Aversion |ə’vər zh ən|
Noun
1.
A strong dislike or disinclination: he had a deep-seated aversion to most forms of exercise.
2. Someone or something that arouses
such feelings.
In today’s century, there is a
subconscious aversion. It is based
on the premise that human creativity cannot tolerate a reality that must
question risk. How will one’s vision
play out? What risk is involved in implementing that vision? The human species
has always dreamt. And dreamt larger than what reality can achieve. A goal to
see a vision concreted in reality has brought much pain and suffering over the
many centuries that have seen the same aversion. Perhaps it is not
subconscious? Therefore, the hope for realization of a dream is a powerful
mechanism that has laid waste to vast civilizations on continents as it can be
said to have given the opposite - a truly wonderful outcome. The European Union
is the result of a dream that is seeing benefits what was previously thought impossible.
Then on the other hand, it took
Hitler a long while to see his vision, mad and unrealistic, of conquering the
Soviet Union in Operation Barbarossa (1940-1943) - as part of his dream for a “Thousand Year Reich” – a long
time to see the invasion as failing, because he did not see the risks that
involve such a massive operation or the risks of eventual occupation of such a
large land mass. For one thing, slavery is not cheap. He did not see ‘retreat
and regroup’ as part of a war strategy necessary for success. ‘Stand and Die’
was a strategy Hitler demanded of his generals; that cost the lives of
millions, German and Soviet.
In today’s century, the risk
aversion of ‘Regime Change’ is effectual, in that it has succeeded in exposing
horrific miscalculations. Reconstruction efforts are not a task for the
military. To invade and subjugate a nation into a political system foreign in
all respects is a serious miscalculation that will, even perhaps already has,
cost lives and reputations. The neo-con dream of invading Iraq was a serious
flaw in thinking, in hoping for a ‘democracy’ reborn there. A serious flaw in
not understanding that after thirty years of infrastructural neglect would
result in an expensive reconstruction process. War damage was minimal, yet
after seeing what infrastructure Iraq had surprised many, as well as the
acrimony of sects that had its lid firmly shut tight for decades. The latter
was a risk not fully anticipated.
The vision of regime change, based
on moral and biblical language, is a fantasy that has no basis in reality.
Except for the argument of a regime changing of tyranny to ‘democracy
reborn’. Constitutional and
international law equations factor heavily, motives are questioned, stringent
to an acceptable perimeter that, as of this date February 2010, has not yet
fully concluded. Regime change is a dangerous game not for the faint hearted.
There are limitations of acceptability and the weighing of risk not fully
appreciated.
In today’s century, risk aversion
is a ‘utopian construct’ that fails to consider implications. Utopian construct
because, when all is considered in dreaming, many would be negated in their
pursuit of a grand vision - many have failed to take into consideration
implications that impend a noble idea, even if the goal is morally ambiguous.
The lack of reality check is often
what fails a dream. This is what I call ‘risk aversion’. One war historian did
make the observation that Hitler had an aversion to this kind of reality
because of his narrow vision for a longer-term objective. Hitler’s
countermanding his own orders reduced success in taking Stalingrad in 1942 –
before autumn, is the clearest example in recent history that risk aversion
highlights for us.
Risk aversion is the number one
problem for 21st century strategists and politicians. Hubris is its
wellspring from which they draw their blood lust for regime change. Always of
course “for the ‘national security’ of our country”, they opine. But in actual
reality of facts, done in the name of self-interest. Synonymous terms fit this
picture of deceit, like the term regime change is ‘security’, ‘potential WMD’,
‘freedom to be a democracy’. Another would be ‘War Corporatism’ as it is the
market shifter for rich corporations that are looking to expand ‘globally’. For
example, securing of production and trade of oil in the Middle East and Central
Asian countries. Nothing there
about politics.
Foreign policy strategy can no
longer avoid risk assessment in the realm of theology, ideological propaganda
and/or economic manipulating of global markets to self-interest. Risk aversion
is at best a moral ambiguity that must not avoid scrutiny. Much can be said for
example, the dangerously loaded term ‘regime change’. And these two are a
mutually agreeable, hubristic partnership that can only lead to
self-destruction. A destructiveness, which ultimately will pull down many with
them. What risks are there in ‘regime change’?
Risk aversion is a reminder that
we fail as a species. And where we fail is, to recognize this serious flaw in time, in order that the good and
noble to advance successfully for posterity. There must be a certainty in the
statement that we become blind from the glare of our own ambitions. Conceited
motives and attitudes are a danger zone mix. Risk aversion is denial of reality
in politics and social change. The averting of attention away from a reality
about invasion of a country like Iraq for example should render some sense into
us. I do wonder if we have all learnt the lesson?
Recent Comments