Differences between 'enemy' and 'threat' approach

An "enemy approach" to international politics does not serve the American national interest. The other day, an old Tiffin friend to many of us and former professor at Heidelberg and Tiffin Universities, Tom Newcomb, suggested we need to recognize that there is a difference between an "enemy" and a "threat" approach to foreign policy. Tom's professional career was in national security. In his work for both Democrat and Republican administrations, he helped identify threats and limit them. In his view a strong foreign policy focuses on threat prevention rather than enemy elimination. "Enemies" are storybook figures in an imagined picture of reality. They start from the idea that individuals and groups have different interests and that these interests often clash and end with "Good" fighting "evil." They are self-fulfilling prophecies, the more we see "the other" as an enemy and act as if they are, the more "they" see us as their enemy and take stronger defense measures. Defense becomes offence. Both sides see all members of the other group in extreme ways, less like ourselves, less human, more evil. Threat is different. It is what a thoughtful and perceptive person brings back and evaluates from their experiences in the world. Danger arises from many sources, often unintentional, and strongly related to the churn and flow of events. Human societies are complex patterns of myriad choices, ambitions, alliances, aspirations and beliefs. Groups within groups form and regroup, adopt goals, explore tactics. Rarely are they stable "wholes," organized disciplined forces of one mind. And it is always misleading to view groups or people, however well organized, as if they are the same as a single human actor pursuing either benevolent objectives or sinister designs. Such oversimplification is how we like to manage the complexities of our world. It is a false God. Plainly said, it is dangerous. It tempts us to "taste" revenge, an additive drug. It weaponizes our partisan politics. Good guys, bad guys. Enemies and friends. Virtue and evil. It replaces our human qualities with emotions of hatred and the illusion of being part of a holy cause. And then indeed it does produce a threat to peace that borders on evil. We assume that we can "wipe out" the enemy, who in our minds is a single-minded group of people whose death alone will restore peace and order. How often in the past have we gone down this path. This is not to minimize threat. It is real and can be deadly. That is why it is so important that we act rationally, that we identify genuine risks to our well-being and act appropriately. The world can be a hostile environment. We must deal with the problems we face, and extreme threats are the most serious of these problems, without blowing apart everything in sight. The brutal fact of simplistic retaliation is not just the death of innocent people. It is a failure to achieve its supposed goal. Hostility creates hostility. The mathematics are grim. Two new enemies replace the one you kill. And what is done to one's own humanity in the process? And to the future of our own society? The introduction of such absolute objectives into domestic politics will defeat the very idea of democracy. There is no good end to treating our fellow travelers on this planet as targets for elimination. And when we do, the threat, unmanaged, in all probability gets worse, not better. And so do we.