Wednesday, November 15, 2006

A Refutation of the Necessity of War

This is a topic that's been bugging me for awhile, but I did not want to tackle it until I had sufficiently explored the topic. After much contemplation and meditation, I have come to the following conclusion:

Any argument that supports the necessity of war is groundless and infinitely destructive to any and all efforts towards Peace in the world today.

You cannot fight fire with fire, evil begets evil, make love not war, etc... You could go on for hours pulling out all the spiritual and peace-inspired platitudes. People love them, they feel inspired by them, they are moved by them. Religious folks spout them and spiritual folks wear them on their sleeves. They are idealistic thoughts that are part of a grander movement dreamt, created and activated by brave and courageous people.

But they are all flawed. Peace is not going to happen overnight. It will not be inspired by any one person or result from some calamatous event that momentarily pulled a people together.

Peace is a change that must occur within ones heart and soul, it is a shifting of ones notions and understandings, of the basics of how an individual interacts with the world at large and the other people one shares it with. Peace is every step. Any movement towards a lasting world peace must happen one individual at a time. There is no other way.

But there are still people that argue that war is necessary in certain circumstances. These are good people, loving people. But this notion this is grossly false. Violence and death are not answers. Ever. Period.

So now your thinking of all the extreme examples you can think of. What if a people is being persecuted and hunted down to extinction? What if there human rights are being abused? What if they are murduring babies? And so and so on. Look at Iraq. Did armed conflict work there? How about Afghanistan? Vietnam? Korea? Shall I go on? When are we going to learn from our mistakes as a human race? And when are people going to see that history of mistakes and start holding their governments accountable, rather than swallowing the propaganda sprayed across their TV screens hook, line and sinker?

I know of a few individuals, brothers of mine in the Gnostic tradition, who will argue the necessity of war. As prospective priests in a tradition founded upon the teachings of Jesus, I am at a loss to understand how they are able to justify this obvious hypocrisy. One of Jesus' most famous quotes in the one that tells us that when our enemy strikes our cheek, that we should turn and offer him the other. How as ambassador's of a tradition that expounds harmony, peace, love and enlightenment possibly explain away or justify the harbouring of such violent notions of justifiable war? How damaging would a priest that teaches such a notion to spiritual travellers in their care be? I have and do challenge these brothers to contemplate and meditate on this misheld notions. The idea of Jesus now or then, supporting justifiable war is laughable. So how can we as would-be priests in a Christian tradition support it? It's simple. We can't.

So where does this idea of justifiable killing and violence come from? I would posit that it derives directly from our western us vs. them, either/or worldview. When we view a conflict, say the recent Hezbollah vs. Israeli war, westerners tend to choose sides. Since both sides believe that they are in the right, it is up to us to view the facts and decide who is on the side of justification. The problem is that unless you are wearing blinders or are just being willfully ignorant of the circumstances, any reasonable human being cannot say that either one is right, nor can they definitively say that either side was wrong. I'm not going to get into the details here, but suffice it to say that this winner/loser worldview is not going to get us anywhere. It is not either/or, it is both/and. Boths sides were right and wrong within the precepts of this faulty and destructive worldview.

So where does the western viewpoint take us? It takes us down the path of choosing a side and seeing through the necessary measures to ensure a victory or a satisfactory resolution. Isn't it George W. who keeps saying "we have to stay the course"? Does this work? Perhaps for politicians and leaders and perhaps even for the viewers who are safe and snug at home in the living room watching horribly biased news programs on the 52" Plasma TV they bought at Best Buy. Care to ask the people whose homes are being destroyed and loved one are being killed? Do you think they give a crap who's right or wrong? Nope, you can bet your ass they only care about getting the bombs to stop falling. They don't have the luxury of caring about right or wrong. They can only see life or death. It is up to us to us to live this suffering with them through our compassion. We are all one, what happens to the least of us, happens to all of us.

There are peaceful solutions to any conflict. Ghandi showed us this, amongst others. And as Jesus goes on to say, if a someone asks for your shirt, give them your coat. If all that matters is the welfare of every human the Earth, then giving over a few hundred acres of land you don't really "own" to save them the pain and suffering of war is a reasonable, no...a necessary step. Israel took land given to them by the British that was not theirs in the first place. Britians imperialistic ambitions were misplaced and caused a great deal of suffering. The arming of many sides by the US has deepened the problem. And so on and so on. The situations are complicated, the history twisted and mired in hate, prejudice and self-interest. None of it matters, the past is an illusion, it only exists in our minds. All we have is NOW, and we need to start choosing the course of peace regardless of what it means to our past. The lives of innocents demands no less.

