This is the alternate paradigm I’ve been talking about: we can assume that what our leaders do is irrational, in which case we just need a set of rational leaders (anyone seen one lately?). Or we can assume that our leaders are entirely rational, but their goals are (1) not what they publicly say and (2) not consistent with ours.

In this latter case, our leaders and our various enemies are in league together, because war serves them all. But not us, and not the constituencies of our enemies. Thus we can view war as a conspiracy of leaders against the civilians they claim to represent. (This was actually one of Sharif’s premises back in 1999, and I have found it very useful.)

The answer (as we have seen once again with the Dems) is not new leaders– or at least that is not the entire solution.

The real answer is severalfold. Some elements of the solution are: Seek a change in consciousness (in ourselves and in the constituencies of all parties) to realize that conflict is a means to gain power, and therefore conflict cannot be the way out of conflict. In fact, I don’t think an adversarial process can ultimately end a war (except through defeat of the adversarial party).

Also, every leader, no matter how tyrannical, has some level of responsibility to his/her constituency, and can in some way be held accountable to that constituency. Only in this way can his/her actions be modified to be consistent with the needs of the constituency rather than the desires of the leader.

And perhaps most importantly, those locked in conflict cannot be seen as individual actors, but must be seen as part of a whole, and only a holistic approach addressing the needs and concerns of the constituencies can resolve a conflict. Conflicts arise out of real needs, usually distorted by filtering through an “us/them” lens. Only by addressing the whole picture can the underlying needs be addressed.

That’s by no means comprehensive, but it does touch on the basic elements. If by definition leaders have a vested interest in war, then the solution must transcend (rather than replace) the leaders involved.

And now even Obama said, darn it, we might have to bomb Pakistan to get al Qaida, an insanity if there ever was one.

What’s more, they continue to lay the seeds for future war with the needless bombing of civilians in Afghanistan, the antagonism (through our ally Musharraf) of the Pakistani population, putting nuclear materials within reach of hundreds of literally terrorist groups in India, pushing Iran to the brink of open conflict, and so forth. That’s only incompetence if you believe their goals are the good of the nation, not the greed of their cronies. But if Murray is right, they’ve done an exceptional job.

And you thought our foriegn policy developed as a result of ignorance?