Reaching Those Who Can Be Reached

A couple high-profile posts have evoked comments of the sort that aren't often made on Dust in the Light. Since comment-area diatribes tend to be condensations of broader views — whatever those views may be — I've been impressed once again, in a discouraging way, with the impossibility of wading through differences to common ground on which to build agreement.

With patience, one can often see that the erroneous opinions are honestly held, and rooted in good motivation. Unfortunately, seeking to follow the trail of good will requires greater devotion of time than is reasonable when dealing with someone whom one doesn't know in some other context. But then what? Encountering recitations from the ideological breviary of the other side, the temptation is to fisk, point to point, but that's a bit like trying to stride through a brier patch.

Consider Angie's May 25 09:25 p.m. comment to this post:

Russia invited democracy. We did not have to force it down their throats. Maybe in time the Middle East would invite it too. Time.

How does one respond? Decades of multinational foreign policy have been rendered moot by a three-word sentence. There is only waiting, and in the case of Russia, by that worldview, waiting paid off. Why not, then, Iraq?

If you have a health problem, doesn’t the doctor run lots of tests before suggesting surgery? What was the urgency to take the most extreme route possible?

Of course, if some sort of gangrenous infection is creeping up your arm, you'd rather the doctor make an educated guess about its origin and cure at some point (particularly if the healthcare system is state run, with all the delays that entails). And how is a careful — surgically executed — war to remove a dictator who was clearly malignant "the most extreme route possible"?

The conclusion to which this progression of thought leads is one that conservatives find themselves continually repeating, as if in frustrated amazement: such folks as Angie are following a patchwork method for understanding interactions. Each view of an event — as history, as current events, and as likelihood — is bent to fit the frame. Look to the very next comment, from Tim:

Europeans are not against america, but against the war. We all agreed Saddam had to be removed, i think you will find few europeans that would think otherwise, but there are other ways than war.

One could point out that Europeans associated with the Oil for Food program were especially against war for reasons not directly related to feelings about America. More on topic, however, is the idea that there's some way to remove a heartless tyrant, who is already grooming is blood-thirsty sons to continue the reign, than by war. Normally, I'd suppose that he means to invoke the ideal of diplomacy, in which case the goal would be less the regime's removal than its reform, but then I'd be at a loss as to how to explain the thought that follows (note that the "you" is another commenter, not me):

And talking about corrupt ties to "evil" countries. The Moore movie you mentioned at the end of your blog did open a few eyes on the connections Bush's family has with Bin Laden's family. And wasn't it mr Blair who recently visited mr. Khadaffi himself.

So, now pursuing diplomacy toward reform with Libya is an indication of corruption. That's a considerable spin beyond the simple omission, on the part of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, of war's role in that success. When those who fetishize diplomacy see a particular leader's interaction with another, unsavory, leader as proof of underhanded dealing, they are doing more than putting together a patchwork; they're refusing to secure the pieces of that patchwork in order to allow them to be refit as necessary.

The danger of such intellectual structures was brought home to me in a different post, about the anti-war ex–staff sergeant Jimmy Massey. In a May 26 10:35 a.m. comment defending his or her native Canada, somebody using the nametag "Withheld to prevent persecution" offered this:

Did you know that your country was found guilty of committing war crimes by the UN? Your government ignored the order to stop their state sponsored genocide and pay reperations and stepped up their campaign, officially allowing the targetting of "soft targets" (civillians, residential buildings, etc). Did you know that your country used Iraq, Iran, and other middle eastern countries as pawns in a diabolical game of chess with Russia throughout the Cold War? Did you know that the newly chosen ebassador (read: leader) to Iraq, Mr Negroponte formed CIA trained 'Death Squads' responsible for the unlawful detainment and deaths of tens of thousands of people? Did you know that Daddy Bush killed 200,000 Iraqis in Bahdad in 1991 including the infamous "highway of death" in the last days of the slaughter when US pilots shot into the backs of retreating soldiers? Did you know your government has now twice overthrew the democratically elected Aristide (won last election with 94%) and installed a war criminal who has since been murdering dozens of Haitians every day? Did you know that in the 1950's, the US sponsored a coup in Guatemala overthrowing the democratically elected leader, resulting in the death of over 120,000 peasants? Did you know your gov't overthrew a democratically elected leader in Iran, resulting in the death of 70,000 civilians and a brutal dictatorship that lasted decades? Did you know your gov't sponsored a coup in Indonesia that killed 800,000 Indonesians? Did you know that since the 1970's (it continues today) your gov't has sponsored a campaign of terror in South Africa that has left 1,000,000 dead and mutilated Africans? Did you know thatyour gov't actively covered up the genocide taking place between the Hutus and the Tutus in the mid-1990's to prevent UN involvement until it was too late, resulting in the death of over a million people (a common tactic was shooting the men in the legs so they couldn't get away, herding women and children of the village into churches, burning down the churches and then going back to finish the men)? Did you know in the 1970's your gov't sponsored a coup to overthrow the democratically elected leaders of Chilli, resulting in the death of over 30,000? Did you know the US waged war on the people of El Salvador, killing over 80,000 "soft targets"? Did you know that between 1954 and 1975 your country shot, bombed, and napalmed over 4 Million civilians in IndoChina?Did you know the US military and the CIA are directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Sudan, Brazil, Argentina, and Yugoslavia?

I don't think there's a single topic about which I could rattle off such a litany, which suggests to me that this 1) took quite a bit of time to write and/or 2) came from a bullet-list somewhere. Perhaps the most frightening aspect of the comment is the reckless lack of thought made evident when Withheld goes on to total the atrocities for which the United States is responsible as on the order of the Nazis, Stalin, and Genghis Khan combined. If he actually believed this, he would be morally obligated to seek to topple the United States, not just to grouse about "filthy Americans."

There are those who do follow through to the moral implications of such rhetoric, although they more often seek to undermine than to topple — corroding foundational ideals rather than attacking the proclaimedly diseased outgrowth. Is that the method of removing a regime without war of which they speak? It certainly is no less damaging. In fact, I'd say that it is the most extreme route possible, akin to burning the patient alive.

And the existence of people — some prominent, albeit thinly deceptive — who are actually pursuing such an end at this very moment, from within the freedoms, liberties, and good intentions of the country they despise solidifies the necessity of seeking to reach those who can be reached, who are not so far gone.

But how?