There is today a generally world wide accepted idea that people in a country have the government they want and deserve. That when they deserve and desire a change strongly enough, they will do whatever it takes to get what they want in the way of a new style of government. It is also understood that the incumbent government will resist any changes in the existing power structure with the full force of police, the courts, and military power. Most revolutions are achieved by means of means of physical force - armed struggle, civil wars, uprisings and revolutions. The international community is very reluctant for this reason to intervene when a “revolution” is underway in a country. “Statesmen” are therefore rarely brought to account for their internal actions with, or against, their own populations. The post W.W.II Nuremberg trials of German national, Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, and Augusto Pinochet in Chile run counter to this. Partly this is because it is so difficult to separate “terrorists” and “revolutionaries” from “freedom fighters” and “oppressed minorities” as in Argentina, Northern Ireland, Eastern Europe, and South Africa. As long as the fighting remains internal, not crossing national borders, it is generally looked upon as an internal “police” matter. The bottom line is, who wins the struggle for power? The winners are the ones who write the history books. So what is the difference between a “terrorist” and a “statesman”? The terrorist is commonly killed early in the struggle. He is safely dead and can’t defend himself and his reputation. If he is dead, he is a terrorist. If he is still alive, he is a criminal or a statesman. If the terrorist is lucky, smart, and skilled, he eventually becomes a “freedom fighter”, pulls in support from the nation’s population, the “struggle” a.k.a. “civil war” grows, and the “movement” becomes a “revolution”. Examples are Mahatma Gandhi of India, Nelson Mandella of South Africa, Lennart Meri of Estonia, and Fidel Castro. Gandhi’s revolution was the exception with minimal violence. Many of the leaders of Israel, Ariel Sharon, Yitzchak Rabin, Menachem Begin, and Shimon Peres were considered to be once former terrorists, who have since become statesmen. Definitions and labels at this point are difficult. Because in every case “the activist” can come in at any point in the “terrorist to statesman” transition pathway. The activist can come from any point in the power structure of the country from a disgruntled citizen, terrorist, a police officer, a military officer, or a lower level bureaucrat. The key point is an innate ability to see a power vacuum, and a willingness to risk everything to achieve significant change. Members of the latter group are rare. Their “bet” is their life. After they have begun the struggle, others will join in for a variety of reasons, but there must be “a leader”. A leader leads. Leaders set the example of principle for the rest of the members of the struggle “for freedom”. George Washington won his gamble. In that process, he became a very select member of the set of “revolutionaries” in his path to power after the “armed struggle” portion of the revolution. While the war still raged, but victory was in sight, Washington was approached by his subordinate officers and asked if he intended or wanted to be King of the American Colonies? Few men have ever had the acumen to decline such temptation to seize power. Of course, Washington came to power anyway, but it did not have to happen that way. Remember, Washington’s personal wealth remained basically unchanged from before and after the Revolutionary War. In general terms, and a lot of them have been generals, once power is achieved, the mantle of leadership is donned, there are basically two kinds of leaders: the ones who stay to the bitter end however it turns out, and those that “feather their nest” and have a plan of escape. The careful ones of the latter group start their planning in the early, heady, rosy days after rising to power, and before the “realities” of circumstance and the difficulties of actual governance raise their poisonous, fanged heads from the tall grasses of the realities of exercise of political power. Central and South America have a long history of military intervention in their governments. That tradition goes back to the soldier, general, liberator Simon Bolivar, creator of six countries. The list of countries affected is long. The problem continues to today. Once in power, the military leaders seem to fall into the trap of running their country as a personal fief. In that process extracting as many feathers and as much down as possible, until the goose hisses too loudly, and it is time to escape with their feather pillow and mattresses. Prepared “statesmen” of this ilk have carefully prepared by making a trip, or trips, to one or more countries to prepare the “feathered nest” to await their sudden and necessary “bumpy” arrival. Ski trips to St. Moritz, relaxing on the beaches at Nice, and with opportunities to establish secure accounts and properties. Accounts and properties into which portions of national treasuries, as personal paychecks, can be deposited for safe keeping. Without too fine a point, it is also necessary to secure a safe exit strategy in case of need. Examples of those that have availed themselves of similar arrangements are many, from Kings, to Emperors, to Presidents, and plenty of Prime Ministers. Egypt, Greece, Spain, Italy, Brazil, Iran, and numerous Central and South American countries have sent their former “leaders” into “exile” in extreme comfort. Few such “statesmen” are