Sunday, September 19, 2004
this morning, a critique of an article, “Understanding Islam” written by Mrs. Georgie Anne Geyers, a syndicated Washington columnist. There seem to be two major sides about Iraq, either (1) we shouldn't be there because we, in the end, fuel the breeding of more people who hate us and will fight against us or (2) we are in a sense fighting the bully we encountered on the play ground in school. I like the latter argument, although I think there is an element of truth in the first. Regan states it like this:
The bottom line: Do you fight back against the bully in the schoolyard or do you hope he develops a conscience? We can mind our business all day long, but that will not deter the extremists. There are too many examples in history and presently to continue thinking that terrorism will reform itself.
I remember times in school when I encountered bullies. My natural instinct was to avoid them, look the other way unless personally threatened. If personally threatened, I could try to talk myself out of trouble, but knowing in the end I would have to fight. I think our natural instinct is to seek a peaceful solution, and this applies to the world and all it's institutions like the UN. I think there are those of us that will not take the next step, but will do anything to avoid confrontation. The bullies make it easy for some to avoid confrontation because their tactics are so ruthless. There are others of us that will try to compel the bullies to return to decency. I see this theme in our westerns, the most recent one starring Kevin Costner in "Open Range". Here, we may be as ruthless as the bully (What would Tony Soprano do?) justifying our ruthlessness by the ends. Deep down the decent people want peace. The question is: What will I do to keep the peace or restore the peace?