Thoughts on Winning Hearts and Minds
As a Conservative, I have heard this argument so many times:
"To win the war on Terror, we should focus on winning their hearts and minds."
Hey, there's less bloodshed that way! It's true, that is a much nicer way than war to settle conflicts. Because of this, Conservatives are often blasted by the Left, because they would rather engage in a War on Terror than a Courtship of Terror. The thing is, Conservatives realize something crucial about fighting terrorists:
It's impossible to win the hearts and minds of people who have no hearts and minds.
Terrorists by definition try to inflict terror on their victims. Terrorists blow up and decapitate innocent civilians, and then broadcast it on television. Terrorists freely gun down the innocent, crying "Allah akbar." They seek sensual pleasures in heaven by murdering those around them. They murder those who have done them no harm. They intentionally take innocent life. They help no one. Terrorists have no hearts to win.
Likewise, terrorists have been brainwashed. They have been indoctrinated since they were young children to hate America and Israel, and they are fully under the conviction that the USA/Israel is the Great Satan. They believe that it is their job to destroy the Great Satan. Terrorists, because of their indoctrination, have no capacity for free or rational thought. They know only their mission on this earth, and their reward in heaven for the atrocities. Terrorists have no minds to win.
The terrorists' lack of winnable hearts and minds is exactly what brings about the necessity to defeat them in battle. We must eliminate the threat that they pose, and we can't convince them to leave us alone (unless we cease to exist). All we can do is defeat them. We can't woo them, and hope they fall in love with us; they lack hearts. We can't convince them of our goodwill; they lack rational minds.
If we are going to stay secure as a nation, we can't be distracted by trying to win hearts and minds that don't exist.
Peace (through strength),
Neo
posted by jacob.thrasher @ 1/10/2005 11:41:00 AM
9 comments
9 Comments:COMMENT POLICY
Please refrain from the use of foul language. Any failure to comply will result in comment deletion.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I originally posted this in a space that was on-topic, but it appears to have become appropriate here because of the above post...
Y'all need to remember that there is a huge difference between hating and tolerating and tolerating and accepting. The term "tolerate" has been co-opted and stripped of its meaning by the minions of political correctness. These days, if I'm to tolerate something I'm actually being told I need to accept, and even celebrate it. Why should I be forced to accept something I disagree with? And, in this case, I disagree with homosexuality. But, you know what? I really don't care if Joe Neighbor is homosexual. I have a Christian obligation to help Joe if he needs help, and to counsel Joe if he looks for that type of counseling. But I'm not obligated to call Joe a sinner and tell him he's going to Hell. In that case I'd have to tell everybody in my neighborhood the same thing, because everybody sins. For some reason, homosexuality has received the lion's share of the attention in the Christian community. Meanwhile, every other sin enumerated in the Bible goes unchecked as we unhealthily concentrate on this one problem. If you check your Gospels, you'll note that Jesus says the smallest sin, and even just thinking about it, is worthy of damnation. Yet, the Gospel message, the Good News, is that we can be free from the bondage of sin here and in eternity through Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Believe in Him, repent, and be free.
I don't know about y'all, but I can't tell you how much that freedom has changed my life. Do y'all know what it's like to be a slave to sin, and I mean all kinds of sin? I do, and I still struggle with it, but I get a fresh start every day through Christ's forgiveness, and each day more of the old passes away, making me stronger, though it's not my strength, but that of the Spirit.
The truth is that everybody is a slave to something. Some are slaves to fashion, their peers, their job, whatever. The problem is, all those things in the world ultimately amount to nothing, and will discard you at the blink of an eye for the slightest reason. I prefer to answer the call of the Good Shepherd, who says, "I am the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd gives His life for the sheep. But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them. The hireling flees because he is a hireling and does not care about the sheep." John 10:11-13
The hireling is everything of this world. Analyze your life and everything around you closely, and if you look closely enough, you should come to the realization that, if it benefits them in the slightest possible way, people and institutions will discard you in a nanosecond.
I went way off task there, but felt it had to be said to provide some background and perspective on the Gospel and those who believe its message. It must be understood that most of us believers have no animus toward homosexuals. Simply put, we tolerate the behavior, and don't hate, condemn or assault (physically or verbally) homosexuals, and never would.
From a strictly empirical standpoint, it is not a healthy lifestyle. Look at the statistics, from suicide to general health, and it is decidedly less healthy that a heterosexual lifestyle. Further, it is not a lifestyle that has ever been deemed by any society in world history as one that is equivalent to heterosexuality (and yes, I know about the Greeks and their practices, but it was not seen as a life-long lifestyle).
