David Cortright has a new book out, Nonviolence and the strategy against terrorism, which sounds very promising. As ALL of us are desirous of not engaging in war unnecessarily (and all the awful destruction that accompanies war), we owe it to ourselves to research the alternatives. If we can stop terrorism by means other than war, then surely this is a cause we can all rally around - pacifist and warrior, left and right.
An excerpt from an essay by Cortright at Sojourners:
An excerpt from an essay by Cortright at Sojourners:
"Bush administration officials and many political leaders in Washington view terrorism primarily through the prism of war. Kill enough militants, they believe, and the threat will go away. The opposite approach is more effective and less costly in lives. Some limited use of force to apprehend militants and destroy training camps is legitimate, but unilateral war is not. In the three years since the invasion of Iraq, the number of major terrorist incidents in the world has increased sharply. War itself is a form of terrorism. Using military force to counter terrorism is like pouring gasoline on a fire. It ignites hatred and vengeance and creates a cycle of violence that can spin out of control. A better strategy is to take away the fuel that sustains the fire. Only nonviolent methods can do that, by attempting to resolve the underlying political and social factors that give rise to armed violence."
It would seem hard to argue against such sound logic.
25 comments:
Dan- If you can get your hands on a copy of the current issue of Orion magazine (September/October), there's an article I think you'd enjoy: "Nonviolence--the hidden history of a revolutionary idea" by Mark Kurlansky. It's a great historical perspective on how nonviolence has shaped the world; I was amazed at all of the big changes that have come about through nonviolent means. Unfortunately, the article is not available online, but he does have a book coming out in September on the same subject.
I love Kurlansky--haven't read his Orion article yet, though the magazine is laying around here somewhere. Dan, if you have trouble getting your hands on a copy, I can send you mine. Let me know.
Great quote.
Thank you both. There are Orions around here. I'll check it out.
I've been meaning to advertise Cortwright's new book on my blog, too.
maybe if we all convert to islam then the terrorist will have no reasion to hate us. No lives lost.
That's up to you, Rusty. I shan't, thank you.
Furthermore, Rusty, your implication that this is what anyone is advocating when clearly no one has stated or advocated anything of the sort is merely a blatant strawman argument.
You'd have more credibility in your arguments if you'd argue what people are saying rather than what you want to think they're saying.
I belive that is the terms the terrorist leaders have laid out, isn't it?
I belive war was declared on all non-muslim nations. Am I wrong?
the peacemaking argument is the same as paying protection money something we did during the Carter administration and look how well that worked.
The peace at any cost argument doesn't work in the real world. The cost will always go up and sooner or later it will lead to war. If someone can give me an example were war was adverted by peaceful means when dealing with terrorists I may concede my point.
I'm not going to dignify the protection money red herring.
Examples of peacemaking against terrorism: Northern Ireland--after years of war not working; Italy switched from a "war model" to a "police this crime" model and ended the terror of the Red Brigade and other Leftist terror groups.
Nonviolence was used in Sicily to end the terror of the Mafia.
The nonviolence civil rights movement in the U.S. ended a hundred years of terrorism by the KKK which included lynchings, bombings, castrations, "disappearances," etc.
When Turkey switched 10 years ago from a war model to a police model and to Just Peacemaking practices, it created conditions for a 6 year cease-fire on the part of the PKK (armed Kurdish separatists).
I could go on.
"The peace at any cost argument doesn't work in the real world"
So it would be wise if no one advised doing such a thing. I know of no one who is.
As we can see in Iran and in the absence of action in places such as Darfur and Rwanda, the War-at-any-costs argument isn't a viable solution, either.
Mike good examples of how not to have a civil war. Still no examples of how to handle foreign acts of aggression. Or perhaps we should send a police force to Afghanistan to make arrests? Or we could end the conflict in Iraq by handing it over to the Iraqis. But isn't that what we are doing.
Lets see I asked a question about our current war and you gave me examples of how to avoid civil war. A Red Herring perhaps, or perhaps I assumed we were talking about the War on Terrorism. If my assumption was wrong forgive me.
Speaking of Red Herring, how is my analogy distracting for irrelevant? The post claims peace can be obtained by resolving the underlying political and social factors. I interpret that as giving them money and they will leave you alone. How am i wrong?
Straw Man? The terrorists who attacked up on 9/11 have come out and said we will be attacked again unless we convert. The post is claiming a way to peace with the same terrorist without aggression. How was my argument a flawed interpretation of your point. Please enlighten me.
Furthermore, you guys can be so insulting. You hurt my feelings.
Actually, you just asked about peacemaking against terrorism. I gave the examples that came immediately to mind. And, regarding the Northern Ireland example, some of the terror attacks happened not in Ireland, but in England. So, there was some international dimension to it.
In fact, however, we are using police techniques in the so-called "war on terror." That's the one area where we are having some success: Networks of police and intelligence agencies cooperating across borders are, according to our leaders at least, breaking up several terrorist plots and groups. The military dimension in Afghanistan is coming apart and was a disaster almost from the beginning in Iraq--where no terrorists existed until we invaded.
I don't have all the answers to this. I'd like to read Cortwright's book and others' like it to see if answers exist that might have far more success than trying to go to war against a METHOD like terrorism. I would think you might want to read first and dismiss only after you know what you are talking about.