But then, you are thinking, you are just giving into their unreasonable demands! Where would that lead, you say! It is a difficult thing to see, all but impossible unless we begin to change our world view. The Earth is our home and human beings are one people. We will never know peace until we begin to erase the lines of race and country. What do borders matter when compared to the health and happiness of each individual? Sure armed agressors should be opposed, but sending in a bunch of our guys with bigger guns has proven time and time again not to be the answer. There are other ways, and we as individuals must have the courage and the insight and the conviction to choose them, and to demand that our countries leaders choose them as well. Rather than allowing politicians to lead us, we must guide them in choosing what we want and we need to make these wants clear. They are not kings and queens, they are not omnipotent gods. They are people like you and me, and they make mistakes you can be sure, and are not doing much if anything altruistically. You can bet every decision is made with a healthy does of self-interest.

But all of it must start within the individual heart. Peace is every step. It is every heart that turns towards love over hate, joy over right, compassion over ownership. Take a look at your views. Are they valid? Are they yours, or are they just what you have been taught? Are they a product of your countries political propoganda or are they convictions you hold tightly in your heart? And will they begin to create a world that you would want for your children and your grand-children?

I know where I stand. Where do you?

8 comments:

Shawn™ said...

Of course Ken, all that you say is correct. I was essentially trying to deal with the much larger country vs. country issues.

When looking at this sort of thing on a personal level and an individual level than yes, I stop them with as little force as possible since the repurcussions of allowing my child to be killed would be far greater than leveling a certain level of violence to stop this killing.

Where I feel that peace is being pushed to the sidelines is in the larger far more complicated minefield of international diplomatic relations. And it is to this topic I was directing this post.

Many people feel that they do not have the power to affect change in this larger realm of activity. It is my hope that over time I can show people that they in fact can affect change, even if it is only measured in inches. From the viewpoint of the suffering every inch counts.

Joe Daher said...

Well, I felt almost obligated to reply since my comments are almost definitely what inspired you to approach this topic. Here goes:

Any argument that supports the necessity of war is groundless and infinitely destructive to any and all efforts towards Peace in the world today.

Not quite fair. It's almost like taking the entire debate and balling it all up. There's more to it than just sending a bunch of our guys to go die. That would be foolish, stupid, and counterproductive to any values that any of us hold dear. I'll explain momentarily.

But there are still people that argue that war is necessary in certain circumstances. These are good people, loving people. But this notion this is grossly false. Violence and death are not answers. Ever. Period.

Again, one big ball. Consider this: if one were to go back in time, do you think it feasible that we could have negotiated with Hitler? Do you think he would've stopped his quest to weed out all populations of the world who weren't of the "master race?"

Or better, do you think it at all possible that he would have eventually come to his senses and stopped his insanities? If the US had not gotten involved in WWII, then where would the world be today? Still extant, to be sure, but in what shape?

Saddam Hussein...would he have willingly stopped killing and torturing his citizens in the future? Would he ever have come to an agreement with the rest of the world and NOT invaded Kuwait? Do you think that he would have reversed his position?

Do you think the Taliban would have ever announced to the world that "the West and Islam can live in peace"? Do you think that the citizens living in Afgahnistan would have ever been relieved of the unjust treatment they lived with if it weren't for outside involvement?

Armed conflict doesn't "solve" the situation. That's an absurd and utterly rediculous statement for anyone to make or assume to be the case. Armed conflict is, in certain cases, one of the mile markers on the highway. It is not the end, it is a means to an end.

The simple fact of the matter is that the world is not a great and peaceful place. There are a lot of very bad people in the world that have a lot of very bad thoughts about other people. Sometimes these people get in a position of power, and sometimes even MORE bad things happen because of it.

Consider this:
By taking a pacifist attitude towards everything in life, are we to assume that by shutting down our law enforcement offices that all crimes will cease to exist? Should we stop pursuing murderers and serial killers in the hopes that they will come to their senses?

I absolutely, undeniably agree with you that every bit of peace in the world must come from each individual, and we must all want it. The path to the individual heart is undeniably ALWAYS love and compassion. ALWAYS.

But that's not how the whole world works, at least not yet. The bigger world, Shawn, has a lot more bad in it than a hug can take care of. When there are people all over the world that want to kill you just because you don't believe what they do, there's ABSOLUTELY something wrong. No pacifist attitude will stop that blood-hunger, either.

What we must hope for is an educated youth. What we must work towards is a generation of people raised from childhood to value what we all value: life and love. In order to do this, though, we must be ABLE to teach these children this. Do you think we can do that in North Korea?

Osama Bin Laden has been quoted: "While our enemies love life, we love death."

