In the world today we seem to be facing tremendous challenges. There seems to be two types of views the western more secular view on the one hand and the religious fundamentalist dictatorial view on the other. I know that these are sweeping generalizations but for our purposes they will do. These two views clashed on September 11th 2002. In a world of so much uncertainty how can we know that the right thing is being done? Will the war in Iraq prove to have been a positive thing? Or will history judge it to have been the biggest single mistake made by and United States and UK government. Is the foot dragging regarding Iran‘s nuclear program the correct policy or will we live to regret not having acted when there was still a chance. This and similar questions haunt most people and especially heads of governments of the civilised world.
Eventually the question really comes down to human nature are people evil enough to actually use weapons of mass destruction to kill millions of people. Not so long ago India and Pakistan came within a heirs breadth of all out war over Cashmere. Now the two Asian countries are making friendly overtures to each other. This gives us hope. Was war avoided because both countries realized that all out war between two nuclear powers may result in unimaginable disaster? Was this the reason that they took a step back from the abyss?
During the cold war the two great superpowers of the time, the Soviet Union and the United States came very close to nuclear war with the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962. The threat of Nuclear attack was real enough to warrant – in March 1983 – President Reagan to term the Soviet Union the “evil empire” and announce the start of the Strategic Defence Initiative, a satellite-based defence system that would safeguard the United States from incoming nuclear missiles and warheads. But the cold war ended without a nuclear war head being fired. Was this because both sides could not contemplate the horrendous implications of a nuclear war?
Based a comprehensive study of history Robert D. Kaplan in ‘Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Requires a Pagan Ethos ‘ maintains that while Judeo _ Christian morality is an important guide for private interpersonal relationships however, when it comes to the nation and international arena pagan values must be applied. By this he means that the nation must place self-preservation over sacrifice, public virtue over private virtue and pride in achievements over humility. He maintains that the ‘do-gooders ‘ cause chaos on the international stage. Thus he concludes that western nations must be prepared to use violence when acting in necessary self interest. Only by demonstrating strength will the powerful be able to defend its interests. So according to Kaplan a show of might comes first while dialogue comes a distant second.
On the other hand however – based on an analysis of human instinct, ethics, psychology, anthropology and genetics, contemporary thinkers – such as Matt Ridley, in ‘The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation ‘ _ believe that because we need each other to survive, mutual cooperation is human instinct. Thus, if we want to overcome ‘the evil empire ‘ or indeed ‘the axis of evil ‘ we need get them to cooperate together with us through dialogue we must therefore always keep the channels of conversation open. This, he would maintain, explains why the Soviet Union and the United States never actually came to war _ although they differed in ideology they realised that they depended on each other thus they always had lines on communication open. The same holds true about India and Pakistan. According to this view dialogue is primary; force can only be contemplated if all diplomatic efforts completely fail.
The problem with this is that dialogue can only work if there is a partner to converse with and if there is a common language. However how can one have a dialogue with people who have a completely different view of reality? This is the major difference between common enemies such and India and Pakistan, the United States and the Soviet Union during the cold war and the Islamic terrorists of the new millennium. Not only can they not be pined down they are also impossible to reason with _ such is the nature of fanatics (evidently Saddam Hussein too fell into this category). How is one to deal with this new enemy?
Based on the saying of our sages that a person is a microcosm of the universe (See Midrash Tanchuma: Pekuday and Sefer Yetzirah 15a) by understanding how one deals with ones own inner struggles and battles a strategy for dealing with international conflagrations may emerge. Chassidic thought sees the battle between the good inclination (Yetzer Tov) and the bad inclination (Yetzer Harah) as an integral part of an individuals’ purpose in this world. There are principley two schools of thought as to how this internal battle should be fought. According to the Sefat Emet for example (written by Rabbi Yehudah Aryeh Leib Alter Born: 1847 Died: 1905). One must crush the evil inclination in order to win. This can be done either through fasting, by severe admonishment or it can happen automatically if the person either experiences a great miracle from God or suffers a crushing physical defeat in some way.
According to Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady (Born: 1745 Died: 1813) however, one can win the battle through having an dialogue. Through studying about the omnipotence of the creator and the source of the Mitzvot one can find the words to make the evil inclination understand the importance and benefit of living a spiritual life. Since, however, the evil inclination remains evil the dialogue needs to be continues lest it reverts back to it intrinsically evil ways. To be sure admonishment is also necessary but the main strategy in winning the battle is not by subduing the evil but rather by winning it over intellectually.
The difference between these two schools of thought in not regarding the nature of evil, rather they differ as to how evil it to be dealt with. The Sefat Emes’s work is a commentary on the Torah and not a comprehensive methodical system of how to deal with the evil inclination. Since he does not offer the tools needed to conduct a successful dialogue with the evil inclination, subduing it is the only option. If one does not subdue the adversary the adversary will gain strength and win. Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady’s however, constructed an entire methodology how to deal with the evil inclination using dialogue. If one has the tools to win the battle in a peaceful manner then war is certainly not an option. However, according to Rabbi Shneur Zalman force is sometimes necessary _ when dealing with impure thoughts for example _ but only when it is perfectly clear that dialogue will not work.
Indeed this seems to be the Torah view. When God wanted to take the Israelites out of Egypt he first sent Mosses and Aaron on a diplomatic mission. Force was only used after diplomacy failed. In Deuteronomy (20:11) God tell the Jewish people, ‘When you draw near to a city to wage war against it, you shall call out to it for peace. If it does not respond to you in peace and opens for you, then the entire people found within in shall be a tribute for you. ‘ Thus, diplomacy must always be given a chance, possibly, because – as Ridley and others maintain _ when faced with a more powerful adversary, human instinct is to cooperate and this must be given the opportunity to surface. However, when a nation is offered this opportunity but rebuffs it, it is clear for some reason the survival instinct to cooperate is being overruled, thus diplomacy will not work and force is the only option.
So Ridley is right in saying that diplomacy and cooperation are part of human nature and therefore must be used in the first instance, but Kaplan is equally correct in saying that a nation must be prepared to use military force to defend its interests. Diplomacy can only work if, number one: it is backed up with the credible threat of force and number two: if the enemy is available and open to dialogue. An enemy which sanctifies death rather then life; an enemy which would rather die then make peace is impossible to converse with. For this reason diplomacy and dialogue cannot work when confronting fanatical Islamic terrorists. Against this new type of enemy diplomacy and dialogue is not only futile but is also deeply irresponsible, dangerous and counterproductive. Where diplomacy cannot and will not work force must be used ab initio.
So to sum up: yes diplomacy and dialogue must be the first choice of any civilised nation but only when there is a credible partner to converse with. Fanatical Islamic terrorists will never be partners for dialogue. Unfortunately, in this case, force is the only option.