Temporary At Best

I was watching the History Channel today, and after the show that I had been watching, a show about UFOs came on, and while I was not watching it specifically, I didn't change the channel, and just left it on while I puttered around the house. One thing stuck me more than any other, and really got me thinking. They were talking about US Presidents, and their relationships to UFO information, at least in the minds of UFO fanatics... um, I mean, researchers. Anyway, they talked about something that Ronald Reagan called his fantasy. He believed that if the Earth were attacked by aliens from outer space, the peoples of Earth would lay aside their differences and unite for the good of all mankind, and that this would forge peace.

This thought was not unique to President Reagan, it can be seen in literature and pop culture, for instance, the 1996 blockbuster movie "Independence Day" with Will Smith.

This really got me thinking, would this actually work? If there were and invasion by hostile aliens who would brook no quarter, and were bent on the destruction of our planet and the entire human race, who would not try to enlist some nations or cultures as allies to destroy the rest, but simply move against all of us at once, would we really come together and fight side by side to defeat this threat? Would Hugo Chavez work with the USA? Would Syria fight side by side with Israel? I think that in the face of such an overwhelming enemy, the answer is probably yes. As far as that goes, I can agree with President Reagan, and the others who have posited such a scenario. This works on the principle of, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." However, that's as far as I can go.

Surely, we don't need to talk about what happens if we lose. If we are all dead or enslaved by some alien race, then our difficulties amongst ourselves would be quite unimportant. But what if we won? What if we, as in "Independence Day," managed to utterly destroy the invading hoard? What then? Would the episode really have forged a lasting peace? Would we all really start to get along, and decide that the things that divided us in the past really weren't that big of a deal? I don't think so.

I think that we would see exceptional cooperation during the course of the crisis, and as far as some of those who are not openly hostile to one another, but perhaps hadn't been that friendly, there might be some cooperation to help each other get back on their feet. On the other hand, there are some groups that hate each other so much that they would try to press the issue, and use whatever damage had been done to their lifelong enemy, and very temporary allies, to move in and utterly destroy them.

Even if there were good reason to believe that there might be second wave of attack at some point, the cooperation would still be short lived. You might well not see wars break out across the world right away, as many would be looking to prepare for another attack, but you would see a return to status quo at best, and, if no further attack came, the resumption of strife.

The idea being put forth in these scenarios, is that our differences really don't matter that much, that they are petty, and that some great calamity would cause people to see that and get over the differences. The problem is that this is an overly optimistic view. In truth, the differences do matter, many of them are not petty, and certainly not to the people involved, it would be ignorant to think that people could just get over it in the long term. Basic human nature simply doesn't allow for it. Nor does the nature and history of some of our disputes.

In the case of Ronald Reagan, I think he understood that we had to work hard for peace, that we couldn't just wait for aliens, or some natural disaster, or whatever your calamity of choice, to force people to stop fighting. For some though, I think this can be a dangerous idea, because they don't really understand how deadly serious the issues are that divide us. They really think that it's all petty, and if the hardheaded people out there would just soften up a bit, and maybe be willing to compromise, then everything would be ok. Of course, it simply doesn't work that way. Some principles and beliefs really are that important, they really are worth dying for, and defense of one's self, or one's family, or even one's country, really is worth killing for. Thus, wars will always be with us. Ronald Reagan understood that. As much as he wanted peace, as much as he wanted the end of war, he called it his fantasy because he knew the stark reality that conflict is not so easily shoved aside. He understood that real peace for the USA could only be achieved through strength, yes it would be wonderful if the rest of the world liked us and respected us, and bore us no ill will, but because that too is a fantasy, we can only have peace if they fear what will happen if they attack us.

This is something that we have lost in our current leadership today. The Obama administration has taken on a posture of appeasement. An ideal that everyone will like us if only we bend to their every whim. But as Hitler taught Neville Chamberlain, appeasement will only take you down the road toward more appeasement in the future, and until you stand up and fight, or are ultimately destroyed, there will be no end to appeasement. By contrast, Winston Churchill took a solid position that he would never surrender, and paid for peace with blood, but that peace was real.

The lessons of history are clear, we ignore it at our own peril. It was that great British leader, Winston Churchill himself, who said, "Those who fail to learn from History are doomed to repeat it." If the American people don't wake up soon, we may find "doomed" to be a very appropriate word.