How do you negotiate with that?

One of Jesus' most famous quotes in the one that tells us that when our enemy strikes our cheek, that we should turn and offer him the other.

Absolutely. But do you turn the other cheek when someone else is getting killed? Do you turn the other cheek when someone else is getting hurt? When does it become a matter of personal responsiblity? This teaching, Shawn, is meant for a resolution to personal conflict - not mass conflict. When someone strikes YOU on the cheek, turn the other. When someone strikes your wife on the cheek, do you turn away?

Shawn™ said...

Holy crap, Joe, where do I start?

Again, one big ball. Consider this: if one were to go back in time, do you think it feasible that we could have negotiated with Hitler?

Could you simplify the situation any further? Hitler was allowed in power, allowed to assimilate Austria and to occupy Poland through the complacency of the West. The West only got motiviated to do anything about Hitler once they invaded and occupied France, thereby becoming a threat to THEM. So which is the greater evil? A monster being a monster, or people allowing a monster to be a monster as long as he's not bothering them? Hitler was a bad man, of that there is no argument. But the atrocities that occurred to the Jews did not start to happen until well into the war. If Hitler had been curtailed long before then, none of it would have happened. Hell, Hitler instituted the yellow badge of identification for the Jews first, a practice which the Catholic Church had implemented 100 years earlier. Nothing new there. But this is hardly my point and hardly a valid arguement against my point.

If the US had not gotten involved in WWII, then where would the world be today?

Holy shit, do not even bloody start with the US saved the world's ass in WWII. They were the last western country to join the war and only after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour. The Canadians had been fighting long before and won many decisive victories against the Germans (i.e. Vimy Ridge) without any help from the US. Secondly, the US support in D-Day was not the largest despite the efforts of movies like "Saving Private Ryan". The British, Canadians, etc... formed a major portion of this most important of operations. The US spent most of its resources sending supplies to Europe and its troups to battle the Japanese. A war I will remind you, that was only ended by dropping two atomic bombs a killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people indiscriminately and that is still killing through cancer caused by radiation, while Japanese people were held in concentration camps on American soil (a practice the Canadians performed as well!). Wake up and pull your head out of your ass. This blind US sentiment is horribly insulting to the rest of the countries that suffered in the terrible war.

Saddam Hussein...would he have willingly stopped killing and torturing his citizens in the future?

Need I remind you that the US put Saddam in power?

Do you think the Taliban would have ever announced to the world that "the West and Islam can live in peace"?

Need I remind you that it was the US that trained them?

I don't say these things to smear the name of the Amerian people, but to shake you out of your assumptions and delusions that the American government is acting from the side of right. BOTH SIDES ARE WRONG HERE!! The US has been responsible for outrageous acts of slaughter, discrimination and brutality throughout history. What I am trying to do is to get people to argue from the standpoint of being HUMAN, rather than a partriotic and misplaced loyalty to ones country.

Armed conflict is, in certain cases, one of the mile markers on the highway. It is not the end, it is a means to an end.

Bullshit. It only increases the suffering. It is this wrongmindedness that needs to be changed.

The simple fact of the matter is that the world is not a great and peaceful place. There are a lot of very bad people in the world that have a lot of very bad thoughts about other people. Sometimes these people get in a position of power, and sometimes even MORE bad things happen because of it.

Bush? Come on Joe, you can't be this obtuse of blind to the realities of your own country. Canada had much to answer for as well, but I do not bind my loyalty to them, but to all humans. I am a human well before I am Canadian. My citizenship is a matter of man-made imaginary lines and legal regulations, my species is a matter of Reality.

Consider this:
By taking a pacifist attitude towards everything in life, are we to assume that by shutting down our law enforcement offices that all crimes will cease to exist? Should we stop pursuing murderers and serial killers in the hopes that they will come to their senses?

No, I am suggesting that we simply open our eyes and see the criminals and murderers that exist on OUR side of the fence within the realm of politics and international diplomacy. Might does not make right, and thus far all of our politicians have been acting with impunity and all in the name of the best interests of their citizens.

But that's not how the whole world works, at least not yet. The bigger world, Shawn, has a lot more bad in it than a hug can take care of.

Ouch. That's a little insulting.

No pacifist attitude will stop that blood-hunger, either.

Did I say pacifist? I am trying to be realistic, but I just don't believe force is ever necessary. Threats can be contained without aggression. We just need to act outside of what we have historically been doing.

What we must hope for is an educated youth.

How can this possibly happen in the atmosphere that exist in our own countries? Look at you. Will you teach your children that violence is necessary in certain circumstances? What will you do to start this education? Our children learn from us. They are copy-cats, they learn from what we do, not from what we say. The change must begin NOW with us, or our children don't stand a chance.

