Keep Your Friends Close And Your Enemies Fat? Trust The Answer

It wasn’t Godfather Michael Corleone who first uttered this well-known dictum. It actually came from Machiavelli in The Prince, the definitive introduction to being a dictator. One might think that with my easygoing optimism I would never write a blog on the subject. But, on the contrary!

As a manager or leader, it is inevitable that we will want to expand our knowledge base, try to sell ideas, onboard people and even change the direction of our organization. One of the people involved could be your enemy. This is my basic rationale for acting on Machiavelli’s instincts.

In the business context, I refer to “enemy” as a person you need to interact with, someone who is competing for your resources, who doesn’t live up to their commitments, who you don’t trust, who has “chemistry” with them. is not there, or which fundamentally contradicts your view. These are also people you need to help you achieve your own personal and organizational goals. As both a manager and a consultant, I have found a number of people who fit into the same box. In short, I found Machiavelli very useful to my own success.

But there are a number of extremely important reasons why you should keep your enemies close:

1. You can learn a lot from people you don’t like. In fact, it’s best not always to come from friends. Often it is from opponents, opponents or fence sitters. They bring a different worldview, perspective and/or ideas on a topic of common interest. There are many times when such a person can help improve my thinking and viewpoint on a subject.

2. You must keep your enemies close to understand their perspective and interests. One of the persuasion strategies I learned from Bill Howell years ago was the importance of creating a highly representative “panel” of usually around six people who would represent the diversity of commitments or opinions on an issue. If I could formulate my proposal in a way that satisfied the self-interests of each of these six, I was well on my way to success. Of course, this requirement meant that each person had to be close enough to me to be well understood. To be honest, I usually understood my enemies better than my friends.

3. When your enemies are nearby, it will be easier for your allies to work with you. Allies are often the least helpful in analyzing your ideas. Additionally, your allies may have as much trouble with your enemy as you do, and that’s one of the reasons you’re friends. But your allies will respect you and find it easier to work with you when they know you really understand the state of the country – and how to appeal to your enemy’s self-interest.

[Also see my latest on how to keep your enemies closer.]

Determining your enemy’s motives requires a significant amount of guesswork. One of the best ways to get to know this person is to listen to how they persuade others. People want the world to live up to their expectations and live up to their predictions. So when they try to persuade others, they use tactics that would persuade them. Watch them, listen to them and analyze what they say and how they say it. Their interests and values ​​can often be derived from this.

Finally, it must be said that you cannot keep your enemy close to you unless you know how to disagree in a pleasant way, understand and share at least some of your enemy’s interests or values, are sometimes transparent about your differences, and willing are to interact with that person in a social situation. In such situations, it is important to find out what this person wants that you can give them. Second, figuring out what resources you need to offer them so that they give you what you want is just as important. Don’t forget that some of the resources we each have are information and contacts.

In short, if you dig deep enough, there are always some interests and values ​​that you share with your enemies. Most of us like to talk about our differences, but in reality we are all much more alike than different. Inherently, that also means you know how to really have a conversation. But that also implies that you can listen and observe as if that person is the only other person on the planet. Machiavelli is Frontlobe stuff: keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

Flickr photo: unriobravo

Enemies activate your potential and friends keep you in your comfort zone

So learn to love your enemies more than your friends.

Everyone has enemies because it is impossible to be loved by everyone. Your life is filled with yourself, your friends and your enemies. Man is subject to situations and feelings. Your friends can become your enemies and vice versa.

There are different ways people deal with friends and enemies. In our society, people will try to have more friends for fear of loneliness and isolation. They bare the insults and criticism for the same reason. People are afraid to confront their haters because they believe the person might become a threat to their normal life in some way. But keeping them alive is more dangerous because they have physical and mental access to you. The friend is a vague word because whoever wants to support you in a positive way is a friend at all times, but this is variable over time. Therefore, “Your current friends can be your future enemies” and “Only your best friend has the potential to become your worst enemy”.

You can either fight back or ignore or avoid. But many people do not confront and remain unresponsive. The best thing you can do is give them space in your mind. Enemies should have their own space in our mind. What they say, do, and plan should be channeled into this space. Enemies come from our own social environment. So treat them like dogs, not in the “ignore when they bark” sense. If you tame a dog for a while, he’ll come back to your house no matter how many times you send him out. So it’s better to keep it in a corner where you will rarely go. You can then say you’re welcome, you can stay here, but I don’t give a damn what you say or do.

Friends will support you in bad times, and enemies create those bad times. This is how your true enemy reveals who your true friend is. And remember: “A fake hug is more dangerous than a slap in the face”. A disguised friend who is actually your enemy is called Frenemy. Enemies will hate, but enemies will have jealousy. Frenemies are more dangerous because they can stab you in the back with the access they have to your life. Jealousy is a stronger emotion than hate.

In order to win against the enemies, you should not play the game. The game should not be played against your enemy as this mental energy will be wasted. You should do bigger things and become a true capitalist by producing and creating things, defeating your enemy becomes a side effect. Their jealous cries reach you and make you laugh like a monster.

Remember – man should not be afraid to break up a relationship where respect is lost. Fighting back is an old idea, because defeating the enemy is a temporary pleasure. You should have goals and people will come and go on your journey.

My inspiration is the poem “Prisoner in Dungen deep” in which a friendless man lives happily even after a life sentence but dies after knowing his enemies are dead. Because he lives to get revenge on them. This is the power of the enemies and you can use the fire to create wonders. It’s okay to make friends, but learn to make enemies. Having a strong enemy is more important than having a good friend.

My enemies are the secret of my passion for life. Whatever I achieve in life, I honestly and wholeheartedly dedicate to my worst enemies.

Verse in the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament

Matthew 5:44, the forty-fourth verse in the fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament, also found in Luke 6:27-36,[1] is part of the Sermon on the Mount. This is the second verse of the last antithesis on the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself. In the chapter, Jesus refutes the teaching of some that one should “hate [his] enemies.”

