On tactics
This touches on politics, world conflict and digital rights. Since there's no cross-posting, it goes here. Feel free to branch if you feel it's more appropriate elsewhere.
===
I've been thinking lately about the tactics a culture is willing to accept in the pursuit of its goals. Obvious examples on the world stage include: blowing up civilian targets, providing humanitarian aid, supporting extremist regimes, training local military and law enforcement, establishing / enforcing economic embargo.
Some tactics are long-term, some are short. Some are effective at their main goal but have undesirable side-effects. Some are noble and pure, while others are cynical ploys. But regardless of how "useful" a specific tactic is, it says something about the group willing to use it.
Take an [link|http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/12/2352207|example from business]. An industry association cracks down on unauthorized distribution of "intellectual property". (If you didn't follow that link yet, it's not who you think.) When they pursue high-volume bootleggers, no one complains. Their interest is clear.
But when they attack consumers and small competitors (without large legal teams), their motives are questioned. Next, people question the foundation for the bootlegging prosecution, too. In over-reaching, they have tainted their legitimate goals.
Anyone who cares about a given conflict supports one side or the other. If you already support Israel you will tend to justify their bombing of Lebanon. If you support Hezbollah you accept their use of civilian facilities for launching attacks. But people who haven't made up their minds yet are as likely to be swayed by tactics as root goals. People who most oppose the bombings will turn against Israel, people who oppose the use of civilian shields will turn against Hezbollah. The tactics you use tell people who you are.
I could leave the rest as an exercise for the reader, but I'll lay it out anyway. The U.S. supported Iraq for years as a counter-balance to Iran. When "we" decided Saddam was a threat, we supported the Kurds. For a while. Then we hung them out to dry. Then we wanted to take out Saddam (again) no one wanted to play along.
We've played the politics of naked power for too long. We have backed people and regimes whose tactics we would not accept in our own country because they served a tactical purpose. We have ignored pleas for help from people suffering under regimes we don't want to offend. And when we when we make statements on the world stage that would be applauded from other countries, we act surprised to be met with scorn and distrust.
It's time to recognize that the things we're willing to do say as much about our civilization as the goals we're trying to achieve. We need to stay out of conflicts until one side or the other has asked us for help. We need to only support regimes that we approve of, not just the lesser evil. We need to demonstrate that unacceptable behavior does not become acceptable just because it is directed against our opponents.
Would all this amount to doing The Right Thing™? Maybe. But the more compelling point is that it would also work better.
