The problem of dealing with "defectors" who have different political interests have been dealt with for centuries and at a very theoretical level. The other thing you have to look at is every group has the same self interests of survival, hegemony and paranoia, so that they don't necesarily in any universal domain have any less justification as we or anyone else. On the other hand it does not diminish our legitimate concerns or the necessity of self defense.
Here defectors mean people who seem to opt out of agreemetns not people who "go over".
If you do not come to agreement with all those so called bad guys eventually then there is no doubt that you guarantee their continual defection rate, or antipathy.
What distinguishes the bad from the good, so called? It is only from an objective point of view, self interests that collide.
To the Arabs, who do not have to think like us, or do anything like us at least at first glance, it is we who are the people who defect on agreements, or seek to dominate or interfere. Oil, Israel, and arms in the ME are a continual thing that sticks in their craw. Is this fair? Is it necessary? What did they do to deserve this, no matter what their religion or government.
On the other hand, what could we do from this point onward to make things much better, given pretensions in many ME countries to be unstable, unfriendly, expansionist and rattle sabres of all kinds? It is OK for them to say that Amoco and the CIA were a bad seed in the ME for many yearsm but given that, do they have any good ones?
EC<:-} |
