I don’t know how much you pay attention to national news, but I like to read articles on BBCnews.com. I like to know what is going on in other countries it helps me feel apart of the world rather than just apart of America. The reason I ask though is because of what is going on in Jamaica right now, with Christopher “Dudus” Coke, the Jamaican government, and the people of Jamaica.
Christopher Coke is one of the worlds most wanted drug lords, and the Jamaican prime minister recently agreed to extradite him to America on drug/weapon trafficking and murder charges. When Jamaican police tried to apprehend Mr. Coke however the people of Jamaica began to fight against the government to protect him.
Seriously? The people are protecting a wanted drug lord who is linked to hundreds of deaths and kidnappings in Jamaica and around the world, the innocent and criminal alike are protecting him. Why? In one of the articles by BBC news Jamaican people were asked the same question, they replied by saying that Mr. Coke was there when they needed him unlike the government. One woman said that if your mom dies Coke buries her, the government taxes her. Another person said that if you need Mr. Coke you can find him, everyone knows how to get hold of him and he will listen to the people, but very few have ever even seen the Prime minister in flesh. The general consensus was that Mr. “Dudus’ Coke was doing what the government officials were not and that’s why the people protect him.
Despite who this man is and how he makes all the money he is giving away the people love him and are actively fighting the Jamaican government in order to protect him. Aristotle says that effective leaders are defined by their ability to show that they are for the people. If a leader can demonstrate actively that he cares for his people and that their interest matter to him, he will have the love and loyalty of his people. Obviously Mr. Coke has done this incredibly well.
Reading the articles about Coke and Jamaica got me thinking about America and our war on terrorism. America represents around 5% of the global population but accounts for nearly 49% of the military spending. Right now we are waging war in two places and pouring billions of dollars into the operation, we all know we don’t have the money and we all know we will continue spending what we don’t have. We also know that since we have been in Iraq one million citizens have perished, and I can’t imagine their families are happy about that.
What I am trying to get at is that maybe there is a better way to wage a war on terrorism. What if America had instead of invading Iraq in force invaded in generosity? What if we had gone in and spent money on schools, hospitals, and scholarships? Maybe if we had first invaded in a way that would better the country and help the people the Iraqi people would begin to think that America was for them in a way that Sodom was not. And maybe just maybe Sodom would have lost power as the peoples state improved and their view of America became favorable (in doing this we would probably spend less also).
Abraham Lincoln once said that if we befriend our enemies we also destroy them, why don’t we apply that philosophy to our foreign policy a little more often. Its just a thought, but its effective in Jamaica and that isn’t the first time a criminal has won the loyalty of a people he was using.
I have a contrary proposal
ReplyDeleteI ran across this article: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2007238,00.html
It's about the women in Afghanistan who live in dread fear of the Taliban.
I agree completely with your idea that it is vital to bring love and aid to those in need--not just war, or hopefully as an alternative to war.
But there are cases where extremist thinking of those in power leads to an urgent need to defend those who can't defend themselves. The Nazi Party is an example, and some forms of extremest Islam is another.
There is a chance that we might change the minds of those extremists by love. But what makes it so extreme is the removal from compassion and reason--so there is also a chance it might never work.
Enacting justice and defending those who can't defend themselves sometimes takes military action (not saying this happens every-time, or perfectly, or anything like that, just that it can). I personally would argue for saving those who need saving, as well as reaching out in love.
Maybe you right Ki when all else has failed. But I think that if the U.S and other countries would adopt a strategy of preemptive love we could effectively stop the rise of tyrants. I say this because most tyrants don't come to power in a time of prosperity most come to power when they look like the only hope available. What if however we could work to eliminate those moments of desperate need. If we could (hypothetically) we could effectively stop the rise of tyrants (hpothetically). And maybe then women would not have to live in such fear, and people could have the ability to say no to the tyrants who work to steal power. Without fear and need no tyrant or dictator has any power.
ReplyDelete-jonny