Beth Coulter
SOC 245
June 2003
Reaction Essays
to
Peace and Conflict Studies
David P
Barash
Charles P. Webel
Chapters 1 – 3
“Human Life:
The Cheapest Commodity
on the Planet”
A Vietnam
Vet
“Structural violence…often is
unnoticed and works slowly to erode humanistic values and impoverish human
lives. (Text 7)”. This condition is
becoming obvious in the Summer of 2003 in the United States. The American
populace has succumbed to the erosion of values, the American spirit
impoverished to such an extent that mere existence is now an acceptable
condition. Our culture of violence and
fear has eradicated the meaning of living.
Our government has become “Yahweh”
of old, blood thirsty and merciless in achieving our violent goals. Our aggressiveness is wrapped up in the flag
and paraded as “justice” and “peace-keeping/nation-building”. Our administration would have done well to
study Mo-Tzu; “Those who love others will also be loved in return. Do good to others and others will do good to
you. Hate people and be hated by
them. Hurt them and they will hurt
you. What is hard about that? (5)”.
The people of the United States believe that our actions are justified by the events
of September 11th. We were
hurt so we hurt back. I disagree and
have been accused of being unpatriotic in my disagreement. When I suggest that if Jesus returned today, he would be much like Osama bin Laden, the reaction
(for the most part) is horrified anger.
There is an underlying fear that makes people stop listening, so they
rarely hear my explanation.
Osama saw an invading force set up
camp in “The Holy Land”, just like the Romans in ancient Jerusalem. These
usurpers spoke of peace and democracy yet upheld the Monarchy while dishonoring
the rituals and customs of the land. He
saw the US Troops as the total corruption and desecration of what his faith
held most dear.
When Jesus saw his sacred temple being defiled, he took a whip and drove the
usurpers out – the only case where Jesus used violence. It could be
hypothesized that had Jesus lived past 33, he may have encouraged violence as a
last resort to clear holy places. Age
has a way of changing values and principles.
Is it treasonous to suggest that the WTC may have been a latter day version
of clearing the temple?
In the twelve years after the gulf
war, US Troops expanded their Saudi presence in the name of “Peace”. Americans believed we had peace due to our
win against Saddam Hussein in 1991. This
is the “negative peace” referred to in the text. What Americans saw as a peaceful show of
force to maintain “Peace” in the Middle East was
viewed by most Middle Easterners as an invasion upon holy lands. The troops felt no obligation to respect
local customs on their base while the residents expected respect everywhere in
their nation. I recall a report after
female soldiers received permission to do away with the mandatory wearing of
headscarves. A Saudi man tried to
explain the outcry to a reporter by saying, “We have invited a guest into our
home. Now this guest is defecating in
our living room.” Unfortunately, this
has become America’s reputation.
We defecate in living rooms all over the world and expect money to take
care of the mess and insult.
“How can one explain the conundrum that
the same human beings who say they want peace will nonetheless kill other human
beings, sometimes ruthlessly and indiscriminately, to obtain it and to protect
their own ‘vital interests’ and ‘national security’? (12)”
Osama learned from the CIA exactly
how far our government would go in the fight for peace. He saw the corruption in the blind allegiance
Americans give their country (and their administration by default), and moved
to exploit it. He told his followers
exactly how corrupt the “infidels” were, and that the Royal family was part of
the corruption in their homeland. When
Saudi Royals have more concern for American interests, the Saudi people suffer.
Both Osama and US leaders used
“social Darwinism(14)” to justify their actions. Most Americans view the Middle East as a mass of corrupt, third world countries with a
culture of hatred towards western values.
Obversely, the Middle
East looks at America with equal parts envy, fear and anger as it views an
imperial march across the world. They would
like to possess some western values, but not at the cost of their own.
