-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

The last chapter (before the Epilogue) of Howard K. Smith's "Last
Train from Berlin" was an editorial, written in 1942 to British and
American readers, about how he believed we could most easily win the
war against Germany.  He was advocating strongly making clear to the
German people that they were not going to be tarred with the same
brush that Hitler and the Nazis were.  It wasn't a war against the
German people, but a war against the Nazi rulers.  We didn't take his
advice, during the war, but we ended up following it in a way with
the Marshall Plan after the war.  His claim was that we could end the
war in 1943 if we were to do the propaganda right, so that the German
population didn't fear Allied victory.  He didn't know about the
Marshall Plan, but if we had described it in 1942, Smith predicted
there would be a revolt against the leadership and a weakening of the
Wehrmacht.  Of course, we were very angry at the time and people tend
to lash out when they're angry against anyone who reminds them of the
thing they're angry with.  It would have been hard for us to be so
magnanimous right after Pearl Harbor and the Battle of Britain and
the sinking of US shipping.

This struck me as especially pertinent today, given the battle in the
middle east.  I view that battle not as Israeli against Palestinian
or Judiasm against Islam, but rather those who want war against those
who want peace.  Viewed along that axis, the ones who want war are
winning (defined as growing their numbers).  Each hostile action by
either side builds up the ranks of those who desire retaliation on
the other side.  You get a blood feud that won't stop until one side
is wiped out, that way.  This reminds me of an old (and not very
good) ST:TOS episode where the swirling red cloud of energy drove the
Enterprise and some Klingons in what looked like it would be an
eternal battle.

The only way I can imagine winning the war against Terrorism or of
getting peace in the middle east is by making friends of potential
terrorists.  But you don't make friends by military action.  As Smith
described, you find the died-in-the-wool antagonists and hang them. 
The rest of the population you befriend.  This requires an action
that's more subtle than warfare.  You can not tolerate any innocent
bystander casualties.  It requires more propaganda and believable
action of friendship and support than bristling of hostility.  Of
course, that's not satisfying to an angry man -- but then, anger
isn't going to solve this.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8

iQA/AwUBPK94aXPxfjyW5ytxEQLZJgCfRkAfDrOBMCIcTbTsYHIdM2kYL14AnA2f
zP47/5PE8L/RKrcXEYMYk31Z
=m/I3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----