Maine Owl

War is failure

A theme of this blog lately has been the unseemly celebration of war and the instruments of war. One example, the celebratory impulses displayed for Bath Iron Works amongst media and politicians when the Pentagon lavishly funds its splendid warships. Another, the diabolic remote-control drones used by U.S. military and intelligence services to terrorize defenseless populations. (Why? Well, even at a 98% rate of collateral damage, they're "the only game in town in terms of confronting or trying to disrupt the al Qaeda leadership" according to DCI Leon Panetta.)

Perhaps the biggest mistake we can make is to assume all of these war-making activities have something to do with "preserving our freedom" or extending American ideals in a lawless world. I even have my doubts about American purity in the "good" wars, despite my awe at the sacrifices paid in World War II by the generation of my father. But these notions of American glory understandably are endemic to our culture. Sadly, this situation has enabled an apparently perpetual state of Terror War promoted with bottomless funding from American political leaders.

To show proper non-celebratory respect this Memorial Day, I offer Verse 31 of the Tao Te Ching:

Armies are tools of violence;
They cause men to hate and fear.
The sage will not join them.
His purpose is creation;
Their purpose is destruction.

Weapons are tools of violence,
Not of the sage;
He uses them only when there is no choice,
And then calmly, and with tact,
For he finds no beauty in them.

Whoever finds beauty in weapons
Delights in the slaughter of men;
And who delights in slaughter
Cannot content himself with peace.

So slaughters must be mourned
And conquest celebrated with a funeral.

And below is an excerpt from an article on Gandhi, nonviolence, and terrorism recently published in the Maine Peace Action Committee Newsletter by my friend, U Maine philosophy professor Doug Allen:

Is Nonviolence Relevant When Dealing with Terrorism?
by Doug Allen | April 2009

...However, there are cases in which no nonviolent options have any possibility for dealing with violence. The terrorist, in the act of killing innocent human beings, may have no interest in engaging in dialogue, and being willing to suffer or offering one’s life has no possibility of stopping the ongoing killing and no transformative possibilities. Not to stop the terrorist makes one complicit with the ongoing killing. Gandhi writes of a surprising number of such cases, even using titles such as "killing as ahimsa (nonviolence)."

How do we respond to the armed lunatic in the act of shooting others? How do we respond to the rapist in the act of raping another person? How do we respond to malaria-carrying insects or to monkeys or dogs that are menacing human life? In such cases, Gandhi says that forceful violent intervention may be necessary since it is the most nonviolent thing we can do.We must emphasize a key point for proponents of nonviolence that distinguishes this from most justifications of violence. Such violence may be necessary, but it is never moral. It is tragic, since it represents human failure. We should be saddened and never glorify violence. Since Gandhi upholds the absolute ideal of nonviolence, even during such violent interventions, we should minimize the intensity and duration of our violence, work for nonviolent reconciliation, and do everything possible to prevent the repetition of conditions that gave rise to terrorism and other violence.

For me, such a nonviolent orientation has much to offer. It makes the approach of those of us dedicated to nonviolent theory and practice much more significant and relevant when trying to understand and deal with modern terrorism. It opens up lines of communication and engagement with others who simply dismiss nonviolence as irrelevant for dealing with extreme violence and terrorism. It offers us possibilities for broadening and deepening our understanding of violence and terrorism, nonviolence and peace and justice; for taking short-term and long-term preventative educational and other socialization steps to minimize violence and conditions leading to structural and individual terrorism; and, when all else fails and there are no nonviolent options, to use minimal necessary violent force without exacerbating, glorifying, and spreading the roots cause and causal conditions resulting in violence.