Content [edit]

The Greek text of Matthew 5:42-45 with an ornamented headpiece on folio 51 recto of Lectionary 240 (12th century)

In the King James Version of the Bible the text reads:

But I say to you: Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who abuse you maliciously and persecute you;[2]

The World English Bible translates the passage as follows:

But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who abuse and persecute you[3]

The text of the Novum Testamentum Graece reads:

ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν

καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑμᾶς

Many modern translations (based on the Alexandrian manuscripts) omit part of this verse. For example, the New International Version says, “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”[4]

Forerunners [ edit ]

Ulrich Luz states that the ideas expressed in this verse “are regarded as Christian distinction and innovation” and that the command “Love your enemies” distinguishes Christianity from all previous religions.[5] Nolland disagrees, seeing a number of historical precedents. This includes the Babylonian text Counselor of Wisdom, which says: “Do not ill reward the man who disputes with you; repay your wrongdoer with kindness…smile at your opponent.”[6] Nolland also cites the Egyptian instruction of Amenemope, who says:

Rowing that we can take the bad man away

For we will not act according to his evil nature;

lift him up, give him your hand,

And leave him in the hands of God;

Fill his intestines with your own food

That he can be fed and ashamed.[7]

Similarly, the Book of Proverbs says:

If your enemies are hungry, give them bread to eat;

and if they are thirsty, give them water to drink.[8]

Nolland claims that parallels should be seen in the works of Greek and Roman writers such as Cicero, Seneca and the Cynics.[6] John Piper reports that the Greek Stoics also discouraged their followers from taking revenge, but Piper explains that their primary concern was to keep their calm rather than to seek the advantage of the enemy as Jesus commands.[ 9]

Historical context[ edit ]

“Enemies” is a broad term for all types of enemies and adversaries. In this verse persecutors are specifically mentioned; At the time of its writing (roughly the last quarter of the 1st century), the Christian community had recently faced significant persecution under Nero. The entire Jewish community was subject to Roman persecution both in the time of Jesus and later in the 1st century[10][11] (see History of the Jews in the Roman Empire, Persecution of Christians in the New Testament, and Anti-Christian Politics in the Roman Empire) .

Interpretations[edit]

love [edit]

The meaning of the word love is more limited in Greek than in English. Barclay notes that there were four different words in Greek that are usually translated as love. The Greek words for love for a family member, stergein; sexual love, eros; and deep affection, philia; are not used in this verse. Rather, the author uses agapan from Matthew, which Barclay translates as continued benevolence. This term occurs seven more times in Matthew and 140 times in the NT.[12]

Reception [edit]

Christian tradition[ edit ]

The author of Matthew places this verse in the final antithesis, a summary of everything that was said in the sermon. Early church thinkers also saw this as one of the most important teachings of Jesus.

Activists and social theorists[ edit ]

The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche argued in his treatise On the Genealogy of Morals (1887) that loving one’s enemy is weakness and dishonesty (see master-slave morality).[13][14][15][16][17][18 ]

Gene Sharp believed that in order for activists to achieve their desired policy changes, it was not necessary for activists to express their love for their opponents or convert those opponents to their perspective. Instead, following James Farmer, Sharp emphasized that non-violent tactics can be used to force those in power to give in to popular demands through public pressure.[19] Martin Luther King said of this passage: “It is so fundamental to me because it is part of my fundamental philosophical and theological orientation – the whole idea of ​​love, the whole philosophy of love.”[20]

Glossa Ordinaria: “The Lord taught above that we must not resist anyone who harms us, but be ready to suffer more; He now further challenges us to show both love and its effects to those who wrong us. And as the things that have gone before relate to the consummation of the righteousness of the law, so is this last precept related to the consummation of the law of love, which according to the apostle is the fulfillment of the law. ”

Augustine: “That the commandment “Thou shalt love thy neighbor” meant all men was shown by the Lord in the parable of the half-dead, which teaches us that our neighbor is anyone who may at any time need our service of mercy; and whoever does not see, no one shall be withheld from him, when the Lord says: Do good to those who hate you.

Augustine: “That there were degrees in the righteousness of the Pharisees, which was under the ancient law, is here seen in that many hated even those whom they were loved hate his enemy, which is expressed therein, and shall hate his enemy.” , which is not to be understood as a command to the just, but as a concession to the weak.

Glossa Ordinaria: “But it should be known that nowhere in the entire text of the law is it written: You shall hate your enemy the law, because the Lord commanded the children of Israel to pursue their enemies and to destroy Amalek from under heaven.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: “As it was said, Thou shalt not covet, not to the flesh but to the spirit, so here the flesh cannot love its enemy, but the spirit can; for the love and hate of the flesh is in mind, but the spirit is in mind. Then, when we feel hatred for someone who has wronged us, and yet do not want to act on that feeling, know that our flesh hates our enemy, but our soul loves him.”

Gregory the Great: “Love for an enemy is observed when we are not sad at his success or rejoicing at his fall. We hate him, whom we do not wish to surpass, and wish with ill will the prosperity of the man in him, yet it may often happen, without any sacrifice of charity, that the fall of an enemy pleases us, and his exaltation again without a trace of envy makes sad, when by his fall every deserving man is resurrected, or undeservedly depressed by his success. But here a rigorous measure of judgment must be exercised, lest we conceal our own hate from ourselves under the pretense of benefiting others. We should weigh how much we owe to the fall of the sinner and how much to the justice of the judge. For when the Almighty has smitten a hardened sinner, we must immediately glorify his righteousness as judge and sympathize with the suffering of the other who perishes.”

Glossa Ordinaria: “Those who oppose the Church oppose her in three ways: with hatred, with words and with physical torture. The Church, on the other hand, loves them as they are here, loves your enemies, do good to them as it is, do good to those who hate you and pray for them as it is, pray for those who persecute you and falsely accuse you.”

Jerome: “Many who measure the commandments of God by their own weakness, and not by the strength of the saints, consider these commandments impossible, and say that it is virtue enough not to hate our enemies, but that to love them is a commandment, that goes beyond human to obey nature. But it must be understood that Christ commands perfection, not impossibilities. Such was the temper of David toward Saul and Absalom; the martyr Stephen also prayed for his enemies while they were stoning him, and Paul wished for the ban on his persecutors. (Rom. 9:3.) Jesus taught and did the same, saying, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they are doing” (Luke 23:34.)”

Augustine: “These are examples indeed of the perfect sons of God; yet every believer should strive and seek by prayer to God and wrestle with himself to raise his human spirit to that temperament. Yet this blessing so great is not given to all the crowds that we believe will be heard when they pray: Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.

