I also find that parable intriguing. In fact it reminded me of a couple of other instances where people achieved a desired result through indirection rather than direction.

The first one involves Huey P. Long, the legendary governor of Louisiana. As a populist in the Jim Crow south, he was forced to walk a fine line between accomodating the needs of his black constituents while not offending the prejudices of his white constituents. On one occasion he was meeting with a delegation of black community leaders regarding a hospital that served the black community. Although the patients were black, the staff was white. These community leaders thought that a black hospital should have black staff to provide decent jobs for their community. Governor Long agreed to help but warned them in advance that they might not like his methods.

Long arranged to visit the hospital in question accompanied by the local media. When his visit was finished he stormed out of the hospital and announced to the assembled reporters that it was outrageous that white women were in there tending to black men. The hospital was quickly restaffed with black employees.

A more morally uplifting example comes from the days leading up to the Normandy invasion in 1944. Winston Churchill, perhaps nostalgic for his days in the army in the Sudan or as a war correspondent in South Africa, informed General Eisenhower that he intended to accompany the British troops when they hit the beaches in France. Eisenhower thought the plan ludicrous but it was beyond his power to forbid it. So he went to the king and asked him to order Churchill to stay home. The king replied that the English Constitution did not allow him to give such an order but he promised to fix the problem. The king simply told Churchill that he would accompany him in the landing craft. Churchill knew he could not bar the king from coming along so he was forced to abandon his own plans rather than acquiesce in risking the king's life.

Now both of these stories may be as apocryphal as the Afghan parable and the tradeoff made by Huey Long between satisfying immediate material needs and perpetuating racial stereotypes makes us all uneasy. But I think they illustrate the possibilities of human ingenuity. The possibilities of such outside-the-box thinking, when properly directed, should give us hope.

COWS ARE SACRED !!!!!

From the Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva,
Sections LXXXIII - LXXVII - LXXVI

Bhishma said:
No sacrifice can be performed without the aid of curds and ghee (clarified butter). The very character of sacrifice which sacrifices have, depends upon ghee. Hence ghee (or, the cow from which it is produced) is regarded as the very root of sacrifice.

Cows have been said to be the limbs of sacrifice. They represent sacrifice itself. Without them, there can be no sacrifice. With their milk and the Havi produced therefrom, they uphold all creatures by diverse acts. Cows are guileless in their behaviour. From them flow sacrifices and Havya and Kavya, and milk and curds and ghee. hence cows are sacred.

COWS ARE SACRED !!!!

Here is a cultural difference that has always intrigued me. The idea that warriors should meet face to face and give battle is pretty much a European concept (with the notable exceptions of the Zulu and Japanese). The area in which this is considered the proper, honorable, way to fight can be pretty well delineated on a map. Basically the area that once acknowledged "chivalry", chivalry was its apex, not its root.

That map would not include the middle east. The middle east falls in the area where warriors have always stood off from each other and used missiles (rocks, arrows, spears etc.).

So, while we consider IED's to be sneaky and dishonorable, that view may not be shared. And, we wonder why they do not have "shame". Similar to our reaction to the "Kamikaze". Suicide as a military tactic was foreign to us.