Socrates would accept vindication upon seeing the current world struggles,
caused greatly by faux democracy. People
on every side of the argument are “being misled and duped by political and
religious demagogues(16)”,
unable/unwilling to think beyond popular opinion. They accept with animal instinct the need for
violence instead of diplomacy as the way to peace. However “there is no way to peace, peace is
the way(22)”, and that is why our current policy in the Middle East will fail.
“If decision makers would only operate in a more realistic manner, most
wars could be prevented(ibid).”
How has America failed? There
are many reasons, but the foremost one is our arrogance as the last remaining
superpower. It is akin to the
neighborhood bully expecting to be cheered by his victims, while saying, “I
make you all safe. No one will beat you
but me.” Eventually, the victims will
rise up together to beat the bully, even if they have to take potshots and run
away. Push a victim far enough and s/he
will be willing to die in order to hurt the tormentors.
If we all agree, “defense is
acceptable, offensive war is not(31)”, how do we determine who is on the
defense? What resolution is there when
all parties feel they are defending their rights and interests? When there is no real answer for “who hit
first”?
Perhaps that is the perfect time to
follow Thoreau in his assertion that “citizens of a democracy have
a higher obligation than to the policies of their government(35)”. At this point, we are all part of
warfare. Civilians are legitimate if
regrettable targets. “Total War(74)” has
no real front line. In the eyes of
victims of US policy, the events of 9/11 were justified because of
the amount of civilians who have died because of our weapons. It is no longer political; it is
personal. “You killed my mother, I’ll
kill your daughter.” That makes war a
holy cause, nearly impossible to stop until generations pass. Peace arrives when the great grandchildren no
longer know what they are fighting for (like the Hatfield’s and McCoy’s).
Thoreau meant the obligation to our global family. The citizens of the world must accept every
life is related to us, each loss equally important. Every corrupt leader harms not only their own
nation, but also the entire world. As
long as the US continues to pick and choose principles to support (or not), then every
nation will continue to view us as a swaggering bully and find justification
for any action they choose.
The people of the United States must find stable principles and values and impart
them to the world by example and diplomacy, not allowing further erosion of the
human spirit.
Chapters 5 & 6
Patriotism: Love of Country
Nationalism: Belief that one’s country is superior to
all other countries
Fascism: Belief that all countries should be like your
country
Beth Coulter, selected war essays 2003
“Being a superpower means that the United States
possesses great military force that it is generally disinclined to use
(although it is much less reticent about threatening and planning their use)…A
superpower attaches great importance to issues of national ‘credibility’(166).”
How quickly these principles were
overthrown by George W. Bush. National
credibility has turned to internationally hilarity, except the consequences are
too painful to laugh at. I am trying to
understand how we got here, and these two chapters assist in the query.
Page 114 clarifies war by asking the
reader to distinguish between the underlying
reasons and the ostensible reasons. The latter is easy to define in our current
“war on terror”. We bombed Afghanistan in retaliation for the events of 9/11, driving out
supporters of terrorists (the Taliban).
We marched into Iraq to remove Saddam and capture weapons of mass
destruction. We are threatening Iran because of terrorist support and nuclear
programs. These are the reasons
presented to the public and accepted by a majority of Americans. These are the reasons that have caused our
credibility to evaporate throughout the world.
The real reasons are varied and
complex. Most will not be revealed for
decades, if ever. But boiled down, the
simplistic explanation is “Pax Americana”.
A prevailing conservative philosophy is that to create a peaceful world,
we need just to make other countries like America ; Capitalist, Democratic Republics. Because America is a “melting pot”, little regard is given to
cultures and customs. It is assumed
everything in the world will meld together as it did in America (supposedly).
The NeoCons who have devised this
plan have been heavily influenced by Cold War motivations and values. These values proclaim the inherent
superiority of America above all other nations. The US views itself as the Lion, King of all Beasts,
magnanimously granting life to all others.
What has not been considered is that eventually the elephant will
trample, the rhino will gore and the hyena will feast on the battered carcass
of the arrogant lion.
