Shortsightedness: A Repeat Offender
Political nature has, by slavery of shortsightedness, dictated numerous
courses that have in retrospect found to be not only fallacious
but also immoral. Although thousands of such examples can be cited
throughout history, only three such examples will be given in this
article. These three are picked, because all involve the US as a
party and are relatively recent.
1. The Mujahedin
was invaded by the Soviet Union, Islamic fundamentalists rushed
in from the region to defend the predominantly Islamic nation from
the advancing infidel. The task seemed almost lost from the beginning,
as a rag-tag band of impoverished and unorganized fighters attempted
to defy one of the world's two superpowers of the time.
for them, that once supreme superpower was tenaciously antagonistic
towards the other, which meant that the other superpower was always
looking to undermine anything the other did. The US was therefore
not far away from this conflict between the Mujahedin of Afghanistan
and the Infidels of the USSR.
political nature dictated that the US should support the enemy of
its enemy. Such action may prove beneficial for the present and
immediate future, but it is not always the soundest recourse if
the long-term future is considered.
US was knee deep in fighting this proxy war with the USSR. US funding,
military training, military supplies, and logistical support were
placed at the fingertips of the Warriors of God, in order to punish
and repel the Communists. Within those ranks was, of course, the
blooming Osama bin Laden. The training and support that was given
to these Mujahedin helped them expel the Soviets, and placed them
at a powerful position within Afghanistan, and later, globally as
Al Qaeda, the
groomed puppy of the US, would grow up to rabidly bite the hand
that fed it years later. The scar of that bite is now visible in
Manhattan, and on the psyche of every American.
chants of "death to America," and the vow to extend fundamental
Islamic Revolution throughout the world was enough to scare the
US into picking another junkyard dog to fend off the now hostile
Iranians. Political nature, again through shortsightedness, dictated
an allegiance with a shady character - Saddam.
and logistical support again poured into the hands of a criminal
in order to combat a greater perceived threat. What's worse and
unforgivable is that a blind eye was turned to an utterly immoral
occurrence: the use of chemical weapons by Saddam against Iranians.
Don Rumsfeld visited Saddam personally, shook his hand, and gave
him a nod of approval with his beady little eyes. That photograph,
along with the countless others of disfigured bodies of Iranians
and Kurds from chemical attacks, will forever haunt the psyche of
every Iranian, if not every human.
with a slight change of political climate, the once again rabid
dog that the US kept as a pet was identified for what it truly was,
and was itself attacked. However, by that time, that Iraqi dictator
had already done too much damage, and the wrongs of the past could
not be rectified.
3. The Islamic Republic
In the present
we are potentially witnessing the once again political shortsightedness
and desperation of US policy. In its attempt to deal with the error
of example #2, the US went to war with Saddam's Iraq. After 4 years
of turmoil and occupation, the US has found itself chasing shadows.
A demoralized US constituency and Congress demands every day that
the US abandon its efforts in Iraq, which appear fruitless to most.
Out of the fiasco
of this Iraqi invasion has emerged an Islamic Republic with more
power and boldness than ever. It is a vicious cycle, whereby the
civil turmoil leads to loss of US authority and influence, which
leads to more Islamic chaotic authority, which enables further civil
turmoil and so forth.
In its predicament,
the US appears to be reaching at straws. The political need for
immediate gratification has apparently influenced the man who once
called the IR part of an Axis of Evil to reconsider his call for
outright demolition of that axis, and simply ask that the axis kindly
reorient its angle. This is echoed in the words of Rice, who said
that the Bush administration is not looking for a regime change
in Iran but to "have a change in regime behavior."
knows no bounds. The historical errors of the US follow each other,
and it seems that one has actually led to another. To change stance
with regard to such a regime will only prolong the inevitable showdown
of the US with the Mullahs. Such prolongation and retreat will only
lead to the emergence of a more powerful, determined, and emboldened
enemy to face in the future.
have a responsibility to not only serve and protect their nation,
but to follow a moral path. Many a times have politicians allowed
morality to take a back seat to their shortsighted goals. Every
time, such a policy has proven to be a mistake both pragmatically
as well as morally. This is why elected officials need to be held
to a higher moral standard and of higher philosophical character
than what is currently deemed acceptable.
with the likes of Mujahedin and Saddam has been a pragmatic and
moral mistake. The immoral enemy of my enemy ought not be my friend.
Why? First, because morality must be a main goal in and of itself.
Second, because the immoral enemy of my enemy will eventually come
after me once our common enemy has been neutralized. History is
a witness to this.
I have cited
two examples of the past, where the US' need for immediate gratification
proved disastrous in the long term. Currently, the third example
is unfolding. It is too late for the first two, but the third error
in the making can yet be averted, should the US choose to reconsider
its currently charted course with respect to Iran.
A rabid dog
will bite by nature. One cannot tell it to change its biting behavior,
and expect to safely lie down next to it after making such a statement.
A rabid dog must be neutralized. Requests and appeals made to it
will be in vain. An axis cannot change its angle, and a dog cannot
cease to be rabid.