Michael,

I thought about what you said, and in the end, as a former US Marine, I came to the same conclusion I started with - I would have chosen differently.

I enjoy the movie "Enemy Mine", as well. And the clip you linked to is moving. It highlights beautifully your point that these two individuals of these battling races have chosen to work together for survival, and further, they are learning to respect each other. In the end of the movie, Quaid is not exactly beloved on Earth. But because of his risk in returning to the alien homeworld in order to finalize (in song) the young boy's heritage to the elders, they accept the boy and Quaid.

And I think that is where the similarities continue wtih your situation. Worlds, and nations, at or near at war walk a completely different path than individuals do.

Individuals have the luxury of meeting personally to discuss ideas and try to work to compromise when differences occur. Nations do not have that luxury, since there is far more at stake. I believe that was proved true in World War I and II, when too many nations thought they could simply play nice and Hitler would leave them alone.

Supply chains may have existed before large scale military actions, but these methods were certainly perfected when managing the huge machinations of militaries as they moved, bivouced, and attacked across agrarian societies. Whether you agree with the politics and/or necessities of war, they exist, and governments use them to try and improve and/or defend their own peoples.

In times of war, individuals need to consider the ramifications of who they speak to, what they discuss, and what new information can be used by the opposing government against our own people. Especially when those opposing governments have sworn to wipe our allies off the planet, and have identified our country as an evil that should be eradicated.

If you had not assisted, they would still have attempted to translate your book. Understood. But without your assistance they may have introduced translation errors, which may then have reduced the military benefit of this new information. Or they could have gotten another supply chain expert to help them translate, but then you would not have been involved.

Your intentions were obviously good, as it is apparent you are trying to open a door of communication with the Iranian scientists and businesspeople. It is also possible that your Iranian counterparts may also be well-intentioned.

The crux of the issue is that information, once available, is used. US supply chain knowledge and processes are top notch. By making your supply chain knowledge available to the Iranians in their own language, that barrier to market entry is removed, and they can begin using that information for ANY purpose. Including military purposes.

With the Iranian government's stated intent of eliminating The Great Satan and our Israeli allies, and their obvious disdain for the international community's concern about their nuclear ambitions, adding to that government's knowledge in any capacity that can aid them in their goals creates too great a risk for me. I would have chosen differently.

Semper Fi!
Mark Cummuta

Hi Michael,

Congrutulations on your book. Great post and equally great question.

We cannot ignore the reality that if our foreign policy continues to be the way it has been in the past years; regardless of who becomes next president, we will continue to be "in the time of war" (may be for next 100 years)!!! And unless you are actively engaged in influencing what white house does, there are limited things that an individual can do about it

So then the question becomes, whether as individuals, when we are approached by other individuals ... do we take the approach of "you are with us or against us", start classifying them into "axis of evil" ... or do we respond otherwise. Luckily, as individuals, we DO have the luxury of making this choice.

If your research about them had resulted into anything questionable, then your assistance to them could have been questioned from patriotism angle. However, when the best and the largest government in the world is unable to determine reality without its large share of mistakes (think WMD), there are also limitations on what an individual can research and ascertain.

So in day to day situations, we can continue to treat other / different people with complete distrust who can be remotely linked by any strech of imagination to anything that can be even vaguely threatening ... or make best judgement call, after doing reasonable due diligence without having to worry about being painted as unpatriotic.

I guess, you made your own (and IMHO, appropriate) choice.

Regards,
- Manish

Michael,
I can empathize with your dilemma. I had to read your article and think what I might do if faced with the same challenge. I believe, contrary to Mark's position that I would make the same decision as you.

My first thought was actually, who is the enemy here. I believe I might suggest the enemies are the governments more so than that citizens of each country. I also understand that the government of Iran may in fact be contributing directly to the death of Americans in Iraq, but that still does not make your PhD candidate connection your enemy either.

I believe that non-military cooperation between countries, aka trade, has a better chance of creating peace between those countries than some of the other methods that have been tried throughout history.

I commend you on your decision, and hope I exercise the same courage when it is my turn.

Take care,

Mike Edwards - mike@directyourcareer.com

http://www.directyourcareer.com