“There is a danger that by accepting
wars as part of ‘human nature’, one thereby justifies war itself, in part by
diminishing the human responsibility to behave more peacefully…such biological
fatalism supports a pessimistic perspective on the human condition, one that
provides an excuse for the maintenance of large military forces and leads to
profound distrust of others, especially those who look different from ourselves. (122)”
This administration has impressed
upon the US public that violence is part and parcel of Islam and
the Middle East, pushing the credo of “an eye for an eye”. Americans have a verbal (and non-verbal)
mandate to be suspicious of anyone with a middle eastern appearance. When a government starts color-coding a nation’s
level of fear, we can assume all is lost for an intelligent, diplomatic
solution.
This administration believes that
peace is caused by events. But peace is
like evolution, more “a process rather than a historical event(123)”. Peace can never be procured at the point of a
gun. I have a belief that Bush,
Rumsfeld, Sharon, Arafat, and the other right-wing leaders in the world are
reacting to childhood abuse, and acting out on a global scale. My philosophy final dealt in part with Hitler’s
actions being due to his abuse as a child.
The text supports this theory(126).
So if all of these leaders are
acting out, it is understandable why they do not have foresight in the
consequences of their actions. I believe
this administration is genuinely confused by the Iraqi’s “lack of gratitude”. They, in acting out, develop tunnel vision,
only seeing the nearest goal (illustrated nicely by the rush to Baghdad, only to be attacked on the flank). Pages 134 – 140 deals with depth this abuse
theory.
Abuse is not the answer for the
amount of support this administration has (well, not entirely, but that is a
whole different paper). I see an economy
collapsing, US soldiers still dying every day, and not one weapon of mass destruction
uncovered yet in Iraq. Yet according to a recent CNN
poll, almost 70% of Americans think Bush is the greatest leader
since Lincoln. I am met
with looks of confusion when I suggest the United States should be hit with sanctions for attacking without
good reason.
“Who would sanction us?”
they ask.
“The UN.” I reply.
“Oh, them. They don’t have any
power.”
End of discussion. Superpowers don’t need to be right, they just
need to be victorious.
Nationalism is higher than I would
ever have believed. I remember when “flag-waver”
was a degrading term. As long ago as 9/10/01, being patriotic was something one did on certain
holidays by pulling the flag out of the closet to hang for a day. But on September 11th, a “grand
solidarity” arose. We bonded together in
“a sense of collective destiny through a common past and the vision of a common
future(159)” by our loss and need for closure (misread as a need for
revenge). “We the People” became “We
America”, no identity past that of our wounded country. Bush and his buddies leapt on that collective
grief and sold it to the highest bidder/closest friends, and Boom! Flags flying from every SUV and a mandate to
go shopping. Add an emotion-filled
television special and Nationalism rules.
“Unfortunately, the tendency to
identify…as a ‘valuable whole’ carries along with it another tendency…to
devalue others…or worse yet, to see them as threatening…therefore, the ‘others’
become suitable targets(161).” These
targets included, among many others, the Syrian family that owned the 7-11 down
the street from me, and the Egyptian that owned the local Getty
station. They sold out before the Summer
of 2002, driven out by American hate.
Most Americans do not recognize the
ugliness inherent in this nationalist fervor.
Like 1930’s Germany, opinion is being inflamed by the media, which is
being controlled by the new conservative movement. People in the United States are for the most part, undereducated and apathetic
about anything that doesn’t directly affect them. They are finding comfort in authority leading
them, perhaps a telling reflection on the state of parenting (or lack of) in America. They want to
be told what to think, what to do, and what to say. Conformity is becoming so entrenched, even
sitcoms are afraid to break out of the conservative mold (TV Guide, 5/31 – 6/6/03 issue).
As a child, I could not understand
how the people of Russia could allow their government to control them as it did. I am beginning to understand as I watch this
government exert ever more control over the people. It frightens me, but mostly, it makes me very
sad.
