To Hold and to Fold

The Washington Post ^ | July 22, 2004 | Jim Hoagland

[neverdem]

Terrorists who seize and threaten to behead foreign hostages in Iraq have elevated blackmail to a national level. They use the Internet and video cameras instead of pasted-together ransom notes to target the political stability and collective will of entire countries.

By withdrawing its symbolic 51-person force from the U.S.-led coalition -- and then vaunting its surrender as a "triumph" -- the Philippine government gives these technologically innovative extremists a huge success. Manila's withdrawal is militarily insignificant. But it echoes loudly through the psychological and political realms that are the terrorists' most important battlegrounds. Six foreign truck drivers were kidnapped and menaced with execution yesterday.

Some countries -- Italy and South Korea are examples -- have responded to threats that their nationals will be slaughtered on camera by refusing to bargain and renewing their commitments to the coalition of 30-some countries. The contrast between their reactions and those of others -- the Philippines and, in another context, Spain -- to terrorist threats is drawing a new dividing line among nations.

Each of the decisions to hold or to fold is the result of a mosaic of complex motives, judgments and historical associations that are difficult to characterize broadly. But they are not isolated acts.

[walford]

"The contrast between their reactions and those of others...to terrorist threats is drawing a new dividing line among nations. Each of the decisions to hold or to fold is the result of a mosaic of complex motives, judgments and historical associations that are difficult to characterize broadly."

Actually the motivation is indeed quite simple as is the ability to broadly characterize the mindset.

It is appeasement/containment. It is a status quo at any cost mentality. It is also completely unrealistic.

History is a fluid process wherein the future must be managed based upon reasoned analysis of the past. To try to hold onto an ever-changing present is akin to grasping running water.

Appeasers always hope that the bullies will leave them alone if offered a sacrifice -- someone else's future. Containment advocates still cling to the notion that it is possible to live in peace with tyrannical regimes.

The reality is their position only strengthens tyranny and makes war more inevitable.

In a truly Orwellian twist they actually believe that those who hold the opposing view -- that tyranny must be stopped, then reversed -- are more of a threat than the dictators.

Why do you think they could live indefinitely with Saddam but cannot suffer to live another second with G. W. Bush?