There is a certain evolutionary process to politics and this process includes those movements, which originate in the form of an armed insurgency or a militancy designed to affect a political rationale or a reason. The reasons behind such movements, though important in of themselves, generally lose their appeal as the movements mature and mutate into more sophisticated arguments of political bargaining. History is replete with such movements and their eventual acceptance of the political process, over the idea of an armed struggle, as the most feasible mode of accomodating a political compromise and understanding. History also proves, quite clearly, that no problem has been resolved by purely military means or through the imposed force of a military might.
Even though, early in the conflict, there can be a partial tendency towards the use of military force as the most preferred means of settling a problem, the end result has been, generally speaking, a compounding of the political problems. This in turn has made the issues more intractable which resist force and ideas associated with force and in resisting, reinforce the notions of political rigidness that makes conflict and its duration and prolongation more likely and not less likely. The ideas of conflict resolution suggest a preference for political options over military choices and this logic is only accepted once it has become clear, to all the participants in the conflict, that parameters of the issues will not tolerate imposition of ideas without the allowance for dissent in discussing a particular idea or thought, which makes up the crux of the problem.
After nearly ten years of combat and increasing violence, there is a marked visibility that the graph of issues and the understanding of those issues is slowly inching towards a political conflict resolution. The inability of the allied forces to defeat either insurgent/militants in Iraq or Afghanistan, have created a dynamic of thought, which is advocating a more nuanced approach to dealing with the problem. The clarity of a military approach, with its unstinting adherence to the application of force, as the sine qua non of a problem resolution, blinds the policy makers to the caveats of political flexibility that exist, but are over shadowed by the singularity of the military thought. Conflicts become more varied and more prolonged and unsustainable, when the logic of military necessity is allowed to subordinate the considerations of politics and hence, it has been due to the bitter and costly lessons of history, that we have learned the utility of placing military power under a civilian political influence.
A military solution to the problem, be it in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere else would be to seek an outright military victory, but a military victory without a political process solidfying its final results has, and will, always be a hollow victory.
Winston Churchill was right, when he intoned that it is better to "jaw-jaw than war-war". There is a reason, why the peace makers are considered as blessed and it now seems that the war on terror is also following a well scripted historical process of evolution and it too, despite the misgivings of its advocates and their erstwhile allies, is moving towards a nuanced political solution by rejecting the simplicity of a military solution to the problem.
Even though, early in the conflict, there can be a partial tendency towards the use of military force as the most preferred means of settling a problem, the end result has been, generally speaking, a compounding of the political problems. This in turn has made the issues more intractable which resist force and ideas associated with force and in resisting, reinforce the notions of political rigidness that makes conflict and its duration and prolongation more likely and not less likely. The ideas of conflict resolution suggest a preference for political options over military choices and this logic is only accepted once it has become clear, to all the participants in the conflict, that parameters of the issues will not tolerate imposition of ideas without the allowance for dissent in discussing a particular idea or thought, which makes up the crux of the problem.
After nearly ten years of combat and increasing violence, there is a marked visibility that the graph of issues and the understanding of those issues is slowly inching towards a political conflict resolution. The inability of the allied forces to defeat either insurgent/militants in Iraq or Afghanistan, have created a dynamic of thought, which is advocating a more nuanced approach to dealing with the problem. The clarity of a military approach, with its unstinting adherence to the application of force, as the sine qua non of a problem resolution, blinds the policy makers to the caveats of political flexibility that exist, but are over shadowed by the singularity of the military thought. Conflicts become more varied and more prolonged and unsustainable, when the logic of military necessity is allowed to subordinate the considerations of politics and hence, it has been due to the bitter and costly lessons of history, that we have learned the utility of placing military power under a civilian political influence.
A military solution to the problem, be it in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere else would be to seek an outright military victory, but a military victory without a political process solidfying its final results has, and will, always be a hollow victory.
Winston Churchill was right, when he intoned that it is better to "jaw-jaw than war-war". There is a reason, why the peace makers are considered as blessed and it now seems that the war on terror is also following a well scripted historical process of evolution and it too, despite the misgivings of its advocates and their erstwhile allies, is moving towards a nuanced political solution by rejecting the simplicity of a military solution to the problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment