If someone asks: What is the best way to live? Is it the natural way or the artificial way? The answer ought to be: With regard to what? Here are two example that illustrate the dilemma:
First,
there is no doubt that if you and your family of 10 people live on an island of
100 acres, the best way to spend your days, is to gather the edible flora that
the land produces naturally, and hunt the edible free-range fauna that
multiplies by its own. Having enough to feed everyone, it would be foolish to
change the natural order by creating a farming community that will not add a thing
to the joy of living.
By
contrast, there is no doubt that if 1000 people live on the same island of 100
acres, necessity will compel you to cultivate the land artificially so as to
produce enough fruits and vegetables to feed all these people. And because this
may not be enough to appease their hunger, you’ll be compelled to artificially
breed and raise the animals that will add to the island’s caloric intake.
These were relatively easy cases to resolve
because the choices existed at the start, and the proper one could be made
without fearing that negative consequences may result.
But
what can happen at times, is that the dilemma you need to resolve, will be the outcome
of artificial policies that were adopted earlier, and have led to consequences
that can no longer be tolerated. The choice that must be made, therefore, comes
down to living with the terrible consequences, or putting an end to the
policies that have led to them, only to realize that ending those policies will
come at a cost. What you have, therefore, is a case of “damned if you do, and
damned if you don’t”.
So
then, how do you go about making a choice you can live with in a complex case,
knowing that it might turn out to be the wrong choice? The answer is that you
want your decision to be one that you can live with regardless of the outcome.
And this says that the decision must be free of artificial considerations.
America
was facing one such case, and made a decision that pleased some people and
displeased others. What happened was that 20 years ago America was attacked by
a bunch of imaginative kids, having trained to play wargames in Afghanistan and
having learned to fly jumbo jets in America. They planned a multi-pronged
suicide mission in which they used the jets as missiles to attack high value targets
in America. They caused considerable damage and killed scores of people.
America
had no choice but to attack the kids’ bases in Afghanistan, which was the natural
thing to do. But then, on the insistence of the Jews that had by then become
masters of America’s decision-making, the latter decided to occupy Afghanistan
as part of the artificial plan to impose a Jewish concocted Pax Americana on
the Arab and Muslim worlds as a prelude to the Armageddon that will see the
messiah come to Earth and hand the Jews the ownership deeds to the planet.
Things
did not go well for America during 20 years of occupation, anymore than they
did for the Soviet Union before that or the British before them or the Macedonians
before them. And so, it became obvious that America must withdraw its troops
from Afghanistan—but there was a problem: How to do so
with honor, and not look like a Saigon debacle that happened 46 years earlier?
Also: What will happen to Afghanistan after the withdrawal?
Maximillian Hess thought about these
matters, and wrote an article in which he expressed his views. The article came
under the title: “The Withdrawal from Afghanistan Deserves to be Celebrated,”
and the subtitle: “Delaying the reality of the United States’ loss—and the
cruel images that accompanied it—appears to have been the only motivating
factor for US presence in Afghanistan in recent years.” The article was published
on September 12, 2021 in the National Interest.
Here,
in condensed form, is what Maximillian Hess is saying:
“The
US withdrawal from Afghanistan deserves to be celebrated. Tragedy accompanied
the withdrawal, but that is what happens when one loses a war. When one has
been fighting a war that did not deserve to be fought, its loss is nothing to
mourn. As President Joe Biden said, ‘Our only vital national interest in
Afghanistan remains today what it has always been: preventing a terrorist
attack on American homeland.’ The withdrawal decreases the risk of such an
attack. Anyone with an appreciation for basic human rights will bemoan the
threats to women and religious minorities such as the Hazara. Yet it is
impossible to weigh these violations, the lost opportunities, and violence that
result, with the thousands of Afghan civilians and soldiers who risk losing
their lives without withdrawal. The failure to withdraw over the last decade
only made it more likely the Taliban would win. As Biden said following
its completion, the withdrawal ‘is not just about Afghanistan. It’s about
ending an era of major military operations to remake other countries.’
Recognizing the Taliban’s victory decreases the risk Afghanistan will again
become a launching pad for terror against the West. It may be too much to hope
it will alleviate Afghanistan’s internal divides and the violence that so often
accompanies them, but there too the war had long failed”.
Do not mourn the loss of the war, says Maximillian Hess, it was destined to be lost, and that’s a good thing. You should have mourned the early decision to occupy Afghanistan past the revenge operation that exacted a heavy toll on the Taliban and al Qaeda.