See also[edit]

References[ edit ]

Accession number: ADA440962

Title: Sun Tzu, Clausewitz and the Importance of Knowing Yourself and Your Enemy

Descriptive Note: Essay

Corporate Author: NATIONAL WAR COLL WASHINGTON DC

Report date: 1994-01-01

Pagination or media count: 13.0

Abstract:

Sun Tzu said: Know the enemy and know yourself. In a hundred battles you will never be in danger. If you don’t know the enemy but you know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are the same. If you do not know both your enemy and yourself, you are sure that you are in danger in every battle. This deceptively simple instruction, properly applied, is essential both to making a sound decision to go to war and to strategic and tactical planning once that decision is made. Clausewitz developed this instruction further. The purpose of this essay is to apply Sun Tzu’s direction, drawing on principles similar to those articulated by Clausewitz, to determine what modern times require at the national strategy, national military, and operational level to to know oneself and one’s enemy. The author will then show that in Vietnam and Somalia the United States got into situations where it knew neither itself nor the enemy, while the United States succeeded in Desert Storm because it knew both. Finally, an assessment is made of the level at which knowledge of oneself and the enemy is most important.

On January 22, 2007, Washington Institute Wexler-Fromer Fellow Martin Kramer spoke at the seventh annual Herzliya Conference on Israel’s National Security Balance. These are his remarks.

My role here this morning is to serve as a proxy for “the enemy.” Now it might have been more interesting to invite “the enemy” in and let them speak for themselves. But Israel has so many enemies it’s hard to know where to begin. And once you move beyond “enemy” to include “regional opponents” like our panel title does, the list gets long. If I then define these opponents from a dual perspective, American and Israeli, the list becomes a Who’s Who. These include states like Iran and Syria, a range of Islamist movements, Sunnis and Shiites, as well as insurgents and terrorists of all stripes. As someone once said, friends come and go, but enemies accumulate.

So in just ten minutes I can give you just a taste of what Israel and the United States might look like towards a composite enemy, someone you couldn’t invite because he doesn’t exist. And to get you in the mood, I’ll do it in the first person. I know it’s hard, but think of me as a sort of amalgamation of Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad, Hassan Nasrallah, Osama bin Laden, Bashar al-Asad, Muqtada al-Sadr and Khaled Mashal. You’ll admit it’s a good disguise; good enough to get me through the security chain in front of this hall.

Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Rahim.

In the name of God, the merciful, the merciful. I’m flattered that you want to get to know me better. Coincidentally, the phrase “know your enemy” is not in our Holy Quran, but it does come from the ancient Chinese general Sun Tzu. The full quote is as follows: “Know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be defeated. If you don’t know the enemy but you know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal. If you ignore both your enemy and yourself, you will surely be defeated in every battle.

Now it is true that your societies are self-critical. The purpose of your famous conference is to get a good look at yourself. We track it most closely because it tells us your strengths and weaknesses. This self-awareness works in your favor. But luckily for us, your knowledge of us is deeply flawed. That’s the main reason why you lost every other fight.

It’s not that you don’t understand our decision-making processes. Your intelligence services probably have a good idea of ​​who reports to whom in Damascus and Tehran and among our brethren in Hamas, Hezbollah, the Sunni mujahideen in Iraq and al-Qaeda. What you don’t begin to understand is how we see the world.

To sum up your problem in one sentence: You don’t trust us to have what you have, namely a vision. In America and Israel, you keep your greatest thinkers in tanks, where they come up with great vision and strategy. These minds produce fresh ideas on how to craft a “new Middle East” to your liking. Then give these ideas impressive names: peace process, globalization, democratization. Your ideas usually fail, but you keep generating them because you have a sense of destiny. And your destiny, you think, is to remake the world in your image.

Too often you are unwilling to trust us to have our own visions. And when you hear snippets of our own big ideas – a map without Israel, a resurrected caliphate and so on – you say, oh, that’s not really meant to be taken seriously. No, rest assured, all Muslims want is for us to deal with some of their grievances and accommodate some of their interests. A gesture from you here, a concession from you there, and before you know it you’ll think you’ve made us your servants.

We find it amusing how you convince yourself that all it takes is one more gesture, one more concession, to get your way.

Here are some examples we have collected from your press, mainly Haaretz. If Israel would only give up the Shebaa farms, our brothers in Hezbollah would give up their arms. If only our imprisoned combatants were released by Israel, we would allow your “peace process” to be renewed. If the United States would just wink at Syria across the Golan, our brother Asad would drop Iran. If only Iran were given economic incentives, it would abandon its nuclear program. If only Hamas were recognized, it would recognize Israel in return. If Israel only acknowledged responsibility for the plight of the refugees, the Palestinians would shelve the “right of return”.

And on and on. There is even someone at Harvard who claims that al Qaeda “will likely end the war it has declared in exchange for some measure of satisfaction over its grievances”. Our al-Qaeda brothers felt offended: just what do they have to do to be seen as visionaries and not as angry Arabs with so-called “grievances”?

Not one of these “if-thens” is true; We’ve told you again and again. Still, you are disappointed when your “generous offers” are spurned. The offers are generous, so you think; but for us, such “generosity” is a sign of weakness, a signpost reassuring us that we are on the way to realizing our grand vision.

And we have a big vision. It is ingrained in our hearts as deeply as the idea of ​​freedom and liberty is ingrained in yours. Our leaders, thinkers, intellectuals and ministers have given it to millions of people. Countless are willing to fight for it. It exists in several versions – Islamist, Arab, nationalist. But in the end, all of these versions revolve around the same idea, and it’s this:

We Arabs and Muslims can and must take our fate into our own hands. That means tearing the Middle East apart from America and its extension, Israel. So every move we make has the ultimate purpose of pushing you back, out, and away. We have no interest in “final settlements” or a “new Middle East” that would consolidate the status quo. We are out to conquer you – and replace your vision with our own.

You may think this is impossible. We admit it: the Arab and Muslim world is not a place of great technological achievement. She struggles with poverty, illiteracy and ignorance to a terrifying extent. But our cadres have taken Sun Tzu to heart. We know our way around and have studied you carefully from Bint Jbeil to Baghdad. We demand sacrifices from our followers, but we promise them victory and prepare for it. Of course we make mistakes; we are human too. But all in all, we played a weak hand skillfully while you played a strong hand poorly.

Now you can treat yourself to a short breather from us, because unfortunately Sunnis and Shiites are at each other’s throats. Your diplomats whisper to you that this is an opportunity. don’t be happy If Sunnis and Shias can demonize and massacre each other – Muslims who profess the same faith, speak the same language, share the same culture – what does that mean to you? The dispute between Sunnis and Shias is a warning to you: our visions, our history, never go away, they always come back.