So, the feeling that homosexuality should not receive the same acceptance as heterosexuality, particularly as it relates to marriage, is not based simply on a subjective religious belief. As mentioned in another post on this topic, there's a very good chance it would not be in the general public's interest to recognize homosexual marriage. We have no clue, at this point, what the ramifications of "normalizing" the behavior would be. It's not wise to monkey with an institution like marriage; to damn the torpedoes and hope that it doesn't rip apart the fabric of society. And I'm not saying same-sex marriage will do that. I'm saying that we don't know, and if we don't know we should wait and see what the potential fallout is, if there is any. However, every time we have monkeyed with marriage, such as no-fault divorce, the consequences have proven to be disastrous. Our continued celebration of the single mom has literally destroyed children. I see it every day. I see how our moral laxity has made children feel utterly worthless and hopeless. Have you ever had a little girl tell you about the turmoil in her home caused by the live-in boyfriend while her real father (who came from a broken home) sits in jail? How she's scared and lonely? It's sickening that our society has enabled, and in fact encouraged, the abandonment of our children to the vices of the parents. Again, I'm not saying that same-sex marriage will do this, but I'm emphasizing the point that it's ridiculous to continue to tear the institution apart.
We always hear the emotional argument that a homosexual couple can help break this cycle and care for children in a loving home. The problem is that same-sex couples are not immune from divorce or any of the other relational problems of heterosexuals. In fact, particularly among male homosexuals, monogamy is not the norm, so it's safe to say that a same-sex marriage is more likely to be subject to divorce and disintegration.
You may call this "brainwashing" if it pleases you, but just as everyone is a slave to something, everyone is likewise "brainwashed" by varying stripes of ideology and philosophy, so don't kid yourself.
club soda
No offense u4ric, but I feel like you didn't read my posts very well either. I did not launch into a diatribe about why homosexuality is wrong. True, I detailed reasons why it should not be received as equivalent with a heterosexual marriage, even apart from religious considerations. These are either cogent points, or they're not. You're free to decide, as is everyone else in the good 'ol USA. So far, the overwhelming response from the American people has been to tolerate the lifestyle (and I'm using "tolerate" in its intended and true sense), while rejecting the "normalization" of it by rewarding it equal status. You may quibble with Christians here on this blog and accuse them of being brainwashed, but you must admit that there is a fair amount of attempted "brainwashing" happening on the other side of this issue as well.
The fact is that you're arguing in circles. On one hand you want an honest response, which is basically that no one really wants to "dictate" anything to you other than their opinion. No one is forcing you to do jack either way. It's your call. I believe I've written this a million times, but will repeat it since the concept obviously bears repeating... You live in a Constitutional Republic in which your nation makes laws based on the will of the people. All people in the U.S. have the freedom to offer their opinion, and yes, shape public policy, whether they're Christians, Muslims or atheists. I have as much right to petition for policy I believe is best for the public interest as you do. Just because my faith informs my opinion does not immediately disqualify me from doing so. It is difficult to "dictate" in anything other than a dictatorship. If you feel that our governmental system of elections and checks and balances is dictatorial, I can't help you. You ought to try out a place like Saudi Arabia where they truly "dictate" that you cannot engage in homosexual activity, nevermind marriage, at the expense of your head. If you can't distinguish between a true dicatatorship and my opinion, I can't help you with that either.
Perhaps the concept is too complicated to digest. That is, the concept that one can disagree with you while not forcing you to do anything or behave any differently.
Or, perhaps I'm not understanding what I, as a Christian, could possibly be dictating to you that would infringe upon your rights. How many times must I say that I could give a fig about what you do with another consenting human being?
There is a world of difference from being okay with others living as they see fit and being forced to accept their behavior as a normal alternative, when the statistics, history and biology of this particular subject, aside from religion, all say it is not.
So, to turn your question around, why should you dictate to me and my children that an abnormal and dangerous lifestyle is a healthy alternative, when it is by all accounts not so? Do you expect me to reject good sense and prudence just so that I can say I'm "tolerant"?
club soda
Neo - When it is said that you must win the hearts and minds, it means more than just the terrorists themselves. It also means their network of willing supporters, financiers, and the general populace, which may not support them directly, but stand aside and let them work.
Look at the IRA in the 1920s, the Algerian terrorists in the 1950s, and FARC, HAMAS, and Hizbollah today. They were successful because they had popular support. Al Qaeda is still functioning because large segments of the population in Saudi Arabia (money) and Pakistan (bases, support) still believe in it.
How do you get a population to turn on terrorism? You win their hearts and minds. You help improve their economic, educational, and governmental systems. A people with a strong, growing economy, good schools, and a government that represents their interests will not turn to terror as an option. They will, in essence, have too much to lose, or in an other way, too much ahead of them to throw their lives away.
