Jul 31, 2026 • Thinking

The Enemy

How Presumed Intention Turns Solvable Problems Into War

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

by Richard P. Weigand

 

The Moment a Disagreement Becomes an Enemy

When we do not know another person’s intention, we tend to fill in the blank ourselves. Uncertainty is uncomfortable. We want an explanation, so we supply one. Too often, we color the unknown with suspicion.

That is where an ordinary disagreement begins to become dangerous.

A person says something awkwardly. A neighbor gives a restrained response. A spouse forgets something important. A public official supports a policy we dislike. A foreign country moves troops or builds weapons.

We can see the action, but we cannot see the intention behind it. Yet we often move immediately from what happened to why we believe it happened.

Then we treat our conclusion as fact.

“This hurt me” becomes “You wanted to hurt me.”

“This policy harms people” becomes “They want those people harmed.”

“This country is strengthening its defenses” becomes “It intends to attack us.”

That is a very large leap.

A bad result does not necessarily prove a bad intention. A person may be mistaken, frightened, clumsy, badly informed, defensive, or unable to see the consequences of what he is doing. None of those possibilities makes the action harmless. But they may make it correctable.

Once bad intention is assigned, correction becomes much more difficult. We no longer see a person with whom we have a problem.

We see an enemy.

When Politics Becomes War

Consider voting laws.

One political party proposes stricter identification requirements and says it wants elections people can trust. The other party hears a hidden intention:

“They want to prevent our voters from voting.”

The second party proposes easier registration and wider access and says it wants every eligible citizen to participate. The first party hears another hidden intention:

“They want to weaken safeguards so they can manipulate elections.”

At that point, the parties are no longer discussing the practical questions.

What protections are necessary? Which restrictions are excessive? How can access and security both be preserved?

Instead, one side is fighting voter suppression, and the other is fighting election theft.

Compromise with a policy is possible. Compromise with an evil intention feels like surrender.

The same thing happens with immigration. A demand for border control becomes evidence of hatred. A demand for humane treatment becomes evidence of a plan to erase the border.

It happens in education. Concern for parental authority becomes hostility toward children. Concern for a troubled child becomes an intention to separate that child from his parents.

The policy disagreement may have had a solution. The accusation of bad intention removes it.

When Countries Frighten One Another

The same mechanism appears between nations.

Country A fears Country B and increases its military strength for protection. Country B sees the new weapons and concludes that Country A intends to attack. It responds by building more weapons.

Country A sees the response and says:

“We were right. They are dangerous.”

Both countries may believe they are acting defensively. Yet each interprets the other’s defense as aggression. Their actions then create the very danger they feared.

This pattern can be seen in the relationship between the United States and China. The United States describes alliances, military positioning, and economic restrictions as efforts to preserve stability and deter aggression. China may interpret those same actions as evidence that the United States intends to contain it and prevent its rise.

China then expands its military strength and asserts greater control over surrounding areas. The United States sees that and concludes that China intends regional domination.

Each side’s reaction becomes proof of the other side’s original suspicion.

A similar pattern has long surrounded NATO and Russia. Eastern European countries sought NATO protection because they feared Russian power. Russia interpreted NATO expansion as evidence of encirclement and hostile Western intention. Russian aggression then persuaded additional countries that NATO protection was necessary.

The action and reaction continue until neither side believes communication is useful.

When Every Act Becomes Proof

The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians shows the completed form of this problem.

Security measures are interpreted as evidence of an intention to dominate or dispossess. Resistance is interpreted as evidence of an intention to destroy. Civilian suffering is treated not merely as the result of an action, but as proof of what the other side ultimately wants.

Once each population believes the other intends its destruction, negotiation appears foolish. Every concession looks suicidal. Every promise looks deceptive. Every act confirms the presumed intention.

The visible problems may concern borders, security, rights, government, or land. But underneath them lies a more difficult conclusion:

“They want us gone.”

How does one negotiate with that?

The Leap We Must Stop Making

This does not mean that no one ever has a bad intention.

People lie. Governments conceal plans. Organizations exploit. Evidence sometimes establishes deliberate harm.

The lesson is not that intention must never be judged.

The lesson is that an inferred intention must not be treated as an observed fact.

We can know what a person said. We can know what he did. We can examine what the action produced. We may discover planning, deception, or concealment. But when that evidence is absent, intention remains a question.

The dangerous leap is this:

This action harmed me. Therefore, harming me was the purpose.

That leap turns a harmful act into an enemy relationship. It transforms a mistake into malice, a disagreement into an attack, and a solvable problem into an unsolvable one.

When Communication Appears to Fail

There is another trap.

People may continue talking after bad intention has been assigned. They may talk for hours, months, or years and still reach no resolution.

That is because they are no longer discussing the actual problem. They are discussing the presumed intention behind it.

One person says:

“You intended to hurt me.”

The other denies it.

But the denial is not accepted as information. It is treated as further evidence of guilt.

“Of course you deny it. That only proves you are dishonest.”

Now the entire conversation has been built around a claim that may never have been true. Every answer is interpreted through it. Every explanation becomes an excuse. Every denial becomes proof.

The people may continue talking, but they are circling an accusation. They are not addressing anything that can actually be corrected.

Eventually, one side says:

“We tried communication, and communication failed.”

But communication did not necessarily fail.

They may have been communicating about the wrong thing.

They did not ask:

What actually happened?

What result did it produce?

What were you trying to accomplish?

What part of this do you acknowledge?

What can now be corrected?

Instead, they argued over an intention one person had assigned to the other.

This gives communication the appearance of uselessness. Once people conclude that words cannot solve the problem, force begins to look reasonable.

The sequence is dangerous:

Invent a bad intention.
Accuse the person of it.
Argue endlessly over the accusation.
Declare communication a failure.
Prepare for war.

The answer, then, is not merely to communicate.

It is to communicate about the right thing.

Find the Problem That Can Be Handled

The place to begin is with what can be observed.

What was said?

What was done?

What result followed?

What needs to be repaired?

Then ask about what cannot be directly observed.

“What did you mean by that?”

“Were you trying to produce this result?”

“Do you see what happened from my side?”

“What were you actually trying to accomplish?”

Those questions reopen a door that accusation closes.

Communication does not guarantee agreement. It does not require blind trust. It does not mean ignoring evidence or refusing to recognize genuine malice.

It means allowing intention to be discovered rather than invented.

It gives the other person a chance to explain, correct, reconsider, or reveal himself. It also gives us the chance to discover that the enemy we were preparing to fight may not have existed.

A disagreement remains potentially solvable while people are communicating about the actual point of difficulty. But when they argue endlessly over an intention that has merely been presumed, they create a problem no answer can reach.

So the rule is:

Judge the act. Verify the facts. Ask about the intention. Find the actual point of disagreement. Communicate about what can be corrected.

And when communication produces no resolution, do not immediately conclude that communication has failed.

First ask whether you are communicating about the right thing.

Handle the action you can observe. Ask about the intention you cannot.

Do not manufacture an enemy where a conversation might still produce a solution.

—

Related Reading