Leaving the Chinese general aside, we end with a quote from our own bin Laden. “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, they will naturally like the strong horse.” He’s right. We don’t feel that you are weak, but that you are getting weaker. We see America’s “wise men” laying out an alternative plan for Iraq consisting of gestures to us disguised under the flimsy euphemism of a “new diplomatic offensive.” We hear America’s top-ranked foreign policy analyst declare that “the American era in the Middle East is over.” And Israel, defeated in the summer, is now debating concessions and initiatives to us, all of which indicate that Israel is anxious to avoid further defeats.

We know you will launch further offensives to reverse your decline, or at least create the illusion of a reversal. We expect many “surges”. We can’t defeat you in a direct confrontation yet. But you are already defeating yourself, in your think tanks, in your universities, in your editorial offices, in the conclaves of your “sages”.

Finally, you ask us about the place of Iran’s nuclear program in our vision. It’s an excellent question. Unfortunately for you, Martin Kramer’s time is up. We’ll bring it back to you – intact.

Mario Puzo,

“Tom, don’t let anyone fool you. It’s all personal, every bit of business. Every piece of shit every man has to eat every day of his life is personal. They call it business. OK. But it’s damn personal. Do you know where I learned that from? the Don. my old man The Godfather. If lightning struck a friend of his, the old man would take it personally. He took my entry into the Marines personally. That’s what makes him great. The Big Don. He takes everything personally like God. He knows every feather that falls off a sparrow’s tail, or how the hell does it go? Right? And do you know something? Accidents don’t happen to those who take accidents as a personal insult.”

Source: Andrey Arkusha/Shutterstock

Bethany*, a mother of two, told me that her best friend suddenly left her: “I don’t understand. One day we’re closer than sisters and the next we’re not speaking.”

Liane, a preschool teacher, said: “My best friend just stabbed me in the back. How could that happen?”

Keisha, an account executive, said, “There’s been a lot going on at work and everyone’s tense. But my closest friend at the office and I always said we’d get through this together. And now I find out she threw me under the bus.”

“Frenemies,” the popular term for best friends-turned-enemies, is usually used in reference to teenage relationships. But both in my psychotherapeutic practice and in interviews I conducted for my new book on female friendships**, I have heard time and time again about this painful and sometimes surprising turning point in the lives of women of all ages around the world. And the anecdotes are backed up by scientific research: According to a study reported in Jan Yager’s book on friendship, 68 percent of respondents have been cheated on by a friend at some point. But with frenemies, betrayal can be followed by reconciliation and being BFFs again, only to destroy the friendship and start the whole cycle all over again.

How does this happen? Why? And what’s the best way to react when it happens to you? (Another question: does it really happen more in women than in men?)

Recent research into something called “friendship chemistry” offers some insight. “Interpersonal chemistry,” a relatively new concept that has been studied in romantic relationships, also exists in friendships, according to a group of psychologists at California State University in San Bernardino. Defined as “an instant emotional and psychological connection between two people,” this chemistry can quickly impact who we connect with and even how that relationship will play out over the long term.

Psychologist Kelly Campbell and her team conducted interviews and distributed questionnaires to a sample of 688 men and women between the ages of 18 and 66. Campbell and her colleagues Nicole Holderness and Matt Riggs found five important factors in friendship chemistry:

1. Mutual openness or mutual understanding and easy communication.

2. Mutual interest or fun in the same things and even finding the same things funny.

3. Sympathy or warm-heartedness and caring, down-to-earthness and genuineness.

4. Similarity, as in values, morals, beliefs about life, life goals, and education.

5. Physical attraction.

The study’s sample consisted mostly of women – 81 men and 607 women – making it difficult to determine whether men and women struggle with the same problems. For the most part, I’ve heard these stories from women (although not entirely, as you can read in my post about friends who hurt you).

In the 1990s, Pat O’Connor highlighted some of these factors in her research on female friendships. Another study published in 2014 by a group of researchers from Utrecht and Stockholm Universities found that convenience plays an important role in forming and maintaining friendships for both men and women. This study, led by Gerald Mollenhorst of Utrecht University, showed that social context, a way of talking about the ease with which we might meet a friend and the comfort of the environment in which we see them, is important for both men is important and women’s friendships.

It seems logical that a friendship changes when that context changes in some way. And in some of these shifts, friends can become enemies. When the context changes again, you may feel close again, although if it happens often enough, you may wonder if the friendship is worth the roller coaster ride.

For example, if you and a co-worker are in fairly similar positions at work, you might develop a positive and collegial work friendship; but when the position above you both becomes vacant and one or both wish to apply for the job, the context changes immediately: you are no longer the same; They are competitors. In many cases, healthy friendships can handle change, but when they don’t, a once supportive friend can become an enemy.

That’s exactly what happened to Keisha and her former officemate: “Instead of being supportive, she became manipulative. She snuggled up to our new boss, and before I knew what had happened, she was promoted to a position I had been in the queue for. And she acted like she didn’t understand why I could be upset. I can’t even bear to be around her anymore.”

The same dynamic that creates friendship chemistry in the first place can be a reason close friends become enemies. Frenemies often develop when there is a sense of betrayal on one side or the other. For example, a close friend may be after a man or woman you are interested in or a house you want to buy. You feel betrayed, hurt and angry. You don’t think you can ever trust that friend again. And maybe the feeling of betrayal and disillusionment is stronger when it’s contrasted with a primal feeling that you really like and could trust that person. It’s painful to discover that someone you thought shared your values ​​and was open and honest with you turns out not to be what you thought they were. You begin to reject the person with an intensity commensurate with the care and affection that once existed between you.

So what can you do when your BFF has just become your worst enemy? The advice professionals give to parents of children hurt by this kind of transition applies to all of us.

1. Try talking to your friend to find out what’s going on on their side. Maybe they really misjudged a situation or really had no idea you were going to get hurt.

2. If your friend refuses to take responsibility or tries to downplay or negate your feelings, try to put your thoughts into words anyway. Say it simply and clearly, if possible without accusations. Listen to what they have to say and acknowledge that you will think about it.

3. Take a step back. Daniel Goleman, who has written numerous books on emotional intelligence, tells us that very few arguments will convince anyone of anything and that after 20 minutes there is no chance either side will change their mind. So after you and your friend have each made your point, end the discussion with the agreement that you’ll both think more about what you said. And then go. Move on to other things.

