The most obvious example of the "modernity paradox" -- the contradictions between science and primitive beliefs -- is modern warfare. Past wars killed and maimed combatants, while leaving most non-combatants and infrastructure intact. Beginning with aerial bombing in World War II, modern wars have been fought in the midst of civilians, and have often even been aimed directly at civilians.
One would think that, since the World War II meat-grinder, humankind would have found a better way. But we seem intent on following our ancient obsessions. War is a cultural relic from a time, during millions to thousands of years ago, when human survival depended partly on male strength and courage to defend against and chase down wild animals. Today, courage remains in demand but the raw physical courage to enter successfully into mortal battle does us far more harm than good. War is an affliction of males (mostly) that humankind can no longer endure.
I'm not a doctrinaire pacifist. Following the twin towers attack, I supported America's war against Al Qaida and the fundamentalists who supported them. We pursued that war miserably, mostly because of the bad advice of "courageous" militarists who were eager to trade young men's blood for their own "Mission Accomplished." These men (and a few women) sent us into the looming graveyard of Iraq, America's biggest mistake since Vietnam.
Syria is the most tragic case today. This war has destabilized the entire Eastern Mediterranean and killed 140,000. Following three years of war, objective experts such as Joshua Landis of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Oklahoma foresee no peace. The war is a devil's brew of religious ignorance and macho fervor, between the tyrannical, murderous Assad regime, and the tyrannical, murderous, religiously-obsessed rebels. Iran, Hezbollah and Shiite Muslims support Assad, while Saudi Arabia, Quatar, and Sunni Muslims support the rebels. Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey fill with destitute refugees.
This war cannot be won, but it can be ended by ceasing all military assistance to the rebels while welcoming humanitarian assistance to both sides. We surely don't really want the rebels to win. They appear even more dangerous than Assad, and they include Al Qaida factions, yet we are considering supplying them with anti-aircraft weapons operable by one person that can take down a jet fighter or a civilian aircraft. It's perverse to continue encouraging them. They are highly likely to fail, and this needs to happen sooner rather than later, to reduce further killing.
Ukraine is less tragic but perhaps more serious. This muddle was entirely foreseeable from America's militaristic foreign policy since the Soviet Union's fall in 1991. The fall was a devastating economic, security and psychological shock to Russia. The Soviet Union's Warsaw Pact alliance, formed in the aftermath of the world war (20 million Soviet dead, 40 times America's toll) and a dreadful Nazi occupation, was disbanded.
The great Russian fear was re-encirclement, and NATO, created to provide military security against the Soviet Union, wasn't dismantled by the West after the Soviet Union's fall. Expansion occurred in 1999 (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland), in 2004 (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia), and 2009 (Albania, Croatia). Boris Yeltsin, Russian president during 1991-1999, asked about Russian membership several times, calling this a "long-term political aim," but the West didn't respond. Vladimir Putin raised this issue, stating during a 2000 interview that "we can talk about integration with NATO, but only if Russia is regarded as an equal partner." He warned that attempts to exclude Russia would provoke "opposition."
But Russia wasn't invited. Russians concluded that NATO expansion was directed at containing Russia. The West accelerated this smoldering fire in 2008 with plans to site intermediate-range missiles in Poland and Czech Republic as defense against presumed future Iranian missiles. Contrary to U.S. dismissal of Russian concerns as "ludicrous," such missiles would have reduced the value of Russia's own nuclear deterrent force and would assist a Western military buildup against Russia.
All this was bound to run up against Russian fears. We reached this point in 2008 when NATO indicated that Ukraine and Georgia would soon be offered NATO membership, and Russia invaded Georgia.
We have reached this point again, with Russia's occupation of Crimea. Yes, Russia should not have proceeded militarily. Yes, Russia should have found a more peaceful way. But so should we, beginning in 1991. Not only conservatives but also Obama, Clinton and other liberals need to cut the hypocritical tough talk and respond to Russia's very real concerns.
Commentary on 04/06/2014