No, saying "each side is fighting for their self-interest" is meaningless -- by definition, if they're fighting, they think it's in their self-interest. It doesn't answer basic questions:
Who wanted the war, and who tried hard to solve disputes by negotiation? Who values compromise, and whose self-worth is defined by not compromising, ever? Who believes in human rights, for their own side and even for the other side, and who doesn't? Who thinks that violence is ennobling, and who uses it as a last resort?
If you can answer these questions, then you know a little more about the nature of the conflict. It's easy to assume, as President Clinton did, that every conflict is really open to rational compromise, but some conflicts aren't. Hitler was a case in point. Some conflicts must end in defeat for one side, or grind on in stalemate until one side collapses or external conditions change. |