4. Cool down. Go for a walk, listen to music, call another friend or someone you trust.

5. Assess your own part in the situation. Did you do something that hurt your friend, either accidentally or on purpose? Could this be what triggered some of their behaviors? If so, taking responsibility for your part is almost always productive. Own it, and maybe if you’re lucky, your friend will do the same and also take responsibility for what he or she did.

Finally, whatever the outcome, remember:

6. Try not to take it personally. Of course, take responsibility for everything you’ve done. But try to remind yourself that everything that friend—or former friend—does is also motivated by his or her own needs, psyche, and behavior. Thinking about this side of the coin can help you be more empathetic, but it can also help you detach from the situation. Sometimes, when a friend is constantly hurting your feelings or stabbing you in the back, or when a friendship cannot sustain a life change, your best psychological measure is to know that the friendship must end. Jeanne Safer, a New York psychotherapist, writes about realizing she could never trust a dear friend who disappeared from her life when Jeanne was hospitalized with a serious illness. Accepting that this woman couldn’t be the friend she wanted was both liberating and self-affirming.

*Names and identifying information have all been changed to protect everyone’s privacy

Keep an eye out for my new book on friendship with women – I Know How You Feel: The Joy and Heartbreak of Friendship in Women’s Lives.

Follow me on Twitter @fdbarthlcsw.

Copyright @fdbarth2017.

It takes a lot of courage to stand up to your enemies, but it takes a lot more to stand up to your friends.

Friendships can be complicated, and they come with their fair share of ups and downs. Sometimes, however, it can be difficult to tell when your co-workers have your best interests at heart, so it’s important to look out for signs that your friend is more of an “enemy.” Your relationships should make you feel good and help make your life better, and if you’re starting to feel different, it might be time to reevaluate your friendships.

“The term frenemy, a seamless blend of the words friend and foe, refers to someone who pretends to be a friend but is actually an enemy—a proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing in the world of friendships,” says Irene S. Levine. Psychologist, friendship expert and producer of the online advice column www.TheFriendshipBlog.com, via email. “If you think about it, most of us have had an enemy at some point, either at school, at work, or in our neighborhood.”

Sometimes social or work commitments require us to spend time with that “enemy,” but it’s important that you recognize the difference between someone who hangs around because they have to and someone who will have your back for years to come. If there’s someone in your life you’re not sure about, look out for these 11 signs your friend is actually an enemy.

1 They Talk Behind Your Back Pexels Frenemies may not always be rude to you, but they definitely won’t hesitate to talk negatively about you when you’re not around. “They smile a lot and act nice to you, but the reality is they talk and gossip behind your back,” relationship expert Audrey Hope says via email.

2 They Don’t Celebrate Your Victories Pexels A true friend is happy for you when you achieve something. “For example, if you get a promotion or get engaged and they’re not really happy for you, that’s a sign,” relationship coach Tiya Cunningham-Sumter says via email. “If they never seem to show up for any of the events that celebrate you, he or she is your enemy.”

3 They Point Out All the Negatives in Your Life Pexels “Another sign is constant negativity,” says Cunningham-Sumter. “If they can always immediately identify what’s wrong in your life or why something isn’t working in your situation, they could be your enemy. This person could secretly aim for your failure.”

4 You’re Highly Competitive According to Unsplash, “Some competition is natural, but if you find that your friend frequently competes with you, especially in ways that make you feel bad, they could be an enemy,” says psychologist Dr. Helen Odessky via email. “Some signs try to trump you in conversation and minimize or devalue your accomplishments.”

5 They’re Passive-Aggressive Unsplash “Some enemies may not employ common bullying tactics, but instead resort to passive aggression because for some reason it’s deemed more socially acceptable,” says life coach Kali Rogers via email. “These enemies will subtly put you down in public, make fun of you where it hurts, and always take jokes too far at your expense. They will do anything to bring you down without leaving any actual evidence behind.”

6 Conversations Are Always About Them Pexels A frenemy is usually self-centered and they love it when the conversation is about themselves. “If you have a friend who talks endlessly about themselves and their problems but doesn’t think about you or yours, you’re dealing with a narcissistic nat,” etiquette expert Sharon Schweitzer says via email. “Her role to them is simply to listen and acknowledge and expect nothing in return.”

7 They’re Selfish With Their Time Pexels Because they’re so self-absorbed, an enemy has little respect for other people’s time. “If you’ve made plans and have to get to the concert by 8 p.m., don’t find it unusual if you don’t finish before 9 p.m.,” says Schweitzer. “This guy may just not even acknowledge that there’s a problem, or he may find excuses like ‘I was tired and didn’t want to move’ perfectly acceptable.

8 They Take Advantage of You Pexels Do you have a friend who just rummages through the fridge without being asked or feels entitled to your stuff? “Friends should generally share and be gracious hosts to their guests, but some people take and abuse the hospitality of others,” says Schweitzer. “This enemy seems to have no idea that things in their friend’s house do not belong to them.”

9 They make you feel like an accessory Unsplash An enemy likes to appear popular by having lots of friends around as accessories. “They invite you in ‘just in case the party gets ‘bored’ and leave you alone in the corner when someone more interesting comes along,” says Schweitzer. “They’re cute, but if you ignore or decline their invitation, they tend to overreact.”

10 They Enjoy Drama Pexels No friendship runs smoothly, but an enemy enjoys conflict. “An enemy thrives on friendships that are always in crisis mode,” says Schweitzer. “They constantly seek sympathy in the 11th hour, but never advice. For them something is wrong when nothing is wrong.”

How to nurture and nurture friendships

Verse in the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament

Matthew 5:44, the forty-fourth verse in the fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament, also found in Luke 6:27-36,[1] is part of the Sermon on the Mount. This is the second verse of the last antithesis on the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself. In the chapter, Jesus refutes the teaching of some that one should “hate [his] enemies.”

