Full disclosure first: I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton. BUT- I agree with her latest comments and admire her courage for speaking them outright and facing the criticism and political firestorm that followed. Once you read past the inflammatory headlines her statements make a lot of sense. What’s wrong with urging Americans to use “every possible tool and partner” to achieve peace. She didn’t call on us to surrender the country for Pete’s sake!
She went on to say this includes, “leaving no one on the sidelines, showing respect even for one’s enemies, trying to understand and insofar as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view.”
Within the cacophony of contradictory remarks, retired Lt. Col. Oliver North called her comments “irrational.”
I remind Mr. North that Henry David Thoreau once said: “Could a greater miracle take place than for us to look through each other’s eyes for an instant?” Tell me Colonel, does this sound irrational?
For that matter, does fighting a “War On Terror” for twelve plus years, the results of which include the emergence of ISIS, a resurgent Al Qaeda, terrorists who are better organized, better funded and more violent than ever, sound rational?
Perhaps the reason I empathize with Ms. Clinton, on this point, has to do with my experience on the Dan Rivers radio show. When I suggested there might be a parallel approach to fighting the “War On Terror”, several listeners had the same reaction as did the Colonel. The notion that we try reaching out to the other side to better understand their motivation, or the point that terrorist numbers were increasing not decreasing, was lost on those who see military action as the only answer.
When continuous war becomes the only solution to conflict, I’m catching the first intergalactic flight out of here.