10:41AM
Tom's too optimistic... for teenagers!
Sunday, February 19, 2006 at 10:41AM ARTICLE: "Teens examine theories on peace: Author's plan for better world intrigues youth", By Rachel Troy, 16 Robin Wetherill, 16, Izaak Hayes, 15, and Zoë Hayes, 17, Y-Press, IndyStar.com.
When Tom spoke last month at the Indiana Council on World Affairs at Butler University four members of Y-Press (youth staff) for the Indianapolis Star averaging 16 years of age went to listen. Then they reviewed what they heard. Short version: one for, three against. The 'againsts' generally think Tom is too optimistic. What's wrong with kids these days!?! ;-) But, seriously, go read their thoughts for yourself.
Reader Comments (11)
the kids are alright.
tom is a bit optimistic.....but how bad is that?
All of these young people sound like my son the Navy brat, who's all of 21. Not sure Ms. Hayes's point of reference is really applicable to India as a whole, though.
It's good that some kids do have the ability to understand PNM & BFA. Most kids are more versed in games than the real world.
I think what we see here are young people who judge the vision solely on the basis of what they think they see today in countries, with little appreciation of the movement all of these countries are experiencing, much less what is possible with the passage of time.
It is a serious trick to think long term. When I get, "I just don't see that happening" from people, I'm typically talking to someone who's not able to imagine much beyond the next year or so. And in that sense, they are right: few things actually happen in the next year or so.
But the next year or so only makes up a tiny fraction of the future.
Grand strategy does not come with a time clock, but with an overriding sense of patience.
You want some patience? Talk to a parent, not the child.
now that there are a few comments, i can weigh in with my own opinion: i think part of what we're dealing with here is: it's more hip to be cynical than hopeful.
Another thing to realize, as we have since moving here, is that Indiana is a rather red state.
In RI, my kids never were teased for being Democrats, but here, it's almost a subject not to be raised.
So kids here are naturally more conservative.
I think this is a terrifc article. It's great because it highlights the gap in thinking between war and peace -- the "Everything Else". They either see peace (diplomacy, economic aid, don't start occupying countries and investing in their security) or war/conflict (China expanding their relationships with other countries, which means eventual confrontation), and that gap between them shall not meet.
I used to think along the same lines as these kids do when I was their age (give economic aid, stick with diplomacy, and don't get involved security-wise with another country unless it was in our "national interest"), until I was deployed to the Balkans and later Afghanistan, and I saw firsthand how intertwined economics and security were, and how nothing got done efficiently unless we recognized that relationship. I myself didn't see that connection clearly, although I was aware that there was something there that I was missing, I didn't realize it until after I read TPNM and it suddenly all came together.
Just as I didn't see it then, they don't see it now. Rachel highlights the economic benefit of the Marshall Plan, but doesn't realize the collective security of NATO also played a very important role in Western Europe's development. Robin is glad to hear the notion of co-opting Iran and wishes diplomacy would rise to the forefront of our international discussions (it already does; that's what gets us hundreds of thousands of dead in Sudan and Rwanda - we internationally debate what the word genocide means for several years as the bodies stack). Izaak sees China as a growing threat, and is worried about our economic dependence upon them (an interconnected economic relationship that he fails to see, whose benefits and difficulties work both ways). Zoe believes India should get its own house in order before it gets involved in international security, without acknowledging how dependent India is on the Gap and its incoming flows.
I wish to add that these kids are very intelligent, and far more than I was at their age (and heck, when they're older they'll probably be making more in a month than I do in a year!), so I don't mean to disparage them by discrediting their arguements. Sean's right that kids are a little more cynical nowadays, its that it isn't just these 4 kids that are missing the relationship between economics and security (the "everything else" between war and peace); just go on Amazon or read some of the reviews for Tom's book and you'll clearly see plenty of adults that miss that connection also, and they don't have youth as an excuse. This is the difficult challenge for Tom (one that's not really his fault), because he's virtually ALWAYS emphasizing the "Everything Else", and yet we see plenty of articles where they cherry-pick one of Tom's suggestions and throw out the "everything else", which would bring down Tom to the level of an op-ed columnist (propose a good idea, like co-opting Iran) as opposed to a grand strategist. I apologize for the long post, its just that I think this article perfectly encapsulates the real "resistance" Tom encounters with his strategy; the "Everything Else".
At this age I was pretty much the definition of "realist." I believed that the world was just screwed into perpetual war and the only way to solve it was to blow everything to hell.
However these kids will learn that eventually there is more to the world than "human nature." Reminds me of what Tom once said. People think that certain people around the world lack the "democracy gene."
While I disagree with the three who are against Tom's view of the world, I know that eventually they will learn more and start to view the world not as chaos but an opportunity for peace and a future worth creating! Their only problem now is everything is just too plain for them and they don't know all of the complexities in international relations/politics/economics. But props to them.
On a side note, I am pleased to see that not all younguns are as stupid as some people think! Makes me more happy and hopeful for the future.
For true patience, consider the grandparent. How does this translate politically; Bush 41, others?
During a detail from the Pentagon to the White House during the Bush 41 Vice Presidency, there was a senior council--graybeards--assembled to oversee our effort. They were wise, vastly experienced, bipartisan, and had no political ax to grind--grandparents. Interestingly, one of them was Dick Cheney.
Are our grandparents grossly underutilized?
They remind me of me when I was that age, and for much of my time in college.
I was aware of globalization and the relative peace it was supposed to bring, but I didn't want it to be true. A world of geopolitical Great Games between great powers and big sexy wars seemed so much more interesting than a global socio-economic melting pot. I wanted my Cold War, or World War.
Now, a bit older, and with a far greater appreciation for the finer things in life, putting politics aside in favor of business and pleasure seems more interesting.
Funny how things work out like that. I suspect many of these young skeptics will turn out the same.
There have been many comments about how the 'kids' lack experience, or that their generation is more cynical as a whole. This may be true. But to dismiss their ideas on these grounds is unfair; one shouldn't dismiss clear and thoughtful arguments because of who is saying it, even if they are 'younguns'. It's sort of a cop-out, no? Ignoring placations I think these essays are wrong because:
Rachel argues that defeated peoples will reject aid. Two points. One, the country that is in need of rebuilding shouldn’t have an overwhelming majority of the people supporting the overthrown regime. The Gap usually doesn’t work well. Two, it’s worked before – you mentioned the Marsall Plan. It isn’t easy but it isn’t impossible.
Robin agrees with Tom, specifically on dealing with Iran. Fair enough, but I’ve always thought M.A.D. is well… MAD – especially in light of all the anti-Israel commentary lately.
Izaak is uncomfortable with China as a superpower. China would never ‘want all of its debts repaid immediately’ since world economics don’t work in this way. Furthermore China’s economy is highly intertwined with the US economy and either country failing on a massive scale would devastate both. Finally, I think the US being #2 in a well functioning world, free of the disease and poverty known today, is much better than being #1 when all hell breaks loose.
Zoë doesn’t think India is ready for the responsibly of a world commitment. I am not well versed on India, but I acknowledge that this is a concern. Don’t want to over-stretch a New Core country before it gets a chance to fully sublimate into a fully integrated functional Core country (that would be a devastating blow to wannabe New Core’s morale). That being said when you have too many people getting them something to do is a good thing – look at the New Deal. Using India's population (one of their biggest resources) seems like a good play to me.
Truth be told, when I got home Monday night and reread the article in print, I was very impressed by their reasoning. Still unhappy they misinterpret me so, but I was impressed for their age.