Andres Oppenheimer: Don’t destroy the statues of Robert E. Lee and ‘Che’ Guevara. I have a better idea.

I was in Argentina when the debate over efforts to tear down statues of Confederate hero Robert E. Lee exploded in the United States, and it sounded very much like the ongoing petition in that South American country to destroy monuments to guerrilla leader Ernesto “Che” Guevara. In both cases, there is a much better solution.

Why not let the statues of these historical figures stand, and build monuments to their victims right next to them?

Why not build, right next to each Robert E. Lee statue, a monument to the victims of slavery in the United States? Or, next to Argentineborn Cuban rebel “Che” Guevara, a monument to the people who were executed by him in Cuba?

Supporters of monuments to these and other controversial figures argue that they are part of each country’s history, and deserve to be treated like that. If that’s the case, it would make sense to place them in their context, next to other historic figures that represented opposite points of view.

Schoolchildren and others seeing these side-by-side monuments would get both sides of the story. Violent clashes over efforts to remove these statues — like the one that took place in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Aug. 12 — could be more easily avoided. These statues would serve as testimony to the conflicting viewpoints of history, rather than cult objects.

In Argentina’s port city of Rosario, the center-right Bases Foundation has launched a petition to push city authorities to demolish the giant “Che” Guevara monument that was dedicated in 2008 under a left-ofcenter government. The 13-foot, 1 1/2ton bronze statue was made by melting 75,000 keys, which its sculptor said were donated by people from all over the world.

The petition for the destruction of the statue has already gathered 14,100 signatures on the Change.org website. A counter-petition on the same site asking to keep the monument has drawn 8,100 signatures.

According to the foundation’s petition, “Guevarism in Cuba has left 10,723 people killed by the communist regime, 78,000 dead seeking to escape the island, 14,000 dead in ( Cuba’s) foreign military ventures, 5,300 who died in the Escambray rebellion, (and) persecution of intellectuals, gays and dissidents.”

The petition also requests that all other “Che” Guevara busts and plaques be removed, and that city authorities cancel plans to create a “Che” Guevara tourism circuit.

In the United States, the controversy over the monuments to Confederate figures has turned more violent.

The recent clash between white supremacists and anti-racists in Charlottesville left one dead and 19 wounded. Since then, protesters have pulled down a statue to Confederate soldiers in Durham, North Carolina, and city authorities in Lexington and Baltimore have sped up plans to take down Confederate monuments, in part because they fear escalating protests.

Supporters of Confederate monuments, such as President Donald Trump, say they are part of this country’s legacy. Criticizing those who want to tear them down, Trump said in a rally on Tuesday, “They are trying to take our heritage away.”

Those who want to demolish monuments of Confederate figures argue that these statues have become objects of veneration for white supremacists and neo-Nazis. It’s no coincidence that most Confederate monuments were built in the 1890s and the 1920s, two historical peaks of race segregation and lynching of blacks. These monuments seek to legitimize racism, critics say.

I believe that countries should look much less to the past, and much more into the future. Instead of having historical figures such as George Washington on U.S. dollar bills, we should have forward-looking images dealing with education and innovation. Singapore’s most circulated dollar bill has the image of an anonymous teacher in front of his students. At the bottom of the $2 note you can read the word “Education.”

But if many people want to remember history and maintain monuments to controversial figures, let’s be smart about it: Instead of fighting over whether to tear them down, let’s put them side by side with others representing opposite views that are more socially accepted nowadays. It’s time for Robert E. Lee and “Che” Guevara to share their places in history with their victims.

Give him a teleprompter, and President Donald Trump comes across as dignified. He is substantive and he makes sense, as in resurrecting an exit strategy from war that had all but been forgotten. It is called victory.

His predecessor would put up with no such notion and, in Afghanistan, launched new tactics while setting a date for our withdrawal. That meant the Taliban enemy could trot around killing as the itch occurred and waiting for the happy day. President Barack Obama finally gave up on that stupidity, tried out others plans and still saw the war drag on longer than any other in our history — 16 years at this point.

During his campaign and early in his presidency, Trump wanted to yank all the U.S. soldiers out and say good riddance to a seeming misadventure that has cost us some 2,500 American lives and a trillion dollars. Even with 100,000 troops there a few years back, compared to 8,500 today, we achieved little, he knew, and yet he listened. His generals made contrary arguments, and, as he said in a nationally televised speech Monday, the day of the solar eclipse, he changed his mind. The points he made were good ones. For one thing, we will be fighting a war, not trying the hopeless task of nation building, and we will be doing so in our own self-interest. Afghanistan is where al-Qaida plotted and organized the 9/11 assault. It now harbors some 20 different terrorist groups that would love nothing better than having all of us dead. To take off with the Taliban primed for more power would be to invite more plots and more assaults here and around the world.

This war will be fought with might, no equivocation and no surcease of Taliban sorrow. Rules of engagement? Some extra precautions were long ago taken to safeguard civilians and win their support but, when stretched too far, the rules can endanger our own troops and curb their effectiveness. Trump is ordering that they be revised.

We’re going to get tough with Pakistan. A major disadvantage for us has been that our terrorist enemies can obtain safe havens there, and Trump is saying no more. This will entail some difficult, tricky maneuvers, but we’re capable of that. We’re also going to ask India for more help, expect more assistance from our European allies and look to the Afghan government to deal with its corruption.

In what seemed to contradict his talk about our self-interest, Trump also suggested we won’t be sticking around if Afghanistan does not do its bit in the war, but the nudge may be needed if we are to succeed.

Critics of all of this were quick to have at Trump for not providing enough details, such as how many more troops he would send Afghanistan’s way. I hereby give them grade deductions for not paying attention. Repeating a constant thesis of his, Trump made it clear he is not going to provide our enemies a counter-strategy by giving them the details of ours. Might politics have been part of his reticence? Yes. Politics is how Washington works.

The extra bit of good news here is that Trump did not sound like an ego freak romping around crazily. He was under control, and it was clear, too, that he would not conduct war as an Obama-style, micromanaging secondguesser, disregarding, for instance, expert advice that it was necessary to keep troops in Iraq to safeguard it from terrorist ambitions. Trump seems to get it that war is war and that, if you forget as much, you make it even worse.

When Trump goes adlib, as in a press conference where reporter shrieks about a white supremacist, altright protest were answered in kind, he often loses and loses big. It has been adding up to the point of a presidency in deep trouble. Rectification resides with heeding the wisdom of others, controlling impulses, having good writers lend a hand and using teleprompters as necessary.