Osama Bin Laden has been quoted: "While our enemies love life, we love death." How do you negotiate with that?

You don't, but invading Afghanistan and Iraq didn't solve it either. Actually beefing up security at your airports, etc... solved it. Invasion was just about revenge and appeasing the people. Don't try to sell it as anything other than that. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it's a duck.

Joe, you amongst others MUST start to question some of your views. Violence is NOT necessary. It just isn't. Can't you contemplate for just a minute? How will violence ever become a thing of the past if we always hold it out as an option? Where does it end? Where is the line?

Joe Daher said...

Shawn, I will respond, but only because I find the points of your discussion in error. I see a mildly insulting tone in your response, of which I can hardly discover the roots to. I've re-read my initial comments and found no reason that I can see for the apparent burst of anger I've caused you.

Hitler was allowed in power, allowed to assimilate Austria and to occupy Poland through the complacency of the West.

"Complacency" or "pacificism"? Why does it matter HOW he got to power; why does that matter more than what he did AFTER he got there. Great leaders can turn into nut jobs, too...so how best to deal with that? And how do we, as a culture, "allow" someone to get to power in another country? Did your country or my country sponsor Hitler? Did we promote him? Did we advertise for him? I find that the blame you put on the west for Hitler's ascension into power not only groundless, but seemingly side-stepping the whole issue: Hitler was in power, and his regime was stopped by war - one that was fought out of neccesity.

do not even bloody start with the US saved the world's ass in WWII. They were the last western country to join the war and only after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour

Shawn, you've only backtracked on your own initial point. The US was an isolationist country before WWII, it did NOT get involved in major world affairs. After all the pacifist notions were put into place, the US still got dragged into the war. My mention of the US involvement in WWII was not intended to be so "John Wayne." I simply state it for the group: US involvement was a turning point in the entire movement, and any historian can tell you that.

Need I remind you that the US put Saddam in power?

Saddam wasn't "put" into power by the US, he was put into power by his Baath party. He stayed in power out of fear of him and his reprisals. The US's involvement with Saddam was only to the extent that he was fighting with Iran - a country that was previously giving the US quite a lot of threats (like kidnapping Americans).

Need I remind you that it was the US that trained them? {the Taliban}


The US aided the groups that resisted Communist Russia. To resist the spread of more totalitarian governments. It was the view, at the time, that these people were being wronged. It's not so black and white - the US government didn't just say "we don't care that they're bad people"...they simply didn't have that understanding of those groups.

It's not quite as black and white. The world of politics exists in an eternal state of gray. All countries believe they are acting towards the benefit of the people (including the Nazis).

I don't say these things to smear the name of the Amerian people, but to shake you out of your assumptions and delusions that the American government is acting from the side of right.

I understand that, Shawn. I'm not so ignorant - I think and feel differently about politics than you do. I don't believe everything the government does is for my benefit - but I don't believe the US gov is so evil; I don't buy every conspiracy theory that someone strands across the internet and tabloids. I read, listen, and think. Because I disagree with your standpoint does not mean "my head's in my ass." It means that I disagree that altruistic, pacifist methods will work in short term progress.

I do, however, feel that it will work long term, but only as a person by person, individual spirit-awakening. Until then, we have real issues to deal with, one of which is self-preservation.

My citizenship is a matter of man-made imaginary lines and legal regulations, my species is a matter of Reality.

Agreed. But the fact of the matter is that the "imaginary lines" are now on a parallel with the Demiurge - the are as egregorical as they can be. Each person now operates on these assumptions of belief and it creates substance for those believing.

Believe it or not, I'm not a nationalist. I don't care where someone is from, nor do I champion the idea of America as the greatest country in the world. I think it, as well as Britain, Canada, Austrailia, Holland, etc. etc. allows its citizens the most promise and freedom in the world, and of this I will take full advantage of and attempt to share with the world. That doesn't mean I wish to see an American flag flying in all countries. It means that I respect what this country allows people to become and embrace.

Look at you. Will you teach your children that violence is necessary in certain circumstances?

I think that's as black and white as you can make it. It gives the image of me saying, "kill whoever messes with you." C'mon, Shawn, human nature isn't something someone simply shrugs off. People wake up to their Divinity within at their own pace. I certainly will not teach them that violence is an acceptable format with which to resolve problems. But I will not teach them that defense of the self and of others is just as bad as beating up some guy for disagreeing with them. If I can bring them to wake the inside to the love of the Divine, they will figure out for themselves how to handle situations before they escalate to such atrocities.

