Wealth, Women, and War is released in accordance with the solidarity principals of Occupy Wall Street adopted on February 9, 2012.
Cliff Potts
December 3, 2014
You Say You Want a Revolution
According to Veysey, “… The urge towards revolution
[is] no more than a final category of pronounced individual nonconformity.”
This “nonconformity” has now been assimilated into society. It manifests as
conformity to nonconformity. It is the genesis of the dark ages warned of by
Morris Berman, and the idiot culture lamented by Berstein.
Nothing is more indicative of the nonconforming
conformity than tongue piercing. It tells the world that the individual is
willing to mutilate themselves to express their individuality.
This statement of rebellion, first seen in the 1960s
when the human body became a weapon in the revolt against the mayhem in Vietnam
and the authorities’ approach to law and order, is now a main stream
expression. It is no longer shocking if it is accepted by the larger community.
As Veysey pointed out, “[Revolution] is the most
active form of resistance, but like all other such forms it is a symptom at
most of desperate tenacity rather than prophetic insight.”
This is essentially an act of resistance to a set of circumstances which have
become utterly intolerable, and must be eliminated. It also explains why the
Islamic fundamentalist, and those who are losing under the capitalistic system,
have or will turn to revolution and violence to gain some sense of freedom from
the perceived tyranny and oppression. This is again reinforced in Mark Colvin’s
Crime Coercion Theory: Constant
coercion can drive an individual to assault or murder. Extrapolation of that
natural tendency also applies to the group dynamic within the sub-culture. A
class level collective violence becomes acceptable against the representatives
of the repressive establishment and those who occupy the institutions of the
establishment.
“The existence of revolutionaries on the American
scene … testifies to the incapacity of the present civilization to satisfy
certain deep aspirations, including a demand for simple equality to minorities
who are in their own midst. But revolution activity is futile except as an
honest statement of the intensity of one’s moral convictions.”
This is again an observation in Veysey’s
Law
and Resistance: American Attitudes Towards Authority. What moral
convictions do we have today? The right to consume everything we have the means
to grasp without any regard for long term ramifications of that consumption?
The revolting nature of today’s packaged counter culture expressions have
little to do with morality and much to do with self expression in a crowded
world to establish unique individuality within the press of mass humanity. At
no point in history have we been more aware of our minimal existence on the
globe. All of our communication technology has made that apparent. We have
become crass and shocking because we are striving to express ourselves in a
crowded world. But what happens when the “shocking” doesn’t produce shock, and
the crass is considered normal?
The revolution takes a step up the ladder of
escalation. The self-mutilation of today’s counter culture becomes the open
aggression of tomorrow’s mainstream culture. That is pretty much what we are
seeing, and this, too, falls in line with the coercion effect when conjoined
with the normal understanding of the pathology of depression.
Depression, it is said, is anger turned inward. Is
the self-mutilation an expression of group psychosis, or is it simply self
expression? The answer to that question requires a clinical psychologist, and
it is somewhat outside the scope of any business management report on globalization.
It is worth noting that by some reckoning 60% of the U.S.
population suffers from some form of psychosis, this too is indicative of a
population operating at Maslow’s level two. However, it has to be pointed out
that a revolutionary reprisal which includes physical assault and murder, not
just economic disruption, lacks any universally accepted morality and only
breeds more violence, murder and mayhem. Such acts do not extend the cause of
liberation from the “establishment.” As Versey noted back in 1970, revolution
is ineffective “because of the sheer power of the establishment.” This power,
in conjunction with apathetic official indifference towards the plight of the
individual or group sub-culture, has not abated in the past thirty-seven years.
By assimilating, even tentatively, and
institutionalizing and commercializing counter culture expressions, as seen in
the boom of internet based pornography and the proliferation of sexually
oriented businesses, the establishment has brought unto itself the very forces
which it once tried to punish and expunge. This does not bode well for any
force that still strives to alter the landscape or enter a dialogue on equal
terms with the corporations and the minions once referred to simply as the
establishment. Having accepted and commercialized the counter culture
expression, the corporations are expecting the counter culture to fold into the
mainstream. The image and expression of revolt are made glamorous and acceptable,
but the root causes are ignored.
We can buy Che Guevara t-shirts at Neiman Marcus
without having a clue as to the man’s life or struggle; this is not dissimilar
to the selling of Jesus in the popular culture. Jesus, now molded and expressed
in terms of the corporate expression of capitalism, was himself a revolutionary
and was put to death by the Romans for just that reason.
