Essay by Martha Quillen
War and Peace – January 2006 – Colorado Central Magazine
ONCE AGAIN, America resounds with messages about “Peace on Earth, Good Will Toward Men.” So perhaps `tis the season to reflect upon the irony of all those old tunes devoted to Peace. Considering such lyrics, you’d think that peace must be something everybody agrees upon — be they liberal, conservative, Christian, atheist, old, young, rich, or poor.
Except, of course, that’s not true.
Ideologically, I guess I’m part pacifist — since I believe that there is almost always a better way to handle things than by warring. But I also believe in democracy, and this is a country where the majority clearly believes that war is warranted. Therefore, I can accept military action — presuming the cause is just; the threat is imminent; the situation is dire; better options have been exhausted; and lives may be greatly improved.
But looking back, it sure does seem like the U.S. gets itself into a lot of questionable – and forgettable – frays. For example, did the CIA have to help overthrow Mohammed Mossadegh, the constitutionally elected Prime Minister of Iran in 1953? And what about Libya? And all of that mucking around in Nicaragua and El Salvador? And Clinton’s “fiasco” in Somalia. Was it all really necessary?
Of course, some of it was for a good cause. Operation Restore Hope in Somalia was launched by George Bush the Elder and the U.N. for the most humanitarian of causes: to save starving Somalis caught in a no man’s land of competing warlords and teenage gunmen. And for a time it succeeded, but eventually the warlords took to raiding relief supplies and attacking humanitarian workers. In 1995, rebels stormed through Mogadishu, triumphantly dragging the bodies of slaughtered American servicemen through the streets, and Clinton consequently withdrew our troops. It was portrayed as a rout, a disaster, and by Republicans, as a disgrace.
But curiously, some analysts count the Somalia intervention as a success, because thousands of starving Somalis were saved, and American troops were quickly and efficiently withdrawn when the situation dissolved into utter chaos. Although Somalia is still a violent, lawless place, in recent years peace talks have resumed, and today, humanitarian workers continue in their attempts to aid the displaced and feed the hungry.
On the other hand, however, the campaign in Kosovo was deemed successful at the time, but Clinton’s intervention there certainly didn’t kindle Balkan togetherness. Kosovo is still a mess, due to continuing problems with ethnic strife and violence, police brutality, political corruption, and severe discrimination against the minority Roma population. Domestic violence, and forced prostitution are widespread, and there was a significant outbreak of street violence in 2004.
Last year, the violence turned against ethnic Hungarians, Croats, Slovaks, and Ruthenians. But now anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim sentiments seem to be increasing, and human rights workers are commonly the target of threats, graffiti, and “burglaries.” UN and NATO troops have been accused of encouraging (and enjoying) the sex trade in the region; and there’s a growing protest against UNMIK, the U.N. Mission in Kosovo, established to help the people rebuild and heal. At this point, international efforts continue, but the future doesn’t look rosy.
IN FACT, things don’t look real good in lots of countries we’ve tried to straighten out. The U.S. has intervened in Angola, Lebanon, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Panama, and Haiti — just to mention a few of our improvement projects. And long before 9/11, Clinton lobbed missiles into Afghanistan and the Sudan.
Clearly, bombing a place is not a sure route to improvement. So why not try peace?
Well…. First off, it won’t be easy. War is an old habit. And ours is a warrior culture, founded on war and ascending due to war – a rich, dominant Super Power. And cultures don’t change overnight.
But they do change. The Utes, for example, were hunters and warriors when they were removed to reservations. And they adjusted pretty well — taking up horse racing and gambling, and getting an early start on their 20th century future – until Nathan Meeker, the Indian Agent for the White River Agency, decided that his charges had to be farmers. It was too much, and that band of Utes revolted.
Sometimes people have defensible reasons for war, and thus they should deliberate on whether war is called for, and consider its probable consequences.
BUT THERE ARE Americans today who seem to support going to war anywhere the current administration suggests — without examination or debate. And some even insist that any tactic employed by our side is fine – including prisoner abuse, torture, and sexual assault (or at least I classify all of that rubbing against, genital-grabbing, and stripping and playing with prisoners as if they were Barbie dolls as sexual assault).
But supporting torture (along with clear violations of military code) is crazy — plus illegal, immoral, and dangerous for our troops and everyone else. Military discipline is historically strict because young men sent into perilous situations need strong leadership and regulations for the sake of the mission and their own survival.
So what are hyper-conservatives really saying? That we’re the Super Power? That we get to make the rules which others must follow? That the U.S. shouldn’t have to support its position with evidence? Or explanations? Or international law and custom?
That’s frightening. And in terms of our country’s stated ideals and devotion to Democracy, it’s downright unAmerican.
But when peace-loving Americans contend that ours is a hopeless society — materialistic, violent, self-righteous, warmongering, and incapable of change, I totally disagree. Americans are not simply good or evil, right or wrong, religious or scientific, left or right. We’re multi-faceted. We’re greedy and generous; ruthless and kind; compassionate and callous; bigoted and empathetic, up, down, back, forth, and all around. Or, in short, we’re human. And we’re also diverse.
