Category Archives: social problems

politics, social problems, terrorism, war

If War Isn’t The Answer, Perhaps You Misunderstood The Question

Leave a comment

When the American embassy in Kenya was attacked, Muslim terrorists posed a question to our nation. When the U.S.S. Cole was bombed, Muslim terrorists posed a question to our nation. When Muslim terrorists destroyed the lives of thousands of Americans by flying passenger jets into the Word Trade Center towers, they posed the same question to our nation: can the “great Satan” of the West, America, be destroyed?

America has made its answer, and continues to answer by way of the “war on terrorism”. Naturally, there are some who protest, saying war is not the answer. Such a sentiment is completely understandable. War truly is Hell, and only a pure psychotic would gleefully and joyfully wage war. I, for one, fervently wish that war would never be necessary. Sadly, however, there are circumstances when war must be fought. And I believe the threat of terrorism represents one such circumstance.

Since war is so distasteful, it obviously must be used as a last resort. But to say that war isn’t the answer implicitly means that other options are not only available but also viable. Sadly, in the case of the war on terrorism, this is not the case. Consider the following alternatives:

Ignore the threat. This actually has been our approach in the past. It is the perfect reaction to threats in most cases, because often they are only that — threats. When those threats turn to action, however, they can no longer be ignored. Terrorism against America has continued for years upon years. The attacks of 9/11 show that, if anything, terroristic action is escalating. Clearly, ignoring the threat will not make it go away. Ignoring terrorism is no longer a viable option.

Diplomacy. This is the alternative that everybody would prefer. In civil disagreements, merely sitting down and talking things over can usually resolve the conflict. Unfortunately, terroristic threats do not constitute a civil disagreement. In addition to requiring a degree of civil respect between parties, the success of diplomacy depends on the goals of the negotiating parties. Sadly, the stated goal of terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda is the destruction of America and the death of its people. Perhaps such statements are merely hyperbole, but their actions certainly seem to confirm their absolute commitment to the stated goal. Assuming that Americans value their lives (I know I do), diplomacy with terrorist groups is doomed to fail because the outcome is unacceptable. When one party wishes only for the destruction of the other party, no negotiation can succeed. Diplomacy, therefore, is not a viable option.

Prepare for the worst and hope for the best. This method is strictly defensive. Rather than fighting a war, we can focus our efforts on reducing the impact of future attacks and in noticing warning signs in the hope of preventing such attacks. I believe a sports analogy works well here. After all, you have two groups in opposition, each with goals they wish to accomplish and each hoping to emerge victorious. With that in mind, ask yourself if a team that plays only defense has any chance of winning? Defense is important, but it doesn’t win the game. If our only approach to terrorism is to play defense, we will eventually be defeated. An effective defense only postpones that defeat. Defense is a vital component of the war on terrorism, but is not a viable response in and of itself.

Sadly, begrudgingly and resolutely wage war. The last option, and the only viable option under the circumstances, is to actively fight against the threat of terrorism. Make no mistake, it is an ugly choice. Lives will be lost. We have already lost fathers, brothers and sons in the war. We have already lost mothers, sisters and daughters in the war. But we know that their sacrifice has helped to protect the lives of the people they love. They know that their selflessness will offer better protection than ignoring terrorism will, better than negotiating with terrorists will and better than preparing for the next terrorist attack will.

Even as the most viable option, the war on terrorism has its problems. It would be naive to think otherwise. Like victory, for instance. Logically, the war against terrorism must continue as long as terrorists live. It’s reasonable to expect that terrorists will always exist, so then victory is impossible, correct? Well, not so fast.

Our war is against the threat of terrorism. It is not a pollyannish quest to eliminate terrorists, but to inhibit their power to destroy. As the investigation of the 9/11 attacks shows, large-scale terrorism (the kind we are concerned about) is not easy. It takes enormous preparation and coordination. By actively fighting terrorists, they now must use their time protecting their own lives (which dramatically reduces the amount of time they can spend plotting the destruction of innocent lives elsewhere).

The war on terror is not a war of vengeance. We have left many, many terrorist attacks unanswered in the past. The attacks of 9/11 were not the reason for the war — they were the last straw. It was the final event that showed to us, once and for all, that peace not only isn’t the answer, it’s not even an option. Terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda hate us not for what we’ve done, but for who we are. The war on terror, therefore, is a war to protect our countrymen both here and abroad from those who mean to do them harm.

The question has been posed. And, as distasteful as it may be, war is the only answer that responds, plainly and firmly, “NO!“

law of cause and effect, parenting, responsibility, social problems

Where Have All The Parents Gone?

Leave a comment

Maybe I am now officially an old curmudgeon, but I swear children are less respectful and more obnoxious than they were when I was a child. However, I don’t think it is fair to blame the kids. In truth, kids are no different than than they’ve ever been — but parents have changed quite a bit! Here are some examples inspired by real life events:

Johnny has trouble behaving in school. He frequently gets into fights with the other kids, and after ignoring many failed requests to stop hitting others, Johnny is suspended. His mother’s reaction? She storms into the school and demands that the school remove the suspension. Her son, she says, would never hit anybody. And besides, it would be too inconvenient to find daycare on such short notice.

Johnny’s mother brings him with her to visit a friend’s house. A short while later, Johnny draws all over the host’s white drapes with permanent marker. Perhaps the greater insult is that his art isn’t even very good. His mother’s reaction? She kneels down in front of him, smiles and says in a sing-song voice, “Johnny, we only draw on paper, ok? Now, this is your first warning”. No apology is made, and no offer to replace the drapes.

It’s way past Johnny’s bed time, and he is ignoring all requests to finish getting dressed and into bed. His father finally tells him quite firmly to get into bed, or there’s going to be trouble. Johnny screams “I don’t want to go to bed,” and punches him in the thigh. His father’s reaction? He acts as though nothing happened, and goes downstairs to play Freecell.

Parenting is not a biological description — parenting is a job description. And it’s a serious job that we must perform to the best of our ability, because the stakes are high. If we fail, we destroy not one but two lives!

The role of a parent is this: to train children to live harmoniously in a world where there are consequences for their actions. This is certainly a practical approach, because this is a world where there are consequences for our actions. Once children understand that there actions have consequences and begin to choose their actions accordingly, a bright and beautiful future opens up for them.

First of all, self-destructive behaviors practically disappear: smoking and drugs lose their allure because the risk is too great. Abstinance becomes more appealing than sexual promiscuity. Also, children are less likely to misbehave in school because it just isn’t worth it to be disruptive.

In addition to avoiding decisions that have negative consequences, children begin to seek out actions that have positive consequences. They treat other people with respect and actively seek to help out around the home. They focus on their studies and have plans for a brighter future. In short, a proper understanding of consequences — also known as the law of cause and effect — inevitably leads to taking responsibility for one’s own life.

Parents clearly wield tremendous power over their children’s well-being, and it must be used with great care and diligence. Good parents don’t shield children from the consequences of their actions. Rather, good parents help their children endure those consequences. Then, most importantly, they ensure that the lesson is learned so that it need never happen again.