Logic Overpowers Intuition: The Obama WAR!!!
President Obama decided to send 30,000 troops to Afghanistan in the next six months and then begin pulling them out a year after. He overlooked negotiation and mediation as effective options to end the war. He insists on what does not function to humanly end a war: war intensification.
Soon after taking office, both Lyndon Johnson and Mikhail Gorbachev took measures to escalate their inherited conflicts, the Vietnam War and the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan. Both wars were a human disaster.
Wars are intellectually old fashion and a globally discredited means for welfare.
Political and social complex conflicts cannot be managed through the use of litigation or wars, but with dialogue.
The President welcomed a full range of opinions and invited contrary points of view. The more he learned about risks, the more he gravitated toward a stronger if temporary buildup. Obama was intimidated. His diplomatic sense and pacifist’s intentions were annulled. The alternative to war could be a collaborative intervention of all parties using conflict strategic methods by negotiators and mediators. Ideally, this could be accomplished in a milieu of informality, humility and piecemeal steps. Smaller agreements offer the potential of early action, and could be included under an umbrella of a general agreement at a later date.
It is reported that President Obama summoned his national security team to the Oval Office. He had made his decision. He said: “I’m not asking you to change what you believe,” the president told his advisers. “But if you do not agree with me, say so now.” There was a pause and no one said anything.
The strategy escalate-then-exit resulted from an earnest decision making process in the Obama White House dominated by analytical processes. The decision was entangled by pieces of the puzzle. Obama lost sight of the sense and shape of the entire conundrum.
The intensification of war outcome was the result of deceiving logical thinking. The decision making process lacked intuitive wisdom; the views of artists, poets, pacifists and conflict solvers.
Biography
Luis Miguel Díaz, unfortunately now deceased, fathered four children and distrusted language, theories and authority, including his own as a father. Admires artists and scientists and their lives. He received his Law Degree at UNAM, Mexico (1974); and LLM (1976) and SJD (1986) at Harvard University Law School. President of the Interdisciplinary Center for Conflict Management in Mexico City. Author of more than 100 articles and 15 books. We all miss Luis.
Email Author
Website: www.solucionegociada.com
Additional articles by Luis Miguel Diaz
Comments
 |
|
| ch kashif advocate gujrat pakistan,
Islamabad pb |
chkashifadv@gmail.com
03/16/10 |
| sending of more force |
|
|
|
|
Being an advocate, and member of the pakistani society i am of the opinion that, mr.obama the honurable president should know the real facts of the terriorism in the world and especially againsy USA.Mere by sending more force it is not possible to eradicate terriorisim from afghanistan.Mr. president should facilitate the afghanis in their daily life. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Syed Fahad Ali ,
Islamabad |
03/14/10 |
| how can Natins solve our problems! |
|
|
|
|
what was the london conference?
london conferecne was very diplomatic stratigy of Mr.OBAMA becouse he knew that sending of tropes would be failed in Afghanistan,there is no any source to win the war except Nigociatins.
I Fahad Ali wanna comment that the person or Nation can solve our problems by the help of three things which are very solid and 100% effective these are "SOcity,Politics and Religion.
But sadly we arnn't taking help all of these..
is here any one to give the answer to my qustion?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Wallace ,
Harrisburg OR |
12/29/09 |
| mediation is voluntary |
|
|
|
|
Long and short, mediation usually requires voluntary participation. We have many indications, even proofs, that the Taleban will not voluntarily engage in mediation or even negotiation. That is as evident now as it was in 2001 when it had several opportunities to negotiate rather than engage in warfare. Or perhaps, to rephrase Clausewitz, warfare is negotiation by other means. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Joe Markowitz,
Los Angeles |
12/28/09 |
|
|
|
|
Vietnam and the Soviet experience in Afghanistan are not good analogies to what is going on now in Afghanistan. In Vietnam, we had a legitimate government in North Vietnam with which it was possible to negotiate. And in fact we did negotiate a resolution of that war. Unfortunately the war was unnecessarily prolonged while we were doing that because there were a lot of political forces in our country who were opposed to a negotiated resolution.
The Soviet Union in Afghanistan was viewed as a colonial force. And the Soviet war in Afghanistan was a proxy war with the United States, since the US supplied the insurgents with weapons and training, without which they might not have succeeded in driving the Soviets out.
In Afghanistan now, we may be viewed in some quarters as a colonial power, and that could in fact make it more difficult for our mission to succeed, but we are trying to persuade the people that we have no such ambitions. But the real problem with trying to resolve that conflict by peaceful means is we have no legitimate negotiating partner. The Taliban has never shown any interest in participating in the political process, because they know that they could never win an election. Their only hope of regaining power is to do so by force, the way they gained power the first time. Al Qaeda has also not shown the slightest interest in being treated as a legitimate actor. In order for a negotiation to work, don't you need someone on the other side who craves legitimacy or respectability? In this case we would be negotiating with outlaws who take pride in being outlaws. I understand that by making war on them, you are in some sense gratifying their desire to be treated as a threat to western civilization. But trying to make peace with them would probably be even more futile. Better to treat them like the criminals that they are. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Barbara B. ,
Laguna Woods CA |
ChangeManager@comline.com
12/17/09 |
|
|
|
|
Beg to differ slightly with Luis Miguel Diaz on this one. He has the right idea, but as I understand it there are procedures that must be legally carried out. In the meantime, diplomats from US Department of State persistently negotiate US interests not only with Afghanistan government officials but with those from hundreds of other countries. Diplomatic and sometimes Presidential encounters may result in treaties.
Yet if by mediation it is meant to send mediators from nonprofit organizations like Mediators Beyond Borders (upon a country's request) that might be possible. But believe because of dangerous conditions requiring need for military protection this could only be done after Department of State permission is granted.
Barbara B. Howard, ChangeManager-ADR.net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