Why do you think the US is pouring money into the infrastructure of Iraq? We are rebuilding their economy, schools, and government so the Iraqis won't turn to terror.
Waging a war on Islamic terror the way the UK did against the IRA and the Irish, the way the French did with the Algerians, and the way the Israelis did in Lebanon will produce the same result: failure. In each of the above cases, the nation fighting terror lost because of heavy-handed tactics and not enough aid to the people. Too much stick and not enough carrot.
When Islamic nations have better economies, schools, and an overall better prospect for life for their young people, then fewer young people will be willing to become suicide bombers.
--Lionel Hutz
I was going to post something long and involved, but I don't have enough time and Lionel just summed it up. Great.
u4ric:
I know you directed your question at club soda, but I thought that I might take a shot at answering it.
It’s a delicate question, and there isn’t an easy answer. Basically, there are two conflicting world views at logger-heads here: those who think homosexuality is ‘right’, and those who think it is ‘wrong’.
Obviously, personal beliefs have no intrinsic relevance unless they are subjected to some sort of unassailable absolute. If this were not so, there would be no objective morality at all, and ‘right’ would be defined on the basis of situation. Rape, murder, theft, slander, assault, etc. could all be justified on the basis that the perpetrator ‘believed’ it to be ‘right’.
Since that moral philosophy would inevitably result in utter chaos, it stands to reason that we are forced to justify ‘right’ by an external standard.
The U.S.’s external standard, i.e. moral law, is derived from the Judeo/Christian moral law as written in the Bible. This particular moral law sets forth several precepts that we would all agree with: murder is wrong, theft is wrong, covetousness is wrong, etc.
Then, it sets forth some laws that we don’t all agree with: homosexuality is wrong, adultery is wrong, etc.
Now, you would keep the injunctions against murder, theft, etc., but discard the ones damning homosexuality and other sexual sins, right? On the basis that you believe these sexual actions to be ‘right’.
Come, sir, surely you can see the philosophical dangers of such an argument? On what authority do you make it? According to what moral standard? That people should be free to live their lives the way they want? How about the serial killers? The kleptomaniacs? What do you say to them? Should they not be able to make the same argument?
In order to overthrow dominant moral law, you have to have something solid to back it up with. Every crack-pot, wacko, and lunatic can claim that their actions should have moral relevance, simply because they say so. Surely you can do better than that.
>>>As for Lewis. In what way do you consider homosexuality the same as rape, murder, theft, slander, assault, etc. Thats the worst thing ive think ive ever seen. Did you set out to just insult me or what?
I...uh...huh? You've completely missed the point.
Rape, murder, theft, slander, assault, homosexuality, etc. are only comparable in that they are 'wrong' according to the Bible.
Some of these actions (in a secular sense) are 'worse' than others, and civil penalties vary. For example, murder is more heavily penalized than theft or slander.
By listing homosexuality up along with murder, theft, ect, I in no way intended to compare it with them in a secular sense.
My point was philosophical, and had to do with the conception of morality, not civil law.
u4ric,
I think you took S. Lewis' illustration the wrong way. He wasn't, as far as I could tell, giving homosexuality moral equivalence with murder, etc. He was simply showing that once you start fooling around with accepted morals (those which mankind have pretty much agreed on since it began), it's easier to make the claim that "what might be wrong for you is right for me," regardless of what "what" is. It's called moral relativism.
I'm sorry for being so dense, but I simply don't understand your beef. I'm saying "live and let live" yet I'm being told how I should raise my children, and how I should think, and how wrong I am.
Somehow, I'm supposed to ignore human history, statistics, biology and everything else that's logical in order to make people feel better about their choices. That would be disingenuous, and I won't do it.
Once again, I do not accept your lifestyle, but I tolerate it, just as I tolerate other religious beliefs. We all do this in just about everything we believe, otherwise they wouldn't be beliefs and we'd be living in some 1984 Orwellian world where we're forced to conform. And that's really what you're asking me to do here; to go against everything I believe in just to make you feel good about your choice. There's a certain tyranny in that, and I will always fight for my right, and everyone's right, to call it as I see it, and to not be coerced into accepting something I disagree with. As mentioned earlier there are places where you have to accept things with which you disagree, and I hope the U.S. doesn't become one of those places. But the subtext of everything you write drips with the premise that, if you had your way, I would be forced to accept your lifestyle and punished for not doing so (think hate speech and similar laws).
My apologies to Neo for going off-topic once again. BTW, I agreed with both you and Lionel (love the reference, by the way).
Neo, just thought I'd alert you that I posted my thoughts concerning the issue adressed in your post. I'd be curious to hear your response!
http://standingupfornothing.blogspot.com/2005/01/these-views-they-are-changing.html
Post a Comment
<< Home