Murder, violence and mayhem, as expensive to the corporations as it may
be, is not the answer. Howard Zinn writes in the introduction of Beacon Press’ The
Power of Nonviolence: Writings by advocates of Peace:
“Haven’t we learned anything from the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Car
bombs planted by Palestinians bring tanks and air attacks by the Israeli
government. That has been going on for years. That doesn’t work and innocent
people die on both sides.”
“We should take our examples not from our
military and political leaders shouting “retaliate” and “war” but from the
doctors and nurses and medical students and fireman and policemen [and Security
Officers] who have been saving lives in the midst of mayhem, whose first
thoughts are not vengeance but compassion, not violence but healing.”
The only way to view the phrase “our … political
leaders” is to view it within the context of globalization. It is not just the
political leaders in the United
States. It is also the political leaders in China, Japan,
the European Union, the African Union, Russia,
Israel, Lebanon, Syria,
Jordan, Afghanistan, Iran, etc. Anyone driving the world
to more and more violence must be addressed with humanity and compassion not
retaliatory violence. This is hard for the masses to grasp. The reflex,
especially within the Maslow construct, is to run away or strike back, not to
look for rational peaceful solutions.
Nonviolent response is a hard, hard discipline of
moral training. In the world’s view, it is weakness. The strength required to
hold back the hand of retaliatory response is ridiculed, debased and diminished
among the masses who know only their personal reptilian response. No matter how
deep the training in nonviolence goes, no matter how civilized the psyche, the
deep seated desire to stop unjust behavior can drive the deeply rooted pacifist
to reconsider the stance on violence. Those without such conviction know all too
well the temptation to meet violence with violence. It is primal within the
human being. This is why we have the rule of law.
In the most finite specific situation specific
deterrence can work. An individual can be stopped from committing a violent act
by an act of violence which is just great enough to stop them. As Saint Paul wrote:
Let every soul be subject unto the higher
powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of
God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God:
and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not
a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the
power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is
the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be
afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a
revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be
subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
A katyusha battery can be bombed into oblivion, the
problem arises when the community surrounding the battery is also bombed. As
Zinn writes concerning the current situation, “We bombed
Afghanistan, and inevitably killed
innocent people, because it is in the nature of bombing to be indiscriminate,
to ‘make no distinction.’ Did we commit terrorist acts in order to ‘send a
message’ to terrorist?’ ”
If the answer to Zinn’s question is “yes” then we, all, have to rethink our
collective approach to the situation.
If specific deterrence works and general deterrence
is only another form of coercion which allows the injustice of an act of
violence against the innocent to go unchecked, then the appropriate response
seems rather obvious.
In a globalized world there is a pressing need for a
globalized police force to intrude within the countries where terrorist
violence has become epidemic. Moreover, it needs to be able to do so with the precision
that only can be applied by a well trained peace officer without the
utilization of conventional weapons of mass demolition.
Civilization needs to stop the criminal elements who
are utilizing terrorist tactics to further their socioeconomic political agenda
without utilizing the (U.S. Air Force’s)
Massive
Ordnance Penetrator.
Its anachronism is MOP, and that is just how precise it is. Even a 500 pound
bomb cuts a wide swath in an urban environment. The term “urban” is a rough
description of a primitive adobe village in the middle of some forsaken
scrubland.
Bombing an enemy encampment into oblivion may seem
pragmatic, but by the time it comes to that, the situation has been allowed to
decay beyond the point of civilized intervention. We are in desperate need of new
solutions at a conceptual and application level. Inclusive in this approach must
be looking at the biggest picture possible in regards to the ramifications of a
given set of actions or inactions. That is not an easy task.
The U.S.
is reluctant to make changes which may be costly in the short term, but produce
better results in the long term, and patience does not seem to be a virtue. The
well documented overthrow of the Iranian nationalist government and the
imposition of the Shah of Iran in 1953 is one such case.
Conceptually, and pragmatically, the idea of
utilizing a policing approach does not bode well with any nation state who
thinks that its individual authority supersedes the necessity of global sanity.
This applies to every sovereign nation around the world. However, when
addressing the issue of global terrorism as a response to the activities of the
global corporations, then either the home country must take corrective actions
to deter the continuation of the crime by the competing corporations, preferably
through incentives rather than through prosecution and punishment, or the
community at large has to get involved to minimally separate the combatants.
