|
Engagement before/after
I wandered out to the school parking lot, got in my car and drove towards the exit. One of the two cars left outside, I got a clear veiw through the glass doors down one of the main halls of the building. I tittered as I thought about revving up the engine and ramming the building at full speed in a display of pointless brutal stupidity. Later on in the drive, I thought of college days, driving around incredibly stoned on high grade sensimilla and stopping at a stoplight. In front of me, two cars stopped and a couple guys got out and started fistfighting, rather sloppily. All of a sudden, more guys flew out of cars around me, and got involved. I couldn't tell if they were participating or trying to break it up. In fact, I said something to myself like, "I Just Don't Want To Be Involved." lighting yet another joint and letting the riff raff settle their differences on their own. As I drove home from class, after considering the odd bent of mind that made me think of ramming the school at top speed for no reason, the thought occurred to me that the night I saw that fight, I could have really twisted things up. Charged out of my car with a head full of bravado and a heart full of hateful tidings and just started swinging on anything that moved. Confuse the fuckers. Hit high and low. Take them all on and make them choose sides. Pure pointless brutish stupidity. I learned a lesson that day, and one that bears repeating: just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. Yes, we can engage Iraq. We can do it. But it would be wrong. Indeed. Engagement. Another code word of the times. I read a finely crafted article in Time magazine last week, by Charles Krufthammer, about American coming ashore and effectively beginning a policy of engagment with the middle eastern world after years of begning neglect over the year. Yes, read between the lines. Engagment. Like america engaged Europe in WWII, and Asia in The Korean Conflict and the Vietnam War. Engagement in these theatres of conflict helped american imperialistic policy shape the balanec of power in each of these regions and helped solidify the american hegemony that currently exists, of which, american millitary power is axiomatic of its diplomatic relations. Murkily, war was fought in most of these instances, the most passably noble of which would easily WII, in support of American ideals of democracy versus a global threat. It is interesting to note, that of three of these wars, two were conducted pre-emptively, much in line with the so-called 'bush doctrine'. Also, interestingly, commusism was a repressive failure, largely due to failures of human nature, one of the drawbacks of capitalism. Perhaps progress will only proceed emphatically when governance can account for failures of human nature. So paranoia rules, and engagement is a pointlessly stupid brutal policy. Engagement in the middle east, given prior history, may lead to more bloodshed than many people even realize. Although, it is worth recognizing the disparity in military capabilities between the US and the entirety of the middle east, it is also worth noting that the Veitcong didn't have a whole lot of technology to support themselves, other than a good rifle. And still the lesson I learned years ago: just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
|