Chapters
7 – 9
“The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of it’s laborers,
the genius of it’s scientists, the hopes of it’s children. (260)”
Conquistador: I
claim this land for my Queen!
Indian: But this is my people’s land. You can’t claim it.
Conquistador: Do
you have a flag? You need a flag to
claim land. No flag? Then, I claim this land…
Monty Python’s Flying Circus
I don’t think it is wrong to say America is the closest to a fascist ideology than it has
ever been. “A far-right-wing,
nationalistic/military extension of capitalism, a world view that places great
reliance on social rigidity and respect for hierarchy. It glorifies patriotism, the state and
militarism, harking back to a ‘golden’ and typically romanticized past.(235)”
The US is “corporate America” first and foremost.
According to the “Brain Trust” reports, the military endeavors we are
currently involved in were “blue-printed” in 1996 by Chaney,
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and other top Reagan/Bush/Bush politicos. September 11th became a convenient
excuse to put these “war game” plans into action. Such is their arrogance that many members of
the “Brain Trust” have admitted to “putting extra emphasis” on the Iraq weapons of mass destruction debate, a code word for
“invention”. Paul Wolfowitz in July’s Vanity Fair admits that they needed
a reason for the American people to support the war, and WMD’s was the best way
to ensure a majority would vote for pre-emptive action. These “authorities” expect no consequences
for playing with the truth. Quite
frankly, many Americans seem to fear dissent, so there may be few consequences
for now.
“Wars often involve abridgment of
rights of dissent and due process, even within democracies. They seem to require increased discipline,
secrecy, unswerving and unquestioning devotion to the state, and obedience to
it’s authority.(238)” This sounds like a
recipe for a fascist society.
It also is the current situation in Iraq. We have
liberated them, but only to the level of freedom that we decide. Mass Iraqi protests against American
occupation almost always end with bloodshed.
What the “Brain Trust” neglected to see is if you want to rebuild a
nation, you must start from the municipality up. Once you have the country running smoothly,
attention can be put on who should run the country. Then democracy can be introduced because
“peace predisposes governments toward democracy(238)”.
America has a long history of making the same mistakes over
and over. “There are questions, as well,
regarding the legitimacy of the attacks by the United States and it’s allies on Iraq…, as well as on Afghanistan, Sudan and Serbia.(190)” None
of these countries are significantly better off for our having intervened. In some very basic ways, they are much
worse. And to what end? The story of Alexander the Great and the Pirate is quite telling.
“Alexander asked him what his justification for infesting the
sea was … ‘The same as yours in infesting the earth! But because I do it with a tiny craft, I’m
called a pirate. Because you have a
mighty navy, you’re called an Emperor.’(191)”
Much like Alexander, G.W. Bush is envisioning a sweep across the world, sprinkling
democracy like a “Good Fairy”. He
doesn’t seem to recognize the fact that he is using bombs to “sprinkle” with,
and that isn’t conducive to democracy. I
think he truly believes he is on a Mission from God, fulfilling biblical text. “Distinctions had already been blurred between
the sacred and the secular, between religion and civil society.(192)” This passage brings to mind the military
baptisms in the Kuwait desert prior to the war in March.
Our soldiers march into battle believing that they are fighting in a
“Holy Cause”. In their righteousness,
they have adopted a credo: “You shoot at our dog, we blow up your house,” a
young marine proudly stated on MSNBC.
“Considerations of Realpolitik and
raison d’ e`tat may lead politicians to
engage in foreign wars so as to consolidate their domestic situation. In addition, strong psychological and
sociological pressures induce citizens to ‘rally ‘round the flag’, who may then
ignore or postpone complaints with the current government so as to present a
united front…(199)”. This creates good
fascist citizens.
This administrations “attention
tends to be focused on the immediate, short-term effects of a course of action,
with relatively little patience for an assessment of the possible long-term
implications of their decision(217)”.
They (especially Rumsfeld and Bush) give off an
attitude of “We won. What more do you
want?” They downplay the negative and
exaggerate the positive. The vast
majority of American’s believe them because it is too difficult to think any
other way.
