Why is this wrong?
It is incorrect because it indicates that "good" has no plan.
Good is lost. It's philosophy is foundering for want of an explicitly stated base. Hence, it cannot formulate a plan for the Earth. And it then follows logically that it cannot direct itself. It merely "reacts". The world's ship of state is adrift without power on a sometimes stormy sea of willful acts of violence committed against it.
Evil, however, does have a plan.
It is simply this. To destroy. To bring rational civilization to an end as an end. This has always been the grand plan. It has never changed and never will. Evil masquerades as conviction. But there is no real conviction ... only the semblance of conviction. It has a loud mouth but runs at the sight of genuine conviction opposing it. Today's civilization lacks conviction and so opposes evil only to the extent that its true conviction is revealed. It's plans extend no further as well.
This is a bad way to be at this stage of history.
We are getting ready to terminally over-populate. Toward the end of the 21st century perhaps half of the Earth's population will die off catastrophically when the food production and distribution system collapses. And it will collapse. It has definite limits. We cannot support 100 billion people on this planet ... not at the same time calling ourselves human. There will be 40 billion by the end of this century ... 320 billion by the end of the 22nd century and more than a trillion by the end of the 23rd. Obviously, the present rate of population will end sooner rather than later.
What does this have to do with active and reactive politics?
Simply this. By "reacting" we cannot change the road we are on. Reacting will simply lead us to the inevitable ... the big die off. Reacting will not stop the rain forest from being burnt down ... it will only allow us to piss and moan about it.
Did you ever wonder where that stupid word "proactive" came from? It indicates an intuitive understanding that something needs to be done at some higher or stronger level. Active and reactive looks like a chicken and egg problem ... which comes first? ... what's the difference? The term proactive seems to fill a need for something akin to a "causal" agent ... an initiator.
Actually, the difference between active and reactive is one of scale. The scale has been blurred over the centuries by the failed concept of
In diplomacy, one reduces reaction to levels commensurate with the action which caused the reaction. Both are held to near equality. Thus, if one reacts on a scale innappropriate to the action, one brings the pot to a boil very quickly. Equalizing both, delays the inevitable outcome.
Ostensibly, the purpose of diplomatic delay is to ensure that "cooler heads prevail". Instead it ensures the gradual decline of civilization into "the most reasonable of death marches". A life or death situation is not a time for reflection. It is a time for violent action. Thinking about what you are doing in urgent situations is in fact a death sentence if your opponent isn't thinking.
The dilemma of the World Trade Center disaster
Osama bin Laden recognizes the difference between action and reaction. He takes "action". He does something two orders of magnitude larger than anything done before in the annals of modern terrorism. This is not a reaction to anything in the present political arena. It is direct action. What should we do?
Why ... react! Of course.
We do the commensurate thing. The reasonable thing. We are diplomats. We have reasoned it out.
But in the long run, the problem is still there. The Earth's population is still growing ... the rain forest is being burned down ... and a large part of the population sees a return to the Dark Ages as the cure all for modern problems.
I once knew someone who had broken his nose and it healed badly. To correct the problem, doctors had to "nuke" his face thusly. They gave him a local anesthetic ... put a surgical "chisel" to the bridge of his nose ... then whacked it with a "surgical sledge hammer" ... thus rebreaking his nose which they then could set with the appropriate Bella-Romana and he could breathe easy once more. The moral here is that to set it right, one must first break the present mold.
To break the present political modality of action-reaction equanimity, another two orders of magnitude increase in hostility was required. Thus, using two hydrogen bombs on Mecca and Medina (as I suggested) would have broken the mold and the USA could have done what it willed with the planet in as many areas as it pleased. Then ... perhaps ... the inevitable might have become only one other possibility.
But this couldn't be done ...