Lifestyle Changes, Regime Changes

Love may seem an unlikely emotion at a place like the U.S. Army War College, where generals and generals-in-training from all four branches of the military spend a year studying together. These are tough, smart men and women, the elite of the elite, the leaders of the leaders. I just returned from giving a presentation about health and wellness to the entering class there. In our conversations, a common theme emerged. They spoke about how passionately they felt in their love of our country. It's what motivates them to put their life on the line, to make huge sacrifices in their lives. It got me thinking about the relationship between regime changes and lifestyle changes, between national security and personal security. 

In short, the personal and the political are one. Lessons learned in one arena may have applications in another. The conditions that allow for sustainable personal lifestyle changes are the same as those that allow for sustainable political changes: love and freedom, not fear, repression and coercion. In both arenas, fear may work in the short run but is usually counterproductive in the long term. Joy of living is a more powerful and much more sustainable motivator than fear of dying, both politically and personally. 

For more than 30 years, I have directed a series of randomized controlled trials and demonstration projects showing that comprehensive lifestyle changes can prevent or even reverse the progression of coronary heart disease, prostate cancer, diabetes, hypertension, elevated cholesterol levels, obesity and other chronic conditions and can even improve how our genes are expressed. Along the way, we've learned what really motivates people to make sustainable changes in their lifestyles and in their lives. 

Even more than feeling healthy, most people want to feel free and in control of their lives. Repression and coercion are not sustainable motivators. If I tell people, "Eat this and don't eat that," or "Don't smoke," they immediately want to do the opposite. It's just human nature, and it goes back to the first dietary intervention that failed--"Don't eat the apple"--and that was God talking, so we're not likely to do better than that. And no matter how well intended, if a spouse says, "Honey, you know you're not supposed to be eating that," people sometimes start to feel a little violent. 

The same is true on a political level: repression and coercion are not sustainable. Of course, military strength is important, just as personal strength is important--but what we do with that power determines how sustainable and successful changes can be. Seen from this perspective, imposing democracy in Iraq is a contradiction in terms, as democracy is all about freedom. It's like sex: great when it's freely chosen, but not when it's imposed. 

Love of country and fellow soldiers and family is a more powerful motivator than military might alone. In Afghanistan, a small group of rebels defeated the Soviet empire when it was a superpower. In Vietnam, a small group of Vietnamese defeated the much more well-equipped U.S. military. The Berlin wall eventually was torn down. Our country was founded by a ragtag group of visionaries who were committed to personal and political freedom and defeated the British Empire, the most powerful in the world at the time. In contrast, the Iraqi leaders did not meet secretly in 2003, draft a Declaration of Independence and invite the United States to invade their country. For the first time in U.S. history, we invaded another country without being first attacked by them. So, it's not surprising that democracy has not flowered there despite our best efforts. As the former U.S. diplomat John Brady Kiesling wrote, "Has oderint dum metuant ["let them hate us as long as they fear us"] really become our motto?" Fear, repression, and coercion may temporarily work in the short run; eventually, though, people rebel, both individually and politically.