In essence the country which does not want to rein in
the corporate activity leaves people with little choice but to limit national
sovereignty in an effort to rein in the criminality activity. Iran’s current Islamic government is a direct
result to the U.K. and U.S. support of BP’s (British Petroleum) losses,
after years of cheating Iran
out of oil revenue. Basically Britain
and the United States
decided to support the theft of Iran’s
natural resources, rather than tell the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company to behave and
properly compensate Iran
for their oil. To paraphrase a 1980s era television commercial “You can pay me
now, or you can pay me later.” We are all paying today for the insolence of
fifty-four years ago.
The flow of logic may be a bit accelerated, so a
review of facts is in order. First, the oldest truth known to civilized man is
“this too shall pass.” Everything changes! Right now, in the aftermath of the
Cold War, we are experiencing a rise in decadence as the effects of the counter
culture are assimilated into the mainstream culture. This is not unique in
history. It happened following the Black Death in Europe
in the 1340s. It has happened following every major cultural threat right up to
the “lost generation” following the carnage of World War One. Our culture today
is more reflective of the 1920s than it is the 1950s. In that era, known as
“the roaring 20s,” the corporations ran the nations. This is not the first
time; it will not be the last time.
In one form or another, the governments are run by
the corporations of the world. They do so by providing jobs for those who can
prove to be the least objectionable and most socially acceptable to the culture
within the corporation. They do so by directly dictating who is successful and
who is not, and that level of success, now based on the social standards of the
corporation, allows the individual to have an influence over his environment
equal to the level of success which he enjoys within the corporation. The
environment is the level of civic activity which he or she can freely engage in
based on his economic resources.
The corporations also control the various governments
based on the supply of money. This occurs through taxation directly and
indirectly, and it occurs through the contributions made to the various
candidates running for public office. Foreign corporations, or alien corporations,
as they are legally called, can influence candidates. This is usually done
through the lobby process. They influence what is allowable and not allowable
when the local candidates are not able to achieve the necessary ends.
It is worth speculation that the contributions made
to the DNC by the Chinese during the 1990s did influence the opening of U.S.
markets to more Chinese goods through the Wal-Mart distribution network. While
the money was eventually returned to the Chinese, there was no mention at the
time if the interest on that substantial fund was also returned. This donation,
illegal under current campaign funding laws, did coincide with Wal-Mart’s
decision. Other reports indicate that Wal-Mart’s decision was based on the
economic need to boost their profitability following the death of Sam Walton on
April 6, 1992. The link is peculiar to say the least. Wal-Mart, based in Bentonville, Arkansas,
grew to mammoth proportions during the administration of Bill Clinton, one time
Governor of Arkansas.
As noted by a retired public relations officer for a
major oil firm in Las Colinas, Texas,
the firm does contribute to the Democrats and the Republicans, but is more
generous with the contributions to the GOP. Such contributions have spurred the
debate for campaign finance reform, but every law has a work around if one can
hire a reasonably bright lawyer.
The corporations have to exist in an environment
which is the least fettered, and the office holders and the government for
which they work need income to influence change and function. The problem
arises when the interest of the public is not the interest of the corporations.
This can be seen in the passing of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947.
That act was imposed over the veto of Harry S.
Truman, an attack on the “liberal policies” of the New Deal’s Wagner Act of
1935 was called
"new guarantee of industrial
slavery.” This substantially weakened the labor movement in the United States
and has led directly to the practices we now see in the globalization processes.
It is sufficient to point out that the weakened unions, in conjunction with the
Nixon Shock of 1971 has brought us to today’s situation.
How far back this symbiotic
relationship between business and government goes is a discussion for
professional anthropologists and historians. However, even in the Jewish
scriptures there is a warning against judges taking “contributions.” It seems to be
a problematic issue going back some 6000 years. Of course, in today’s world
where the competition is perceived as being fierce for corporate survival, even
the institutional religions side with their various and respected corporations
and industries from which they derive their support.
