re: fighting shame-based cultures:
Thanks for those two articles. I was pre-disposed to disagree with Pipes, (since he is a Bush appointee), but, after reading a couple of articles by him, I find myself agreeing with much, and taking seriously all, of what he says. Even when he doesn't have the right answers, he asks the right questions.
<But in order to win their hearts and minds, mercy had to follow might, not precede it. When mercy shows first, the shame-prone will view it as a sign of guilt and weakness; but when generosity follows total war, it is like Allah’s mercy, a blessing from a power of unquestioned omnipotence.>
OK. This makes sense. Mercy, a willingness to compromise, is often interpreted as weakness. Gandhi recognized this problem, that if pacifism was adopted out of weakness and cowardice, it would lead to defeat and permanent subjugation. He said:
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence."
His solution is that mercy and might must go together. Either one, alone, will fail.
Waging total war, with an unlimited willingness to hurt the Other, this worked for Alexander and Napolean. Also Sherman in Georgia, and Patton in Germany.
But, here's the relevant questions for today's (and tomorrow's) reality:
1. How do you deal with a shame-based culture armed with nuclear weapons?
2. How do you defeat the guerrilla war that Muslim shame-based nations will wage, whenever they suffer a defeat/occupation in conventional war? |
