At the time of writing, we have no idea what’s going to happen with Syria. In fact, we have no idea what happened in Syria to start this whole thing. What I do know is that the situation is a global example of what goes on in our offices, in our families, and in other interactions. And if we want it to be resolved peacefully (and hopefully it has been) then we may need to take a look at how we’re dealing with similar situations in our own lives.
I suppose under all the Knower/Judger rhetoric about the Syria situation there is some real data. When one opens their mind to explore the doubt, I have to believe that somebody knows:
· How many people died, if any. I don’t know.
· If chemical weapons were used. I don’t know.
· If chemical weapons were used, who used them? (There is certainly the possibility the victims used it on their own people to garner worldwide attention.) I don’t know.
· Whether this Russian deal to remove and store said weapons is their idea or ours, or even exists. I don’t know.
Count the unclear data points in this global debate. All we (and presumably the rest of the world) have to go on is the spin our government, the Syrian government, the Syrian rebels, our press, the foreign press, and other totally agendized sources want to put on it.
Show me the reality.
Then I’ll form an opinion.
CNN doesn’t do it for me. Neither does Fox. If I want one of my particular K/J opinions backed up, I’m sure I can find a similar opinion professed as truth in any number of places.
I’m neither a fan nor a detractor of President Obama. He’s not the first president to point the finger at a foreign government and declare it dangerous enough to warrant military action. But this particular unfolding event has a lot of similarities to the last one where we launched a military action based on assumed weapons of destruction.
One of two things is happening here. Either the current administration knows (with irrefutable proof) that chemical weapons were used in violation of the Geneva Convention, or they’re using the situation to justify military action for some other reason. We simply don’t know.
Why don’t we know?
Because what’s playing out now has almost nothing to do with the reality of the alleged war crime. It has to do with K/J egos of world leaders playing out on the world stage.
Recall that I’ve written about the architecture of the office debate. The boss declares “blah, blah, blah.” And you say, “That can’t be, boss… you’re wrong.” Where does that argument go? The boss plants his feet and blocks out any chance you have of him seeing your data, right?
Same thing with Syria. Obama draws a line in the sand (so did Bush, so don’t go calling me a Tea Party guy). This line is the equivalent of the boss’s “blah, blah, blah.” And the Syrian president, Assad, tells him he’s errant in his assumptions. Boom! We’re off and running. And nobody’s backing down. Obama’s operating from his K/J set of rules. Guess what? Those aren’t the rules in Syria… or anywhere else in the Middle East. So Assad operates from his.
It’s no longer about the chemical weapons. It’s about my rules vs. your rules. My K/J vs yours.
Recall also that my experience is that without somebody backing down, even an argument about how toilet paper is supposed to come off the roll will escalate until somebody dies. Osama bin Laden learned that lesson. Nobody backed down. He was hunted down and killed. End of K/J debate.
Please understand that I am not advocating that anything here is right or wrong. I’m only attempting to show the architecture of how arguments (no matter how small and insignificant) can grow to global proportions.
So what are the possible outcomes in the Syria drama? Let’s explore.
- The U.S. throws up its hands, says we made a mistake (or finds a way to do so diplomatically), and stands down.
- Assad says, “Yup. We had the chemicals but somebody can take them away now.” (Or finds a way to do so diplomatically.)
- The U.S. follows through on the declared “red line” (with or without irrefutable evidence) and launches a military action. Who knows where the chess game goes from there?
Let’s go back to your office.
Which one produces the best outcome for everybody involved? (Replacing U.S. with your boss and Assad with you.)
If I were to vote for my favorite, I’d pick “B”. That requires the other guy to be in his L/R and see that sticking to his rules may not be productive to his future. But “A” would be a close second. And that’s a choice we actually have control over. We can be the party that backs away in the best interest of the whole world (or of the whole office). Given what you actually know about the Syrian debacle, what would your choice be? Give us a reply.
This article was penned September 11, so it is with that in mind that I retain my L/R objectivity and explore the doubt. Without people doing that our world will grow to nothing but K/Js pushing and shoving their agendas and their personal rules of life. Who’s with me? If you are, commit to recognizing when your own K/J is filtering out data and discoloring reality.
Peace. On the planet and in your office!