But I think Americans can be extraordinarily compassionate, too (when our exceptional passions aren’t inciting us to ridicule and contempt).
After it became clear that government relief wasn’t up to the challenge created by hurricane Katrina, people from our very own region rushed down to deliver food and water. Volunteers sloshed through the mud and filth to rescue survivors, recover bodies, and even rescue cats and dogs. Fund-raising drives were held throughout Central Colorado, and Coloradans opened their homes and hearts to total strangers.
When relief organizations were unable to reach devastated villages in Pakistan, American medical workers took it upon themselves to find a way in. When blizzards strike Montana and the Dakotas, Coloradans start collecting food and blankets. Salidans raise money to support cottage industries in Guatemala. Locals donate Christmas gifts and meals. Volunteers man food banks, hospices, and animal shelters, and provide transportation for the elderly.
Of course, there is never enough money, and our needs always seem to exceed our resources. But Americans keep on giving.
And well we should, you say, since we are the richest nation in the world.
But our government’s expenses are enormous — for defense, war, homeland security, transportation, and the Department of Justice (think courts, prisons, judges, the FBI and DEA). Thus, despite what Americans believe, the U.S. government parcels out a smaller percentage of our nation’s GNP in foreign aid than most other wealthy countries, and it has seriously cut back on providing citizen services in recent years.
Yet ordinary, middle-class Americans reach into their own pockets to support people world-wide with both trade and aid. Americans who are neither rich nor famous volunteer their time and skills — teaching, fixing, treating, and organizing. They dig people out of rubble, put out forest fires, shovel away debris, man shelters, and distribute food.
Americans are ubiquitous, working darned near everywhere.
And sometimes we are as welcome as cockroaches.
ACCORDING TO MOST COMMENTATORS, 9/11 changed our world. But for a long time I didn’t agree. Acts of terrorism were nothing new; there’d been Oklahoma City, Columbine High School, and the previous attack on the World Trade Center. In fact, 9/11 wasn’t even the first act of terrorism attributed to Osama bin Laden.
But now, I think I was wrong: 9/11 did rock our world. It rapidly divided us – on matters of security, citizens’ rights, military retaliation, and funding.
Then, politicians and talk show personalities exaggerated the pros and cons in order to sway us into their camp. In fact, whenever things go awry, a bevy of politicians and pundits gleefully encourage us to turn on one another. And we frequently do — with gusto and ferocity.
Since 9/11 that has presented another problem: No matter what their politics, Americans have started to believe that some of their closest friends and relatives are trying to destroy their society. And this, I think, has been the most devastating effect of 9/11. The rhetoric is fierce; our feelings are intense; and the anger is palpable.
Today, reasonably safe, warm, and well-fed Americans insist that things are worse than they have ever been before, which is a little crazed when you consider the Black Death and Spanish Inquisition. But there’s reason behind our madness. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died. American kids are in the line of fire. We’ve all learned that plenty of foreigners don’t like us much. And there’s an ongoing fractious debate. Are we right? Are we wrong? Are we good? Are we evil?
NOW SOME AMERICANS want to stay the course. And others want to pull out immediately. And some want the Iraqis to decide. And others want the U.N. to decide.
And the Democrats still can’t understand how anyone can support a Presidential administration that dispenses deceptive information to increase citizen support; and disregards the disapproval of the U.N.; and conducts pre-emptive military operations; and ignores illegal behavior; and excuses violations of the Geneva Convention.
But the Democrats should understand – because this stuff is nothing new. (Or did you think the CIA asked for international approval before it tried to assassinate Castro?)
Likewise, our growing disregard for rules is old hat. A country is not supposed to depose the duly elected leader of a foreign nation. Nor are Presidents and their staff members supposed to commit illegal actions and then compound them by denying the truth. But they do.
Despite heated allegations, President Bush hasn’t done anything new in disseminating misleading information, or even launching pre-emptive strikes. And that’s something we should keep in mind if we want to avoid future wars. Presidents from both parties spin and cheerlead their way into war.
Right or wrong, Bush’s tactics aren’t particularly exceptional. But the scale of his war plan is staggering. Two wars launched, a pledge that he will fight terrorism wherever it exists, and threats of impending action made toward Iran, North Korea, Syria, Somalia and….
Where does his enemies list end?
Sure, Vietnam was big, too, but it started slowly. Bush blitzed into Afghanistan, and then Iraq with a bang and a bevy of forces, and promised more, which easily accounts for the outrage and abhorrence he reaped from many Americans. In fighting, scale is everything, and can mean the difference between a black eye and nuclear annihilation.
President Bush certainly believes in the old Reagan motto of “Peace through Strength.” Yet I suspect that even Reagan might be appalled. Reagan kept his interventions small, often sending supplies, military aid, and the CIA to support and train “freedom fighters.” Reagan’s avowed goal was to help would-be resisters overthrow communist dictatorships (not to bankrupt the U.S. in order to rearrange the world).