Content [edit]

The Greek text of Matthew 5:42-45 with an ornamented headpiece on folio 51 recto of Lectionary 240 (12th century)

In the King James Version of the Bible the text reads:

But I say to you: Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who abuse you maliciously and persecute you;[2]

The World English Bible translates the passage as follows:

But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who abuse and persecute you[3]

The text of the Novum Testamentum Graece reads:

ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν

καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑμᾶς

Many modern translations (based on the Alexandrian manuscripts) omit part of this verse. For example, the New International Version says, “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”[4]

Forerunners [ edit ]

Ulrich Luz states that the ideas expressed in this verse “are regarded as Christian distinction and innovation” and that the command “Love your enemies” distinguishes Christianity from all previous religions.[5] Nolland disagrees, seeing a number of historical precedents. This includes the Babylonian text Counselor of Wisdom, which says: “Do not ill reward the man who disputes with you; repay your wrongdoer with kindness…smile at your opponent.”[6] Nolland also cites the Egyptian instruction of Amenemope, who says:

Rowing that we can take the bad man away

For we will not act according to his evil nature;

lift him up, give him your hand,

And leave him in the hands of God;

Fill his intestines with your own food

That he can be fed and ashamed.[7]

Similarly, the Book of Proverbs says:

If your enemies are hungry, give them bread to eat;

and if they are thirsty, give them water to drink.[8]

Nolland claims that parallels should be seen in the works of Greek and Roman writers such as Cicero, Seneca and the Cynics.[6] John Piper reports that the Greek Stoics also discouraged their followers from taking revenge, but Piper explains that their primary concern was to keep their calm rather than to seek the advantage of the enemy as Jesus commands.[ 9]

Historical context[ edit ]

“Enemies” is a broad term for all types of enemies and adversaries. In this verse persecutors are specifically mentioned; At the time of its writing (roughly the last quarter of the 1st century), the Christian community had recently faced significant persecution under Nero. The entire Jewish community was subject to Roman persecution both in the time of Jesus and later in the 1st century[10][11] (see History of the Jews in the Roman Empire, Persecution of Christians in the New Testament, and Anti-Christian Politics in the Roman Empire) .

Interpretations[edit]

love [edit]

The meaning of the word love is more limited in Greek than in English. Barclay notes that there were four different words in Greek that are usually translated as love. The Greek words for love for a family member, stergein; sexual love, eros; and deep affection, philia; are not used in this verse. Rather, the author uses agapan from Matthew, which Barclay translates as continued benevolence. This term occurs seven more times in Matthew and 140 times in the NT.[12]

Reception [edit]

Christian tradition[ edit ]

The author of Matthew places this verse in the final antithesis, a summary of everything that was said in the sermon. Early church thinkers also saw this as one of the most important teachings of Jesus.

Activists and social theorists[ edit ]

The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche argued in his treatise On the Genealogy of Morals (1887) that loving one’s enemy is weakness and dishonesty (see master-slave morality).[13][14][15][16][17][18 ]

Gene Sharp believed that in order for activists to achieve their desired policy changes, it was not necessary for activists to express their love for their opponents or convert those opponents to their perspective. Instead, following James Farmer, Sharp emphasized that non-violent tactics can be used to force those in power to give in to popular demands through public pressure.[19] Martin Luther King said of this passage: “It is so fundamental to me because it is part of my fundamental philosophical and theological orientation – the whole idea of ​​love, the whole philosophy of love.”[20]

Glossa Ordinaria: “The Lord taught above that we must not resist anyone who harms us, but be ready to suffer more; He now further challenges us to show both love and its effects to those who wrong us. And as the things that have gone before relate to the consummation of the righteousness of the law, so is this last precept related to the consummation of the law of love, which according to the apostle is the fulfillment of the law. ”

Augustine: “That the commandment “Thou shalt love thy neighbor” meant all men was shown by the Lord in the parable of the half-dead, which teaches us that our neighbor is anyone who may at any time need our service of mercy; and whoever does not see, no one shall be withheld from him, when the Lord says: Do good to those who hate you.

Augustine: “That there were degrees in the righteousness of the Pharisees, which was under the ancient law, is here seen in that many hated even those whom they were loved hate his enemy, which is expressed therein, and shall hate his enemy.” , which is not to be understood as a command to the just, but as a concession to the weak.

Glossa Ordinaria: “But it should be known that nowhere in the entire text of the law is it written: You shall hate your enemy the law, because the Lord commanded the children of Israel to pursue their enemies and to destroy Amalek from under heaven.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: “As it was said, Thou shalt not covet, not to the flesh but to the spirit, so here the flesh cannot love its enemy, but the spirit can; for the love and hate of the flesh is in mind, but the spirit is in mind. Then, when we feel hatred for someone who has wronged us, and yet do not want to act on that feeling, know that our flesh hates our enemy, but our soul loves him.”

Gregory the Great: “Love for an enemy is observed when we are not sad at his success or rejoicing at his fall. We hate him, whom we do not wish to surpass, and wish with ill will the prosperity of the man in him, yet it may often happen, without any sacrifice of charity, that the fall of an enemy pleases us, and his exaltation again without a trace of envy makes sad, when by his fall every deserving man is resurrected, or undeservedly depressed by his success. But here a rigorous measure of judgment must be exercised, lest we conceal our own hate from ourselves under the pretense of benefiting others. We should weigh how much we owe to the fall of the sinner and how much to the justice of the judge. For when the Almighty has smitten a hardened sinner, we must immediately glorify his righteousness as judge and sympathize with the suffering of the other who perishes.”

Glossa Ordinaria: “Those who oppose the Church oppose her in three ways: with hatred, with words and with physical torture. The Church, on the other hand, loves them as they are here, loves your enemies, do good to them as it is, do good to those who hate you and pray for them as it is, pray for those who persecute you and falsely accuse you.”

Jerome: “Many who measure the commandments of God by their own weakness, and not by the strength of the saints, consider these commandments impossible, and say that it is virtue enough not to hate our enemies, but that to love them is a commandment, that goes beyond human to obey nature. But it must be understood that Christ commands perfection, not impossibilities. Such was the temper of David toward Saul and Absalom; the martyr Stephen also prayed for his enemies while they were stoning him, and Paul wished for the ban on his persecutors. (Rom. 9:3.) Jesus taught and did the same, saying, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they are doing” (Luke 23:34.)”

Augustine: “These are examples indeed of the perfect sons of God; yet every believer should strive and seek by prayer to God and wrestle with himself to raise his human spirit to that temperament. Yet this blessing so great is not given to all the crowds that we believe will be heard when they pray: Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.