And Dan & I are insulting? We're not the ones who a) implied that anyone who disagrees with the "invade and occupy" model wants everyone in the West to convert to Islam, b) accused peacemakers of paying protection money and said that was done in the Carter admin. (a blatant lie--it was Reagan who sold arms first to Saddam Hussein, then to the warlords in Afghanistan, and finally to Iran, and who trained and supported the terrorists known as Contras in Nicaragua), c) then accused people, Dan, Myself, maybe Deb and Lene, of appeasement and wanting "peace at any costs."
Who is insulting whom?
you
And that is your answer? "You"?
Rusty, you are always welcome here and I appreciate any comments you have about what we advocate or are opposed to. But we don't accept strawmen arguments here. Stick to what we're actually talking about if you'd like to make commentary.
We have much to discuss and it is vital that we as a nation have these conversations, but it can't happen if any or all of those participating aren't discussing what has actually been said.
"Still no examples of how to handle foreign acts of aggression."
The Contra War in Nicaragua was largely a foreign act of aggression by the US on Nicaragua. It was fought largely in our stead by the Contra terrorists, but it was our money and intelligence paying for the lion's share of the war.
Witness for Peace and other groups organized and largely stopped the violence there. I'm pretty sure I've covered this at your blog or other places we've been. Non-violence has worked and can work at least as well as war-making.
One of the great shortfalls of war-as-solution is the extreme costs make it an impossible tool to use (setting aside morality for a moment) for ending oppression. We have had NO - ZERO - peacemakers in charge of any nation ever and so, the facts are that we HAVE had war-as-solution folk in charge of the US and other major nations.
They are failing right now to stop the pending genocide in Darfur. They failed to stop the genocide in Rwanda. We can't war our way to a peaceful world - we don't have the resources. The US is stretched fairly thin just trying to manage this backwater war in Iraq against a largely defeated nation.
Even IF you want to retain war as one of your tools, it is totally ineffectual on a global basis of stopping the oppression of peoples consistently (if at all). We MUST have other tools are accept that we think that it's okay that soon a million people may be killed in Darfur.
I reject that notion and shame on us all if we continue to accept such cowardice and evil.
thanks for telling me about the book. I just ordered it. i am really curious.
"As we can see in Iran and in the absence of action in places such as Darfur and Rwanda, the War-at-any-costs argument isn't a viable solution, either."
Especially when the leftist, coward countries of the world refuse to do the right thing and support the efforts to eliminate the threat that makes them cower!
America has shown itself willing to sacrifice for those who hate them. The capitulating UN doesn't have the will to do the right thing and never will!
The leftists of America--yes you, rainbow collaboration people, while in cahoots with these do-nothing cowardly peoples offer NOTHING to stop the suffering.
Don't crow about your "good" works when you stand with those who are allowing the genocide in the Sudan to continue while doing little to NOTHING about it.
Where's your coalition to stop the tragedy? Where's France? Where's New Zealand? Why aren't they mustering their forces to stop this? Who are they waiting for......America? LOL!
America's already in the fight and had we an OUNCE of the support we deserved in this global war on islamofascism, we would have been leading the action in the Sudan!
Wake up and smell the roses. Sudan is helpless because there is no other nation willing to sacrifice their own people for it--especially not those countries who are America's harshest critics--the ones who have abandoned us during this crucial time.
A question--what did Jesus say to do if a man smote his friend...his family? What did Jesus say to do if that man kept smiting your friends....your family? What did Jesus say to do if that man threatened to eliminate your friends....your family?
Jesus never mentioned anything beyond Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, pray for those who'd hurt you. But then, you know that.
Further, Jesus and the Bible teaches us to stand in opposition to those who'd oppress and harm the innocent.
Put those two directives together and I'd say it would make sense to try to stop those who'd smite with love and direct actions of various sorts.
But not by killing his children.
So Daddio, I know you're loathe to answer questions but here's your chance to make your case. You're in charge now. You're spending ~$1 trillion a year on the military machine.
What will YOU do to stop the violence in Darfur? In the Congo? The Phillipines? N. Korea? The dozens of places where violence is occurring?
What's your plan?
Hey Dan, as far as you know, have I ever "promoted" myself "in the name of Christ" here, or at my place or anywhere else?
I stand accused of such. I'm not really even sure what it means. But I'm pretty sure the backbiting accuser is just runnin' his mean mouth again.
To stand accused by a fool is vindication enough.
But I'm pretty sure the backbiting accuser is just runnin' his mean mouth again.
6:08 PM
Dan Trabue
Dan Trabue said...
To stand accused by a fool is vindication enough.
Is this some of your sweet talking that you would use to promote peace?
Mom2, if D was making any sense at all, I'd gladly discuss things with him - and as you know, I DO try to discuss matters with him. But he is making so little sense when he responds to my posts, that I have little left but to suspect he's just a crackpot.
He's either spouting nuttisms because he's actually a Lefty and his personality is an attempt to mock Rightwingers or he's just talking trash because he's thinking that crazy talk will generate visits to his website.
I just don't really think he's serious anymore.
Post a Comment