Some decades ago I read a book by Julian Jaynes (“The Origen of Consciousness in the Bicameral Brain”). It seemed to address an inexplicable conundrum I faced at the time. I had been reading the Old Testament and was surprised by all the blood shed between various tribes, much of it commanded by Yahweh. I questioned what could motivate someone to kill an absolute stranger. Jaynes’ answer, as I would now characterize it, was fear, originating from the tribal culture or a commanding inner voice born from the unconscious experiences of the individual in that culture. According to his theory, the discriminatory internal dialogue that might have dissuaded that fear did not exist in the ancient bicameral brain. I wonder to what extent it exists in the ongoing tribal conflicts of the Middle East today: Turkmen against Shi’a, Turks and Kurds against each other, Shi’a and Sunni against each other, Alawites and other Syrian groups/tribes against each other, and Daesh against all tribes whom they label infidels, worthy of death.

Now evolution is a wonderful and complex process that in theory enhances the survival of a species by selecting the fittest. For example, modern man has far surpassed his primate predecessors in reasoning and development of language. But these capabilities arose from lifestyle activities that enhanced survivability. For example, early members of our species used their hands to forage and invent tools. These activities promoted the development of the human frontal lobe, the main locus for reasoning and for the ability to reflect before taking action. If my memory serves me, Jaynes theorized that trans-lateral communication in the bicameral brain evolved in conjunction with language ability, thereby allowing speech and reasoning to work together and permitting that self-talk that precedes directed action a/o procrastination. In other words, humans no longer reacted at the behest of an inner voice or habit enculturated by familial or social lifestyle. The modern human was born, free to pursue individual goals and define overriding values independently of society, thereby providing unique contributions to society. This physical evolution coincides with the creation of human culture, civilization, and a myriad of achievements in science, philosophy, art, and systems of morality. It has also enabled us to respect each other as unique individuals, not just members of disparate tribes, and to learn how to live side-by-side without killing each other. In other words, our development as a species into complex, introspective individuals governed by conscience can be attributed to our need to co-exist without fear of each other, that is, to survive as a species. Terrorism works against that need by inciting fear, tribal conflict, and the suppression of personal conscience in favor of the tribal imperative. In evolutionary terms, it appears as regressive as if birds were to lose their wings, fish, their gills, and mammals, their body heat. But the good news is that evolution is not regressive–unlike behavior.

Jaynes believed the inner voice experienced by our ancient ancestors was isolated in the right brain and was sometimes interpreted as the voice of a god, genii, or spirits. It was obeyed without thought. The followers of Daesh obey a theocratic system without any thought of its regressive nature. Naturally that system cannot be a survival technique and must be apocalyptic. Daesh’s mission, by its very nature, culminates in a dead-end. Those who follow its path must believe that an afterlife is better than the current life. There is no room for contemporary humanism, or the preservation of human life and creativity in the here and now. Though they are modern humans on the evolutionary scale, they are retrograde in their humanity, pledging themselves to a mindless tribal culture that lashes out at a world they fear and from which they feel estranged. Thousands of these sick souls have already died. Like the suicide bombers in Paris, they readily accept death, especially if they can take as many infidels as possible with them. Their hatred for humanity is the ultimate measure of their fear of joining it. To be truly human is to be accountable for all humans. There is nothing more cowardly than to deny our responsibility to each other.

Evolution may be wonderful and complex, but it comes with some baggage. Unfortunately, the nation-states our species has created still interrelate like chimpanzees fighting over territory and resources (reference “The Rule of the Primate”). We respond to danger like terrorized chimps. You may have had occasion to watch a nature channel and witnessed the loud ruckus those little monkeys create when a lion passes into their space. If at the time you had turned the channel to one of the 24 hour news broadcasts, you likely would have observed the same ruckus and fear mongering. The news media is often riveted on violence, mayhem, and, most recently, on the threat of terrorism. By way of comparison, we know that Americans have killed each other in much greater numbers than terrorist have since 911. But threats from outside seem more frightening and trigger us to raise the banner of war, even before we consider the consequences (reference “Is War Fever Enough?“). Stated simply, the lion has crossed into our physical or virtual space.

Too easily we may succumb to the feeling that war is inevitable. We are confronted with an enemy who terrorizes without conscience. This enemy engenders fear and an instinctive warlike response. But there is another factor besides Daesh’s tribal imperative and the triggered response of the terrorized. That factor is the fog of war and what is commonly called the “slippery slope.” We are already on that slop, like a snow ball rolling down a hill. In the last few weeks we have seen that snow ball gathering momentum and mass. Turkey and Russia have joined the fracas, but on different sides than America. Turkey has bombed America’s proxy, the Kurds. Russia has bombed Turkey’s proxy, the Turkmen, and America’s proxy, the Free Syrian Army. Meanwhile, America continues to increase its supply of weapons, military trainers, and tactical assistance to any group willing to fight Daesh. Our President has tried to slow the progress of that snow ball with diplomatic measures. He has pushed the Iraqi Prime Minister to include the Sunni’s in Iraq’s National Guard and tried to persuade Russia and Iraq to support a timetable for Assad to step down. The Sunni’s in Iraq will fight Daesh, as their Members of Parliament have stated, but only if granted more self-government. They will not aid, and likely will contest, either an American “liberation” or a Shi’a invasion of their territory. Likewise, no peace is possible in Syria as long as Assad stays in power. Unfortunately his army may be the only local force that could overcome Daesh. The Syrians, however, will not support that army unless it fought for a truly representative government without Assad. These diplomatic undertakings are underway, though racing far behind the pace of war’s snow ball on that slippery slope.

