The Limitations of Diplomacy

We are once again approaching a cataclysm of unforeseen implications due to the aerial bombing of the Islamic State by America and its allies. Nothing tells us that this will not result in a major war.

A resolution from the U.N. Security Council condemning the Islamic State’s terrorism has aligned the powers under the same banner. Even Iran now seems to share certain positions with its adversaries, the Western powers.

Therefore, are all the political scenarios just mercurial possibilities lacking morality and coherence? Upon President Obama’s announcement that nearly 50 nations are participating in these attacks, with Arab nations among them, is there some political consolation for Muslims?

Each time a war is started where the West participates, extreme risks are taken. Undoubtedly, the Islamic State’s intolerant ringleaders have committed innumerable crimes against Muslims, Christians and Western hostages, utilizing crucifixion, mutilation, stoning and public decapitation.

This must be stopped, but consider the costs.

For some Egyptian spiritual leaders, who I saw on CNN, the Islamic State insurgents have not properly interpreted the precepts that Muslim doctrine teaches. From the religious perspective, the descendants of Abraham the Chaldean kill each other as if they were enemies!

Truly, the Islamic State’s followers do not seem to comprehend the ramifications of war. And the American decision to attack them, although legitimate by a Security Council resolution, does not make it moral, nor does it prevent further violence or prevent more innocent people from suffering. Neither will it prevent subsequent acts of terrorism. Rather, it will stir up hatred and resentment of many Muslims against the West.

On the other hand, the attacks are occurring in a highly dangerous geographical zone. It is the same as throwing a lighted match into a powder keg.

It is very true that we have become accustomed to conflict, and increasingly, it seems, to war. But we should never accept that wars are a solution, much less in the Middle East.

If war is the worst recourse and brings the least benefit, this becomes a brutal method for teaching the radicals a lesson. It may be a blunt recourse, but it is costly, destructive and immoral because it damages and degrades those who utilize it. Why should we assume wars of self-defense, although they seem valid, do not increase the risk of humanity’s annihilation?

I am sure the bombs used by the United States and its allies will be deadly and frightening, but they do not guarantee that there will not be civilian victims. Collateral damage is always unforeseeable.

Israel has just demonstrated that. Although its attacks against Hamas in Gaza were in self-defense, they caused so many deaths, injuries, refugees and damage to hundreds of Palestinian civilians that the Jewish military strategy greatly lost legitimacy due to the weapons’ shameful and horrific effects.

Without a doubt, Hamas’ followers do not have any semblance of morality. And in spite of the Israeli army’s attacks, the terrorists were not annihilated, and neither will their hostile and provoking actions cease. None of it was worthwhile if the devastation in Gaza was done to civilians. Israel will end up paying for the destruction caused. Nor can any limited war anticipate damages.

Are we entering an era of generals who silence reason and bury hope?

Once more, if political and diplomatic recourses have failed, why does war necessarily have to follow, as if it were a fatalist certainty? How will we know when the latest war will surprise us in getting out of hand, if it already does not surprise us to see the attackers’ immoral alliances?

A theory asserts that wars are innate to mankind. But will we never be able to attain an era of peace, assuming that humanity becomes more intelligent daily and can overcome any obstacle, thanks to technological and scientific advances? Or must the advances be in the inward direction to mankind?

I ask myself if the Islamic State’s actions are a product of the non-separation of state and religion, and if it is possible to govern in the name of God. It is evident that wars are inhuman, economic, military and political proposals for magnifying the political ego.

The foregoing makes me think that diplomacy has limited resources and impediments for leading us toward peace. But I believe that evil can be subdued with cunning and creativity. It is obvious that realism is stronger; idealism is only more moral.

Or, ominously, is there no room for the intelligence of idealism in politics and war?