Certain Views

I have been introduced to a couple of new terms this week that I find to be very interesting. Also, I have been reading two books that have striking similarities in the way America conducts war/foreign policy. I would like to examine both the two books and the new terms and somehow relate the two. The reason I want to write/explore this area is because it has been on my mind for a while now. Without further adieu, here goes!

First, recently I have been introduced to the terms realism and idealism. However, these terms I have heard before, but the reasons I count them new is because this is the first time I have actually given them thought and or explored them. Realism, in a nut shell, explains that war is inevitable, it is bound to happen, only a matter of time. That people are naturally born bad resulting in eventual conflict. Idealism, in a nut shell, explains that war/conflict is avoidable. There can be a solution to the conflict and problems can be solved through certain processes and procedures like institutions. Also, people are inherently good and seek for peace. As I process these terms I find myself falling in both courts not just one or the other. Can you be on both sides, though? I definitely believe conflict can be resolved, however is war completely avoidable? Is there a way out of conflict no matter what? I believe America should have a stout military force with up to date technology and equipment (hard power), but also have way in which we can use ideas and other techniques to avoid war and promote peace (soft power). I truly believe people want to get along and live in harmony, but there will always be someone, group, or nation that doesn't like the other.  I find myself thinking about these and forming my own personal views which is good. But which one is right, or is there a right and wrong? 

I have a Christian worldview and the thoughts above lead me to the Bible or to God. I wonder is there foreign policy in the scriptures that could lead to war policy? Ecclesiastes 3:2-8 says, 

"For everything there is a season, a time for every activity under heaven. A time to be born and a time to die. A time to plant and a time to harvest. A time to kill and a time to heal.  A time to tear down and a time to build up. A time to cry and a time to laugh. A time to grieve and a time to dance. A time to scatter stones and a time to gather stones. A time to embrace and a time to turn away. A time to search and a time to quit searching. A time to keep and a time to throw away. A time to tear and a time to mend. A time to be quiet and a time to speak. A time to love and a time to hate. A time for war and a time for peace."

Hopefully, as I venture into the very heart of this subject, I can gain wisdom, knowledge and a understanding of what really needs to happen.

Secondly, I have been reading two book that I find to be very similar in nature. The first book The Nez Perce Story: The Last Indian War by Elliot West and the second, The Accidental Guerrilla: Fighting Small Wars in The Midst of a Big One by David Kilcullen. The two books relate by how America misses the mark and seems to be occupied with a greater goal than understanding the situation that might harm them and others, is right under their feet. In the Nez Perce Story, according to West, America had one thing on her mind throughout the 1800s; expansion. And "with the [Civil] war won, a triumphant federal authority turned westward and took command". To a degree never attempting to understand the Native American and their way of life and culture. America, in that day, seemed to roll right over them. We tried to understand the Indians, but nevertheless kept getting frustrated and impatient and eventually telling the Indians, specifically the Nez Perce, forget it! We are taking your land whether you like it or not. Yes, there were many other factors that played a role, however, I believe it was our responsibility to cooperate with the Indians (soft power). A quote from The Accidental Guerrilla can be put right in with West's book. Kilcullen says, there is "a complex interaction between two interdependent trends: small wars and global confrontations, local social, networks and worldwide movements, traditional and post-modern culture, separatist and imperialist ambitions, nativist and pan-Islamic traditions. Our actions in what western governments have called the "war on terrorism" (war with Indians) to date have conflated these trends, blurring the distinctions between them and masking the very real disputes  and differences of interest among their members. This has enormously complicated the West's challenges and multiplied our enemies. I understand there is a time gap and we are now dealing with global threats and not just internal threats (indians), but almost same concept. In 1877, America was to powerful for the Native Americans. Now, in 2013, Can American put a cap on the war on terror like it did with the Indians? Did we bite off more than we can chew? Or was war with the terrorists unavoidable. 

^{2 3 4 5 6 7 8}