The American Public doesn’t want to
hear we had less right to “liberate” Iraq than Saddam had in “repatriating” Kuwait. “When we do something, it is acceptable –
often, laudable – but if they do the
exact same thing, it is not (225).” We
are just, right and backed by God. They are heathen, primitive cultures
that can only benefit from being like us. Unfortunately, this is the argument on both
sides of the battle.
On their side, they fight for
defense. On our side, “the relationship
between capitalism and war seems similar to that of democracy and war(240)”, so
we are fighting for our economy. We are
fighting to create an American friendly world so that we can continue to
globalize. World peace would be nice,
but Pax Americana really means a stabilized world economy, led by the US
dollar.
In the short term, we are fighting
“the revolution of rising expectations(245)”.
After the dotcom crash, Americans found their expectations eclipsed by
reality. If the attack on 9/11 hadn’t
occurred, this administration would have had to deal with social unrest and
dissatisfaction with the government.
Because we were all bonded together in collective grief, the
administration had a chance to focus the unrest on a common enemy.
When vengeance lost its power to
attract support, it became a noble goal of liberating an enslaved, abused
people and assisting them to democracy, which is the new “White Man’s
Burden(249)”. We then “manipulate the
economic, political and sociocultural structures of [Iraq], maintaining them in a condition of dependency(251)”,
which allows our continued presence as we spread democracy throughout the
region. Like Dick Chaney said (Meet the Press March 2003), “Millions of people in the street do not dictate
governmental policy”, especially when building democracies.
Our push to encourage Capitalistic
Democratic societies is ironically being conducted by the only US sanction socialist society – the Military. “Resources spent on the military are not
available to be spent in other ways(259)”, such as providing assistance for the
poor. So the poor join the military and
the administration creates projects in order to use the military, which takes
money that is then not available for other resources, creating a cycle that
eventually destroyed the Roman
Empire, and will destroy us
if not held in check.
Chapters 10 – 12
“That policy which pretends to aspire to peace but
unerringly generates war, the policy of continual preparation for war, the
policy of meddlesome intervention(303)”,
the policy of the United States
under George W. Bush
“One of the most pervasive myths of
our current culture of militarism is that war and preparation for war are
‘natural’, unavoidable phenomena, whereas peace and preparations for peace are
hopelessly unrealistic (268).” Peace is
even more “an impossible dream” in the right-wing administration currently in
charge. Lacking great intelligence, they
see force as the only tool for change.
Lacking perspective, they see change as a narrow goal with no room for
variations.
George W. Bush took office with a well-known lack of education
concerning foreign affairs. When coupled
with the philosophy of “Texan Diplomacy” (shoot ‘em all and let God sort it
out), we find an explanation for the current state of world affairs. US Diplomats no longer use diplomacy to resolve
disputes. “Diplomat” is an honorary
title and position, with little responsibility and no power. When the US needs to “talk”, the Big Guns like Colin Powell are sent in to “make or break” conferences,
disallowing the give and take compromise that diplomacy relies on.
“Diplomacy is a disguised war, in
which States seek to gain by barter and intrigue, by the cleverness of wits,
the objectives which they would have to gain more clumsily by means of
war(273).” Diplomacy also offers the
option of “saving face”, which keeps disputes from becoming endless
one-upmanship – “Diplomacy is the art of avoiding the appearance of
victory(275)”. As noted before, America has become a swaggering bully, rubbing our
“victories” in the face of the world.
Eventually, someone will bring the bully down, if only for principles
sake.
In reading Morgenthau’s rules, one seems to stand out.
“Distinguish between what is real and what is illusory; do not allow
consideration of honor, credibility, or prestige to override issues of real
national security(276).” We have leaders
who are more concerned with their place in history as opposed to their place in
the world. To pursue their global goals,
they are allowing our nation to flounder.