See also[edit]

References[ edit ]

Iraq: The enemy of my enemy is not my friend

July 16, 2014

The proverb “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is not an Arabic proverb, it is a Sanskrit proverb that predates Prophet Muhammad by about 1,000 years. It’s also a proverb with a grim history in practice. In each case, the “enemy of my enemy” actually turned out to be an enemy then or became one in the future. The Mongols did not save Europe from the Turks, and the Soviet Union was hardly an ally after the end of World War II.

ISIS/ISIL and “Islamic State” are vital threats to our national security, but…

This is something the United States must remember as it contemplates military action in Iraq and reshapes its military role in Syria. It needs to remember that as it reshapes its security partnerships with trusted friends like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. There is no question that the rise of ISIS/ISIL and the creation of an “Islamic State” stretching across eastern Syria and much of western Iraq poses a major security threat in the Middle East.

It threatens to divide Syria indefinitely into the future, to place Iraqi Sunnis under a jihadist regime, to become a massive breeding ground for extremists and terrorism, to exacerbate Sunni-Shia tensions, as a jihadist challenge to any modern Muslim regime to function in its environment and potentially threaten the flow of energy exports into the global economy. ISIS/ISIL is an enemy of the United States and a security threat to our regional allies and our vital strategic interests.

We face at least three enemies and not one

However, we must be very careful about how we intervene. ISIS/ISIL and ‘Islamic State’ did not arise out of spontaneous popular support for Islamic extremism or outside support for Sunni militants. It is the product of a failed Assad regime and its choice of violent repression over reform. It is the result of Maliki’s steady build-up of a new authoritarian regime under the guise of democracy in Iraq and his steady increase and violent repression of Sunnis since the 2010 elections.

We also face challenges from both Iran and now Russia. Whatever the outcome of the P5+1 negotiations and a seemingly more “moderate” Rouhani presidency in Iran, the Iranian presence in Iraq will be dominated by hardline officers and ex-officers of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) with strong ties to Maliki and those around him.

The wrong kind of US support for Iraq is any support for Maliki, which would further alienate Iraq’s Sunnis and give Maliki a major new hold over the Kurds. Any such development would both further strengthen a corrupt, autocratic thug and give Iran a major new influence in Iraq. Any such support will only make the United States a partner on the Shia side of the civil war that Maliki has greatly provoked over the past three years.

The United States will be, at best, a temporary presence with limited access to land and the field. Iran is down and will stay down. While Iranian moderates may have a different view of the risks involved, it seems all too likely that the IRGC and Khamenei believe Iran can afford to take advantage of a future in which both Assad and Maliki are deprived of Iran’s support and dependent on ISIS/ISIL are a greater threat to moderate Sunni states and regimes than to Iran.

We are not facing an enemy. We face at least three: Assad, Maliki, and the mix of ISIS/ISIL and other hostile Sunni elements in Syria and Iraq. We also face a significant adversary in Iran, and there is a risk that rising tensions between the United States and Russia will push Moscow to play a disruptive role, pushing its new take on the color revolution and efforts to expand its role expand outside of Europe by supporting Iran Maliki.

If there is a saying to use under these conditions, it is “our friends must remain our friends”. Our focus must be on Jordan, Turkey, Israel and key Arabian Gulf military powers like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait – as well as security partners with vital facilities like Bahrain, Qatar, Egypt and Oman.

The challenge of Syria

Whatever we do, we cannot focus on Iraq and rule out Syria, and we must be honest about our prospects and options. We have now missed the window for creating and supporting a strong moderate rebel movement by more than two years. No amount of redeployment or reorganization of the largely powerless political exile movement or the weak, moderate rebel armies can change that.

Nor can we afford to attack ISIS/ISIL in Iraq and allow the Iraqi government to forcibly reclaim Sunni territories in Iraq and leave a hostile Sunni population in Iraq and forcibly create anti-US organizations. Sunni jihadist force based in eastern Syria. The role of North Vietnam and Pakistan as havens in two separate wars should be a lesson, as should the broad rise of jihadist extremism throughout the MENA region, Pakistan and Central Asia since 2001.

This makes the selection and actual implementation of a strategy for US intervention in Syria an important prelude to the selection and implementation of a policy in Iraq. There are no good options at this point, but there are options:

Stop conducting US-led operations in Syria and let Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates take the lead. Back Sunni states, which clearly see ISIS/ISIL and other jihadist movements in Syria as just as great a threat as Assad. Support them in releasing more advanced weapons and supporting the less extreme Sunni movements, and make it clear that the United States will not vote the Shia side in Iraq to the exclusion of the Sunnis or in any way lean towards the Shia side.

Adjust any support for an air strike in Iraq – and support for Iraqi security forces – to one that does not alienate and exclude Iraq’s Sunnis. Target ISIS/ISIL and other hostile Sunni forces to limit their ability to retreat into Syria, and consider using UCAV and US Precision Air Forces to attack key ISIS/ISIL leaders and cadres in Syria — namely in a form that is extremely careful to avoid collateral damage, waging a war of attrition and constant pressure on the threat without escalating the strikes in a way that aids Assad.

Shift the strategic focus of the US role in Syria to make it clear that Assad and his outside supporters face an open-ended war of attrition with no clear prospects of outright victory. Make it clear to Assad that negotiations are the only way out, even if it takes years.

Coordinate humanitarian and refugee assistance at a level that minimizes the human cost of fighting and helps stabilize Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon.

Iraq’s Challenge: If Maliki stays and/or nothing remotely close to creating an effective national government

The United States has already said that it should not elect a leader for Iraq. Fair enough. The political climate in Iraq is so divided that only Iraqis can make this choice. However, the United States can elect the leader it does not support, and dealing with a power-hungry and incompetent, sectarian and authoritarian thug like Maliki has proved a steadily mounting disaster since 2006.

We have spent far too long avoiding the truths about Maliki, its surroundings and its ties to Iran. Two previous studies by the Burke Chair show the extent to which he has become a threat to US interests.

The government has distanced itself from Maliki, but reluctantly because of its past efforts to end the war in a favorable manner, and in a way that still grossly underestimates the problems it created and continues to create. It is time for Congress to hold open hearings on his role in provoking a civil war and for the Select Committees on Intelligence to examine his story at a much more sensitive level.

The fact remains, however, that it may be too late now to oust Maliki, establish a meaningful national government in Baghdad, and convince Iraq’s moderate Sunnis that they can trust the outcome. It is also a grim fact that the steady rise in sectarian and ethnic divisions in Iraq tends to polarize its leaders to extremes both along sectarian and ethnic lines and within their own ethnic and sectarian bloc.

