizations. After all we aren’t overwhelmed with guilt for having destroyed Hiroshima and its citizens and and bombed Dresden and its inhabitants into ashes.

Well, that’s what armies and bombs and guns and bullets are for. No one can call me a pacifist and get away with it.

SUPPOSE: that the three kidnapped soldiers are returned. Would that end the crisis?

SUPPOSE: science discovers that humans and other animals possess a feral gene, that War is in our genes, inevitably our destiny, that war is our game and we can’t help ourselves. Then what?

SUPPOSE: we realize that moderation loses to ferocity every time, and only by becoming ferocious can moderates win and isn’t that an oxymoron?

SUPPOSE: Hate is a stronger and more unifying emotion than love, and war more unifying than peace, and that from time to time tranquil people have to have some repository for their excess energies! Is war a good place?

SUPPOSE: that to tame the enemy we must activate our feral genes (and those of some of our “allies”). Can that transformation be triggered by the brain. Is it reflex or can we think our way out of this mess?

SuPpOse