Then (despite support from a fairly pacifistic constituency) Clinton built on the Reagan Doctrine, extending the idea to support military intervention not just to curb aggression but to enforce humanitarian law, too.
Such military interventions have frequently failed, though, regardless of their purpose — because too many places that America has armed and trained, or actually sent troops into, have never managed to reclaim any equilibrium. And therefore, they’re now ripe recruiting grounds for anti-American terrorists.
WHICH BRINGS US BACK to Peace on Earth.Though some will probably laugh at the very idea that America could be a kinder, gentler nation, I’m hoping that a major pro-peace movement evolves out of this war, one that encourages citizens to question why we go to war, and to explore what we’ve really accomplished with our military interventions (besides of course, spreading anti-American sentiment and training potential terrorists world-wide).
Americans have seen plenty of anti-war movements — against Vietnam, the Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq. But we’ve yet to establish any long-term war-prevention campaign.
Militarists mock pacifists as deluded, naive cowards and traitors, and as bleeding heart dreamers living in a fantasy world where peace and understanding are possible. And in the latter assumption, they may be right; war does seem to be as rampant and pervasive as rats. But that hardly seems like a good reason to defend it.
In my view, it’s nigh time Americans protested all of the destructive, ineffective, poorly planned and counter-productive military interventions our country gets into. War begets war, and the U.S. seems intent on guaranteeing that some people in this world will never have a peaceful moment.
In recent years, it has become clear that Peace is not emerging through Strength. And despite all of our efforts, we don’t seem to be making the world safe for democracy.
If decades of intervention have contributed anything to the world, it seems to be civil wars and anti-American slogans. So clearly it’s time to reconsider our approach — except first, we need to learn a little more.
Iraq has brought up a lot of good questions: Under what circumstances should we go to war? How important are the rules (eg. Geneva Conventions)? And if they’re so important, why do Americans disregard so many covert CIA operations which generally proceed without oversight or much regard to rules — and usually leave behind legions of angry young men with paramilitary training.
Americans need to talk about such things when our country resides in relative peace, so that questions of troop morale, patriotism, and honoring fallen soldiers don’t intrude. We need to talk when we can think and analyze rather than emote. And it’s hard to do that when so many people’s children, mothers, and fathers are in Iraq.
WE ALSO NEED to learn more about the Geneva Conventions and Hague Conventions and other treaties and agreements the U.S. has signed and presumably adheres to; and diplomacy; and foreign nations; and what foreigners think of us; and about what our country is doing abroad; and what the U.N. is doing; and the CIA….
And for that we need better media.
Of course, all of this information is already available on the web — if you browse through a wide enough variety of foreign and domestic newspapers, and check official government sites, think tanks, watch dog organizations etc. But that’s time consuming and lonely work, and it doesn’t serve the important purpose of making U.S. foreign policy part of our national conversation — so that we all start thinking more about it.
Thus, we need to expect more of our national media. They should all be reporting on major foreign affairs (and not just earthquakes and tsunamis).
And that’s not impossible – or even unprecedented. Watch old newsreels. Once upon a time audiences saw treaties and accords being born; they watched momentous meetings, ceremonies and handshakes. And yes, newsreels dispensed propaganda by disseminating the official government position. But at least they encouraged an interest in diplomacy and relations by including world-changing events which didn’t include implosions or eruptions. In years gone by, broadcasters didn’t assume that their audience was only interested in disaster footage.
U.S. SENATORS AND Congressmen also need to be better informed — and invigorated. Then instead of finger-pointing and griping that the President and his staff have led them astray, maybe they’ll actually ask questions when a crisis comes up — and discuss matters, and consider alternatives while there are still alternatives.
Institutions tend to be unwieldy and slow to change, so it won’t be easy to get our national press or federal government to change. But I think the seeds of change have already been planted. People seem to be reading more about foreign affairs and Washington politics. In recent months, Bush supporters have quit snapping and started reflecting on problems presented by the Iraq war. And comedians have discovered U.S. foreign policy and are really making the most of it.
The challenge will be to keep this momentum going after the war. That’s when important questions about war and peace can truly be debated, and America’s war record can be analyzed, argued over, and evaluated.
Our government representatives aren’t going to question things they’ve long taken for granted, unless we question them. And newspapers and broadcasting stations aren’t going to initiate a costly conversion to covering more foreign affairs, unless we lead the way.
Sweeping reforms don’t start in the press room or Senate chamber. They start at home, at work, and around the dinner table. They grow in the Bean, the W Café, Bongo Billy’s, and the Golden Burro, and then work their way up.
The truth is, media outlets and government representatives pander to our preferences. Therefore, if we’re not interested, they’re not interested.
So let’s stay interested. And who knows. Maybe America will finally decide that bombs aren’t the best calling card to leave when you want to make friends — or peace.
Then, someday, all of us, world-wide, will really have something to sing about.