Under these conditions, the US should choose and actually implement a strategy that fully addresses these realities:

Clearly, US military aid should be conditional. It should be provided under conditions in which the United States actively and openly engages in dialogue with Sunni, Kurdish and opposition Shia figures. It should be clear that the United States does not trust Maliki, wants him gone, and will not side with Sunnis or strengthen Maliki in a way that could threaten the Kurds. If Maliki does not accept this, the United States should make it clear that he must go or there will be no help.

The United States should reiterate its treatment of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) and intelligence efforts during the war. It should publicly identify elements of the ISF that Maliki is using to oppress and abuse Sunnis and build its own power, and condition aid on their exclusion.

US advisers should only work with mixed and “national” elements of the security forces and within the structure of career officers and commanders who serve Iraqi interests rather than Maliki or Shia interests. The United States should provide only a type of assistance that helps create an effective military force, rather than serving Iraq’s national, rather than sectarian, interests.

The United States should either publicly report – or leak out – any action by the Maliki government, which is corrupt, favoring Shia and pro-Maliki elements of the ISF over the need to defeat ISIS/ISIL and restore Sunnis and Kurds to power bring government and ISF and connects Maliki to Iran.

The United States should severely restrict the use of new shipments of arms to prevent them from being used against Sunni or Kurdish populations in a manner that exclusively serves Maliki’s interests and aggravates the civil war.

The United States should limit any use of US Air Force and intelligence data to targets clearly linked to ISIS/ISIL or other extremist movements. It should frame its Strategic Communications to make it clear to all Iraqis and all people in the region that Iranian and Russian weapons, advisers and “volunteers” are being used in a way that does not serve the interests of all Iraqis.

The United States should separately appeal to Sunni tribal and other leaders to encourage resistance against ISIS/ISIL and support the Kurds in creating an expanded security zone and energy exports through Turkey to counter Maliki, Islamic extremists and Iran .

• The United States should look to other Shia leaders for support for a unified and truly national government. It should also highlight the abuse of Sunnis by Shia militias and consider offering covert or overt support and training for militias linked to Shia leaders trying to rebuild Iraq on a national scale like Sistani.

Iraq’s Challenge: If Maliki Leaves and an Effective National Government Can Be Established

By far the better option is that Malik leaves to get a truly national mix of Shia, Sunni and Kurdish leaders and give them stronger US support in every dimension. In practice, that means more U.S. auxiliary support, a stronger military advisory effort, and working with Iraq to try to expedite U.S. FMS deliveries. It also means an extensive outreach program in the Arab Gulf States, Egypt, Jordan and Turkey to develop close ties with the new Iraqi government.

These efforts should include the following measures:

US military aid should support the new administration under conditions in which the United States actively and openly engages in dialogue with Sunni, Kurdish and opposition Shia figures. It should be clear that the United States is trying to help the government meet the needs of all Arab Shia, Arab Sunnis and Kurds, and that the United States will provide both strong security support and assistance to help Iraqis deal with their Problems to help in governance and economic reform.

The United States should support the rebuilding of all elements of the Iraqi security forces according to professional and national standards. However, she should be wary of repeating the mistake of doing it “our way” and not the Iraqi way.

It should not seek to exclude other countries from playing a role when it is constructive to do so, but it should openly identify any Iranian and other external efforts that serve sectarian interests or those of the external power. The United States needs a clear strategic communications plan focused on helping an Iraqi national government succeed and defeat the ISIS/ISIL threat.

The United States should try to replicate the efforts it made in restructuring the national police force. It should work with the Iraqi government to publicly identify and change the elements of the ISF that Maliki used to oppress and abuse Sunnis and to build his own power, and to change its structure, composition and commanders. It should persuade a new government that promotions and senior positions must be approved by the whole government, that temporary senior positions and other forms of linking senior positions with the prime minister should be phased out, and that a national force be created on the basis of merit.

The US advisory mission should be large enough to assist Iraqi forces on the ground, and special forces and other expert elements should be deployed to help with tactical-level targeting and reconnaissance.

The United States should expedite new arms shipments and, if necessary, seek congressional approval for rapid tracking and allocation of assets in the US armed forces.

The United States should help Iraqi forces use US Air Force and intelligence data to combat the ISIS/ISIL threat on a broad scale.

However, the United States should shape its strategic communications in a way that makes it clear to all Iraqis and all people in the region when Iranian or Russian weapons, advisers and “volunteers” are being used in a way that does not serve the interests of all Iraqis.

The United States should do everything it can to help the new administration reach out to Sunni tribal and other leaders to encourage them to oppose ISIS/ISIL and actively work to persuade the Kurds to accept the new Government to find a solution that combines the size and nature of its security zone and energy exports by Turkey to Iraq’s rebuilding as a unitary state – stimulating Iraq to explore the possibilities of federalism in the process.

The United States should look to other Shia leaders for support for a unified and truly national government. It should also highlight the abuse of Sunnis by Shia militias and consider offering covert or overt support and training for militias linked to Shia leaders trying to rebuild Iraq on a national scale like Sistani.

The United States should work with Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates to try to develop an integrated approach to dealing with counter-terrorism, the Islamist extremist threat in Syria and the Assad regime. In addition to promoting strong security ties, it should also consider plans for the full integration of both Jordan and Iraq into the GCC.

The world of least bad options

None of these moves will be easy, but it’s time for the government, Congress, think tanks, and media to accept the fact that the United States faces unstable chaos across the MENA region that will likely last at least a decade to play before there is real stability. There are no “good” options that can avoid this reality or that in many cases the United States must choose between uncomfortable alternatives and act rather than wait.

Iraq is just one case in point, and one that cannot be separated from Syria, Iran, or the other states around it. The situation is complex and uncertain, and any course of action carries serious risks. However, the United States has already shown that delays, half-measures, and reliance on hope, other actors, and soft power are ineffective in addressing the threats facing the United States. It’s time to make tough choices and focus on tried and true friends instead of hoping that somehow our enemies’ enemies will be the answer.

Anthony H. Cordesman is the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.

The commentary is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution that focuses on international public policy issues. Its research is impartial and non-proprietary. CSIS does not take any specific political positions. Accordingly, all views, positions and conclusions expressed in this publication are to be understood solely as those of the author(s).

© 2014 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.

—

It used to be said that something you can buy for a very low price is probably not very good