There are strange and seemingly random turns in history, like the assassination of a President or an Archduke in Sarajevo (think Vietnam and World War I). I believe we are now confronted with one of those pivotal moments. If Russia and Iran will not support any timetable for Assad’s departure and if Iraq will not cede any role to the Sunni’s in government or in the military, then the Syrian civil war will continue unabated and Daesh’s territorial conquest in Syria and Iraq will be ineffectively contested. More troubling is the risk of a widening war, involving NATO countries, America, Russia, and the Middle East. Today Turkey shoots down a Russian plane; tomorrow Russia arms its fighter jets with air-to-air missiles and its ground forces with surface-to- air missiles. What happens if an American jet is mistakenly taken down? Cooler heads must prevail. We are after all evolved primates who have demonstrated an ability to live together in peace. We must find a way to sheath the sword wherever we can achieve rapprochement. We should not overreact by yielding to mindless aggression and avoid wherever possible situations that risks retaliatory overreaction. Instead, we should call for a cease fire on all fronts not involving Daesh and focus on protecting Syrian civilians and refugees. If an armistice is not possible, then the only voices to be heard will be from the professionals in the Pentagon and CIA. They will strongly advocate for an escalation in the bombing, for more Americans on the frontlines to coordinate fighting with air support, and for a loosening of the rules of engagement to admit more collateral damage. The result will be more civilian deaths, more refugees, a demolished infrastructure, a terrorist backlash against the world, and a Daesh recruitment bonanza. The pivotal point I see is the balance between the deployment of sufficient military force to support diplomacy and devolution into all-out war, as some have proposed. The latter would reprise America’s Vietnam enterprise where we attempted to liberate a people by killing them off and where the embattled country required decades to reconstruct its infrastructure. Also, it should be noted, we supported a corrupt government in Vietnam during a civil war. How is that different than our support for the Iraqi government or potentially, if Putin has his way, for Assad’s government? That snow ball is gaining mass and momentum.

In time, I believe Daesh will be defeated; but its damage has already gone far beyond the borders of its self-declared caliphate. Its regressive and viral message has not only infiltrated Syria and Iraq but young minds around the world. Its message will not die with the violent extremists in Syria and Iraq or the potential terrorists already in our midst. Nevertheless, it must be confronted and eradicated. Otherwise, there will be no world peace. That peace can only be achieved by a global conscience emanating from all tribes and people. America, in fact, is trying to lead the world away from a widening conflict and toward a more stable post-Daesh horizon. Whether that horizon is feasible or not is yet to be determined. I do not disagree with those who advocate the use of military force. But force alone will not win the day. It must serve a much broader agenda—the awakening of a new zeitgeist that spans all nations, embraces the highest values of humanity, and makes tribal anachronisms like Daesh impossible.

A global conscience begins with each individual. The origin of war is rooted in our very nature: a reactive fear of the unknown other whom we instinctively deem our enemy. We objectify and dehumanize that enemy as Nazis, gooks, japs, ragheads, and so on. But there is another way to confront the objectified enemy. First, we can begin to see that enemy as fellow humans who have a different perspective than us. If we have to fight terrorists, we at least have to know what motivates them. Understanding them might allow us to reach their converts before they are turned. We have to form better relationships with the people of Islam in order to fight Islamists (i.e., violent fundamentalist or extremists). By report, Daesh may have 30,000 fighters plus another 10,000 casualties of war and a three or four times larger group of worldwide followers. Even so, they would still represent less than a fraction of one percent of the nearly 2 billion Muslims in the world. We need to develop one-to-one relations with people and communities of the Islamic faith. Second, we need to confront our fears and resist the herd mentality to either huddle in fear or react with disproportionate violence. We live in a world where nation states are armed and dangerous. If Ukraine still had nuclear weapons, would they have restrained from using them against the Russian aggressor? If an American soldier was captured by Daesh and burned alive like the Jordanian pilot was, could we be constrained from laying waste to Raqqa, without regard to collateral damage? We cannot be terrorized if we face our fears with an appropriate response, measured by reason and human compassion. And finally, we must impress upon world leaders the need for such a balanced response. Here, in America, where we are in the midst of a presidential campaign, it is imperative that we not support fear mongers and xenophobic opportunists who cater to our more basic instincts rather than our more evolved human attributes. They use mass hysteria to gain title and power. Put bluntly, they lack a developed conscience and cannot be trusted in any leadership role. Of course, I exclude from this condemnation all who constructively participate in the dialogue about the best course of action against an enemy like Daesh. I am no expert upon the difficult decisions required in taking negotiating positions between nations, in revamping rules of engagement, in deploying our military force, and in constructing the most effective anti-terror propaganda campaign. As an individual citizen, I can only do my best to support leaders who appear to deserve my trust and, of course, to make my opinions known.

Considering the gist of what I have just wrote, I would conclude by saying that war originates in our very nature, is born of fear, is magnified in collective hysteria, and is further instigated by the chaos created by the indiscriminate misbehavior of nation states and their respective leaders. If we, as individuals, think past our fears, form constructive relations with each other, including those different from us, and support thoughtful and compassionate leaders, we can at least do our part in building a more human and, hopefully, more peaceful world.