How the American political system should have been devised to avoid the Iraq war? [closed]

0
Avatar of The Politicus
The Politicus
Oct 02, 2022 08:07 AM 0 Answers
Member Since Sep 2018
Subscribed Subscribe Not subscribe
Flag(0)

After their unprovoked and brutal war in Iraq in 2003, the US managed to escape broad international sanctions, however they destabilised the world as a whole and brought about lots of problems to deal with now.

So, the question is: how politics should have been organised in order to avoid such mistakes? Naturally, this question applies not just to the US. But the example of the Iraq war does give a shape to this question, showing that a solution couldn't be either simple or merely formal. It's not just about the way political bodies should be organised in order to guide through the decision making process according to rightful interests, it's rather about political culture of wise and restrained action, how it should be formed. So, it's about culture, in the end.

The American society as a whole failed to see in time that the action was a mistake, not just the political bodies. Apparently, people cared enough to feel, but didn't care enough to think, leaving this part to others; however no-one stepped in to do the thinking part, or at least those who did weren't heard or listened to, or understood. Have any ways been suggested to make sure people think of common good properly, at least those in charge, but also importantly all of the society? To make sure most people care enough to change themselves into wiser ones, into those who know what one should think of, what's important and what's not, into those who care of thinking as a process, and not just of the easiest thing, "the facts" that are always prey to interpretation?

Thinking is always driven in part by external influences, by the spiritual context, and in part by the person himself, by someone who seeks to understand what's going on. The second part requires activity on the part of the individual, and if it's largely left out, then interpretation is just a feature of the context which always changes: now, everyone thinks one thing, and ten years after (or months, or days), everyone thinks something else. It's a feature of attention. So, to avoid passion, one needs to be active (naturally): not only check facts which come their way in, but also think and create a proper theoretical frame for them. And it is always difficult to induce people into activity, difficult but possible. So the question is, have there been any suggestions about that?..

0 Subscribers
Submit Answer
Please login to submit answer.
0 Answers
Sort By:

  • October 2, 2022