brave enough to return to the country from which they have fled. It is much safer to remain away, a refugee, and be a “pretender” to a “throne” that no longer exists. In the long run of history, it has rarely happened that the “royal family” has been asked to return to resume the reins of power. Usually it might be generations before such an event might occur. Brazil and Spain are examples. That requires a very extensively and very deeply feathered nest. The spending habits of such “leaders” are commonly not very common. Saddam Hussein of Iraq is a curiosity in that he did not seem to be prepared to decamp his country. To have been found hiding in a “spider hole” is certainly different. The list of “statesmen” murdered before any trial, or executed after, probably tells us more about their level of overconfidence, or the poor quality of their internal spy network, than their lack of preparation. One has to wonder how often the gnomes of the Alps have “inherited” secret wealth by default? That , we understand, they don’t discuss. Just as they decline to discuss the ownership of the contents of their vaults. Saddam is under going trial at this time. The question is, will he be imprisoned, executed, suicide, or die of old age or illness during the period of his extended trial. A different example is Cuba and Fidel Castro. Castro began as a disgruntled citizen, became a terrorist according to our boy Batista, moved on to revolutionary, and upon Batista’s sudden departure, Castro became a “statesman”. Fidel Castro is somewhat unique. So far his regime has had staying power. It looks like he will live out his full lifetime in Cuba, and in power. Undoubtedly he will have a magnificent funeral, to be followed by an equally fantastic monument erected over his tomb by a grateful nation. The really important question from the standpoint of history is, how long will his socialist revolution survive him? The United States of America is so far unique among nations. We were the first to institutionalize internal peaceful political revolution by way of our written Constitution. Luckily, our military has followed the example of George Washington and not fallen to the allure of easy shift of political power. However, the change from citizen soldiers serving for a limited period to an entirely professional military increases the danger of such a soldiers takeover in the future. Many believe that a beleaguered and paranoid President Nixon would have moved to seize power by use of the military. They believe that he would have done this to protect his position, if he had believed that the U. S. military establishment would go along with him. In Nixon’s time, the enlisted men of our military were not professionals as they are today. The counterweight is gone that balances the professional officer corps. If citizens of the USA become dissatisfied with our political system, we currently still have the opportunity every two years to begin a dramatic peaceful change from one system , or party, to another. New political parties are free to form with new ideologies, agendas, and new ideas. Political parties contest for the hearts and minds of the voting electorate. In our system all power is derived from the common social contract inherent in our Constitution. That only 15 to 16 % of the eligible electorate actually bothers to cast a ballot in our elections is simply a measure of the satisfaction of that electorate with their current status quo. As long as personal freedoms are maximized, only two factors really seem to change the percentage of the electorate that responds to elections by increased voting. Those two items are the economy and conflicts. The conflicts might be internal, or external. Our internal struggles have ranged from civil rights to abortion to the Vietnam “police action”. Then there are the foreign entanglements. Eisenhower had Korea. Johnson had Vietnam. Carter had Iran. Reagan had Nicaragua. Bush I had Iraq. Clinton had Bosnia and Whitewater. Bush II has Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, Iraq, and the constant firestorm of the Middle East. There are always foreign entanglements. Our problem is that the United States is a “young” nation. We are full of ourselves and our political, economic, and military power. That world power is only sixty years young. As we mature, we will begin to remember what was said in the first paragraph. There is a generally world wide accepted idea that people in a country have the government they want and deserve. That when they deserve and desire a change strongly enough, they will do whatever it takes to get what they want in the way of a new style of government. Most revolutions are achieved by means of means of physical force - armed struggle, civil wars, uprisings and revolutions. We need to learn to stay out of such conflicts and let our world neighbors settle their own internal affairs without our aid, assistance, or interference. We need to learn to then deal with the winners.
(c) Copyright 2006: George Wallace recently published a book on religion which lashes out at nearly all of the comfortable ideas about God, the trappings of organized religion, and the priesthood. His pithy comments and suggestions for a return to a God-centered personal religion will interest everyone. This article may be freely reprinted so long as all copyright attributions, and the full content of this resource box are included. www.OhGodIsThatYou.com
Article Source: http://www.writerspenarticledirectory.com
Please Rate this Article
5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5
Not yet Rated
Powered by Article Dashboard