While the federal government is spending Billions to relieve suffering
of the Iraqi people, individual states are taking money from education and
social programs to implement heightened security (especially when we yo-yo from
yellow to orange to yellow again).
Prior to the war, several
journalists had “Track II diplomacy(278)” programs, most notably Nightline’s
duel university program. Students from NYU and Columbia had video conferences with their counterparts at Baghdad University. The discussions (telecast every
night for two weeks) gave face to the debate.
The Iraqi students allowed that many people suffered under the Ba’athist regime, but feared many more would suffer in war and its
aftermath. All of the students
questioned the lack of diplomacy on both sides, firm in their convictions that
education and compromise would serve goals far better than war would.
My personal thoughts on a resolution
involved what the text refers to as “bridging(287)”. To avoid war and to halt Saddam’s human right
abuses would have required intense UN involvement. Due to the failure of Saddam Hussein’s adherence to Resolution 1440, the UN should have
flooded Iraq with thousands of inspectors and peacekeeping
forces. This would have contained Saddam,
allowing for humanitarian relief to reach the neediest and keeping the regime
from building, selling or using any weapons of mass destruction. The cost of doing this would have been far
less than the Billions spent on the war.
In allowing the UN to be the guiding force, we would not have lost the
international good will we had due to 9/11.
The good will and allies we had were
due also to years of diplomatic leadership, where America was a benign superpower backing the less
fortunate. The multi-polar economic
system(295) was possible because of the good reputation of America. Other
countries felt that US interests were viable with a symbiotic relationship
instead of viewing it as an imperial move.
This symbiosis was very apparent when the French disagreed with the US pre-emptive strike on Iraq. Cries for
boycotts arose from both sides of the Atlantic. But due to the multi-polar economic system,
Americans couldn’t find purely French goods and the French couldn’t find purely
US goods. It degraded into a
name-calling contest with “Freedom Fries” in Congress and “Idiot Cheese” in the
Bastille. I doubt we will be able to
enjoy good grace in the global economy until our war mongering administration
is replaced.
Richard Perle, one of the architects
of the “Brain Trust” that devised the Pax Americana plan, is quoted in the
text; “Those who believe the way to maintaining peace is by being weak are over
and over again shown by history to be wrong(299).” This is indicative of the “Black and White”
thinking of this administration. There
is either good or evil, friends or terrorists, weak or strong. This narrow view invalidates any compromise,
therefore denies any diplomatic solution.
“Our government has kept us in a
perpetual state of fear, kept us in a continual stampede of patriotic fervor –
with the cry of grave national emergency.(303)”
General McArthur’s words were meant as an indictment of the Cold War
mentality, but unfortunately has become the rally cry of our color coded terror
alerts. The public is told that our
national security is and should be our primary concern.
“National security is diminished if
the populace is inadequately housed or fed, or when medical care is
insufficient. For a state to neglect
it’s own people in pursuit of ‘national security’ is very much like a person
destroying his or her house to obtain materials with which to build a fence
around the devastated shell (304).”
How long will it take for the
disgruntled murmurs to turn into a mighty roar when the United States announces universal health care and social programs
for Iraqi’s while American’s suffer and do without? As the US unilaterally breaks treaties and presents plans to
increase their weapons program, how long will it take for a global arms race to
begin anew? How long will it take the
public to realize the procurement of weapons is simply another way to spur the
economy(324)? “Most ominously, perhaps,
political and military developments…threaten to halt, if not reverse, progress
made in nuclear disarmament(330).”
We are facing one of two futures; we
continue either as we are and we are back in the negative peace of the Cold
War, where an action by one can destroy all, or we can replace our
administration with leaders who have studied Charles Osgood’s policy of GRIT (341).
If the United States could begin an open policy of weapons disclosure,
and then begin a documented effort at reducing those weapons, the rest of the
world would follow suit, using peer pressure to convince unwilling nations to
do the same. Like peace, disarmament is
process. Not an event, but an evolution
who’s time has come.
