3 ms·
It might be that the best option is perpetual war against an ineffectual enemy. If you have an enemy that you can absolutely keep in check, and periodically hav
by littletimmy 10y ago
It might be that the best option is perpetual war against an ineffectual enemy. If you have an enemy that you can absolutely keep in check, and periodically have to fight without much loss to yourself, then you can achieve solidarity and a militaristic spirit without causing too much harm to your own people.
I'm thinking the Israelis vs the Palestinians, for example. If Israel can keep Palestinians as a perpetual enemy, given the much smaller power of the Palestinians, a limited perpetual war will keep the Israeli people ever-united without bringing them much harm. All the benefits of war without downside.
- clock_tower 10y agoYou're forgetting one important downside: the Israel-Palestine stuff kills a lot of innocent people. The whole point of James' idea is getting cohesion and self-sacrifice _without_ taking innocent lives or leaving people to live in misery...
- tamana 10y agoI think you mean the Jordanians vs Palestinians, propping up a remote group to fight a proxy war against an invented enemy to avoid taking damage at home.