War has been a fascination of mine for a long time now, not for the brutality or violence of it, but for the strategy and psychology. It’s the ultimate pressure cooker where elegant thinking meets ruthless execution (in every sense). Far-reaching long term planning needs to be balanced with agile tactical nous. It’s a dance between symbolism and practicality, the former being a cohesive ideal that makes either side believe they’re somehow justified and in the right, the latter a down-to-earth pragmatism that allows you to implement a vision. The main reason I find war compelling is because its dictums and insights are astonishingly applicable in the most mundane scenarios of daily life. An argument is like war, of perhaps more precisely, a battle. I was about to say “minus the stakes” but people can end up dead from arguments too.
The greatest balancing act is the perspective that we choose to adopt. Is it practical to assume the perspective of a person you’re in conflict with, and to what end? It could be valuable, empathy can always be weaponised in such scenarios. It comes with a potential cost though: the erosion of your moral high ground, a dilution of vigour, spirit and intensity. Your lust for battle can be quickly diminished when you fully humanise the people across the battlefield or the person on the opposite end of a disagreement. When the enemy is evil, or simply in the wrong, it’s easier. The more unbridgeable you make that gap the more aggressive and ruthless you can be towards them. We can’t imagine us, being them. In reality the distinction is so often thin if not completely imaginary. Perhaps we would, under those same circumstances, act the same way. Perhaps we, under the regime of some charismatic leader with an insidious propagandising message, would be true believers. Everyone thinks they are the exception to the rule. They would rise above it and if the did happen to go along with it, it would only be out of an impulse for self-preservation, or even more nobly to protect their loved ones. They would still reject it, if a public rebellion wasn’t available they’d wage a private one against it within the confines of their own mind.
Imagine a country invading another after a terrorist attack. You instantly step into a continuum of generational tit for tat where you, despite acting morally in the moment, might in a broader sense be perpetuating aggression under the banner of some entity whose actions in some distant land and time, punched first. Just like some political candidate idealistically reeling off slogans to a local electorate whose feelings towards their party are ones of entrenched hatred, what they represent undermines them.
In such situations you could go as far as to say there is a moral or even philosophical obligation to lean into the other person’s perspective. To sit with it for a while without judging it. Sometimes you’ll realise you have more in common with the people you're supposed to be fighting than you do with the ideology that’s creating the conflict to begin with. Other times it will have absolutely no bearing on your actions. You’ll still need to act decisively and ruthlessly in the moment. At the point of impact with the person or the people they might still be best conceptualised as an enemy even if they are the victim of circumstances started by your side. However, on balance, I think that humans are always best when… humanised.
A very timely piece, although, as you’ve pointed out, this applies to everyday occurrences too. It just hits harder when the collective is so blind to this frame shift. Rather than being able to purely see from another’s side, we ‘straw man” or “steel man” with the intention of going right back to our own perspective. Right back to our own tribe in the same echo chamber. After reading this, I am under the impression that the only way to sever that incessant need to pick a side is to be a maverick but that’s dangerous so most people would rather take cover under the opinion of the consensus closest to them. Interestingly, when looking back at history, it seems like war could be justified considering the lack of a consumer-based economy. In those times, our lack seemed to be in direct relationship to someone else’s luck. “If that person isn’t doing me any good, then what good are they?” Now we’ve applied that thought process to “that group is harming me and others with thoughts, they are no good”. We’ve begun warfare in the unseen realm so I’m afraid it’s only a matter of time before it manifests in the physical. Glad to see you sharing your written word again!