As for the rest of the world, it will happen eventually. I reconize that continual bickering and fighting will never break into peace everlasting. But the hope is that eventual stablization will. As dictatorships fall, governments rise that can better suit the people's interests.

But the people have to want it. All we can do as citizens of countries that allow us that mindset is help those out of situations where their countries, leaders, and governments do not afford them as much luxury.

Shawn™ said...

Peace brother, I did not intend passion to be confused with anger. My apologies. And of course, you make many fine points, we are simply seeing different sides of the same coin. As I have said before, neither is right and neither is wrong.

It is easy to construe and misrepresent character online, and again as I have said before, online is no way to build a friendship.

As always I appreciate your wisdom. Perhaps my view of how the world could be is naive and a little unrealistic, but I think the world needs optimistic idealists like me, if for no other reason that to give realistic well-intentioned pragmatists something to think about.

Oh well, we should probably try to have an actual phone conversation one of these days. Might give our online wrangling some much needed perspective ;)

Again peace

Shawn

Joe Daher said...

Namaste, my friend. I thoroughly enjoy our discussions and feel that they are an excellent forum to exercise my own opinions on political and world issues.

As I have said before, neither is right and neither is wrong

Understood, agreed, and point taken.

My wish is to help - through enlightenment - people come together and realize exactly what YOU'VE been saying. Creat a ripple effect, as it were.

Peace can only come one person at a time, and I hope that can happen at least in my children's lifetimes (speaking of naive...).

Jordan Stratford+ said...

I should write a post about banning the name "Hitler" for all time - as soon as anyone brings up Hitler the debate deteriorates exponentially.

Also it was Poland, not France, and the Nazi atrocities against Jews pre-dated the war. But that's an aside. Here's my two bits.

Right now I want the UN to send troops into Darfur. What's happening today is this: civilians are lining up for aid: basic stuff like food and water. Some kids drive up in a pickup truck with a 50 cal mounted on the back, and take the food and water. And every so often fire into the crowd to show them who's in charge.

I want us to send people in blue hats to hang out in those line ups. I want those people to carry guns, and if necessary, use them to put bullets through the kids in the pickup truck.

Now no general is dumb enough to think that that in and of itself is going to solve anything in the long run: we need to invest in education, policing, sanitation, agriculture, innoculation, underwrite financial stability and trade.

But none of that can start until the kids in the pickup are disinclined at their mortal peril to interfere with the civilians in the line-up.

And this is working in *some* parts of Iraq and *more* places in Afghanistan, just as it worked in the Dominican Republic and Haiti and Kosovo - meaning with very mixed results. But many people are grateful for the protection *responsilbe* armed force grants a civilian population under seige from *irresponsible* armed force.

(yes, absolute power corrupts absolutely, I get that - but a sandwich is not a farm, and sometimes you have to feed someone a sandwich right now and give them a farm tomorrow).

We cannot equivocate a soldier carrying a rifle to protect innocent life with a soldier carrying a rifle to take innocent life. All violence is not the same. I think this is what Ken was talking about re: the process of getting to peace.

PeacMAKING - "Calm down, and let's talk. If you don't, I'll shoot you" is - very ocassionally - an appropriate response. But ONLY in the context of peaceKEEPING and peaceBUILDING. Every armed escort needs to be matched by a school, a hospital, a road, an irrigation ditch, an election.

Shawn™ said...

Thank you Father Jordan+, I am always happy when you comment here.

In the hopes that you will see my response, here goes.

I see where you are coming from and you and Rev.Ken+ seem to be on the same page with this. It is a difficult thing when bad people do bad things to helpless people. How do you stop them if not without force, since they are so determined to use unreasonable and illogical force to do whatever the hell they want?

So what is it that this youths want? They are starving like the rest, but rather than stand in line, they are taking what they want. If they were no longer starving, would they act in this way? I would say, probably not, though it may have gone too far for that now.

Let's say that aid was given before it had reached this point, where the only real solution is to do as you say. If aid was given appropriately before things had reached a desparate level, I would be willing to bet these sames youths would be working alongside everyone else. Extreme circumstances breed extreme measures.

The problem is not that we need peacekeepers to keep peace in areas such as this, the problem is that we as humans, cannot find a way to give aid where it is needed in a timely fashion.

There is more than enough food and supplies to be had in the world for areas such as this, but we lack any real support, infrastructure or even willingness to provide "preventative" aid.

That is where our focus should be. That is a non-violent way to prevent violence. But perhaps that ship has already sailed in Darfur, and the process you speak of is the next reasonable alternative.

But where is the next Darfur? What are we doing to stop Darfur from happening again?

Tough questions I know, but we must find them.