The Enemy of My Enemy

...is my friend. Right?

Most of us are quite familiar with the expression. For those who aren't, and as a brief recap, it basically means that two entities which are both opposed to another are by definition allies. Makes sense, right?

Well not to me.

I find it rather interesting that people seem to fall back on this idea not only in social environments, but seemingly in political matters as well. Friendships and allegiances are forged through the use of this old proverb.

From what I've gotten from good ol' Wikipedia, it seems to have either Arab or Chinese roots.  It also seems that some Indian dude wrote in a book way back around 300 BCE that for an imperial state, the states immediately adjacent are considered enemies, and all states which are adjacent to that enemy but not adjacent to the imperial state in question is that imperial state's ally. I paraphrase, of course, as 3rd century BCE Indians probably tended not to speak as I do. It can thus be seen that this is a pretty old idea.

But is it still applicable? In the era during which this was written, for a number of reasons, complex alliances were fairly scarce, and the goal of any imperial nation was in fact to overtake the land of a neighbouring state, so long as the resources and tactical advantages existed. Since a state two "places" away was also opposed to that state in between, it could be reasoned that the enemy's enemy would weaken the enemy and thus be considered a friend. However, once the land in between fell, the original friends would become enemies, and the territories involved would stretch to involve new allies. Basically, if states are arranged ABC, then A and C are both enemies of B and thus are allies (a whole lot of rambling to say simply that, but of course, what is a rant?).

The same applies to interpersonal social interactions. People seem to gravitate towards those who are at odds with the same persons or groups that they are opposed to. It is assumed, for some reason, that these new "allies" will share traits. I submit that this is not so.

My opposition to this dogma is based on what I like to call Triangular Animosity. It basically means that A, B, and C may be arranged triangularly, with these bodies being the corners and the lines representing ill will. A and C are still both enemies to B, but are now also in conflict with each other.

See, simply saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" makes too many assumptions for me. The most obvious are these:
1) It is assumed that there is only one field or point of opposition. This is applicable in territorial disputes; the point of contention is over the land. Should a second field of opposition present, it may create friends of enemies or enemies of friends, or create neutrality between bodies, or any number of complications. In short, it makes a real mess of the whole friend/enemy dynamic.
2) It is also assumed that the point of contention is "black and white" (0 or 1 for my IT readers). This involves an uncompromising and insoluble dichotomy which hardly seems to apply to modern problems. Any third option would again complicate the matter.

Of course, this "triangular animosity" does not apply only to 3 parties, but to any number there or above. So it's more like...polygonal animosity. But I don't like that name...so "triangular" it is.

So no, I don't see the validity in this statement. It seems to me like a ridiculous way to live one's life. It's bound to get you into trouble sooner or later. Is it not more reasonable to make objective and independent analysis of other parties rather than to take a shortcut? But hey, that's just me. Maybe you disagree; that's nice. Go on doin' what you do. But, if you disapprove of this idea, does this mean you agree with me? O_o

Well, as they say at the bottom of some posts, this has been your humble ranter. Happy reading, and keep thinking critically.