At one time, before Motorola lost the cell phone
competition to Nokia, Willow Creek Community
Church in Barrington, Illinois
was humorously referred to as “The Church of Motorola” whose members were
Galvanized (a reference to the company’s founder Paul Galvin). Motorola’s
suburban culture became codified into the Christian expression by Bill Hybels
who remains the senior pastor of the 20,000 member mega-church. This, too, is a
symbiotic relationship between corporation and church, Willow Creek
Community Church
borrows heavily from the corporate model of Motorola. From the delivery of the
sermon, to the Sunday school and nursery care, to the inside food court, the
church exhibits all the traits of a modernized production line. The attendee
enters one end, queues up, partakes in the various services, and exits with
what services are needed.
In the late 1990s, PBS aired an anthropological study
of the evangelical sub-culture. In that series they broadcasted a segment on Willow Creek
Community Church,
and noted that the church was also referred to a “Jesus Lite.”
Willow
Creek Community
Church was simply a
reflection of a watered down version of the Christian Gospel. The connection to
the plush suburban area of Chicago
and the infusion of economic resources via the executive paychecks and creative
reward systems has flavored and defined the church’s culture. This church has
also been labeled Willow Creek Community Country Club.
With the decline of Motorola’s influence in the
Northern suburbs of
Chicago, and the ascension
of Randy Frazee,
from the Dallas Theological Seminary (a very conservative Christian Seminary)
the message of
Willow
Creek Community
Church may no longer be a
“lite” version. Randy Franzee is the author of four influential books,
including
The Connecting Church,
Making Room for Life,
The Christian Life Profile Assessment Tool
and
Renovation of the Heart Student
Edition.
The Connecting
Church talks a great deal about working in small groups within the larger
church community. Based on one reviewer’s commentary, the leadership structure
is a reflection of the multi-level marketing structure of Amway.
All of this has occurred in the back yard of a
somewhat more moderate Evangelical institution of Chicago’s own Moody Bible Institute. Drawing
from a more Southern expression of Christianity may be a nod to the current
cultural climate emanating from Washington,
D.C. This is only speculation
since no new sources of information concerning this specific symbiotic
relationship between Corporation, Church, and State have been revealed.
This
relationship is not bad by any stretch of the imagination. Willow Creek
Community Church’s
food pantry is one of the most effective programs of the church. When it works,
it works well. The church links a needy person with an advisor who helps the
individual through the time of crisis as needed with material help as well as
spiritual counseling. However, where the program is in need resides with the
culturally homogeneous volunteer counselors from the predominant social strata
of the community: the culture of Motorola. If the individual is not from the
same cultural distinction as the counselor, the communications can become tense
and ineffective.
At one time in the early 1990s, a man with a family
of four visited
Willow
Creek Community
Church. He had just
suffered the humiliation of being evicted from a rental property in
California which was
owned by a church in the Los Angelus suburbs. This was following a protracted
disability due to a ruptured disk. He had a degree. He had graduated with
honors. The economy was still recovering from the
peace dividend
recession of the early 1990s.
His view of the Christian community was tainted. He found himself under the
care of the
Jobs Ministry of
Willow Creek
Community Church.
During the first session, the minister instructed the few ill-fated souls that
they need to research in detail the company for which they want to work. This
scholar asked the minister, “Why?” It was a simple question. The minister look
down upon the miserable apprentice, shook his head, and said, “You are lazy,”
and went back to addressing the class.
There are various activities to be self-sufficient
and self-sustaining in the United
States. When a discouraged person questions
the validity of a given course of action, the minister who dismisses the
person, in a public setting, as being “lazy” is not effectively ministering.
This doesn’t even work well in a corporate environment. The minister cannot
validate the instruction, which is all that is being sought, and in turn
attacks the person who is seeking understanding. This ends any help which can
be rendered, ends communications, and taints the institution. This type of
retort is not only unprofessional, though it seems common in today Christian
expression, but it is also unchristian. It does not originate from the
teachings of Jesus, but from the unofficial corporate handbook.
Any question of the edicts of authority is, by
default, a question of authority and is quickly quelled. It is in no way
effective counseling. In a teaching environment an observation which is
contrary to the instructor’s point of view is not a challenge, but it is an
opening opportunity to discuss the topic further. However, such opportunity is
lost on people who are indoctrinated in the authoritarian regimes of both
Corporate America and Evangelical Christianity. One might even go so far as to
call such a display of “group discipline” as an expression of cultural imperialism.
And this is within the United States,
in a suburb of Chicago, Illinois.
It is sufficient to point out that a church as
defined within the context of the Christian scriptures is not a corporation. It
is an institution of charity and learning. Both points are lost when the institutional
Christian Church becomes immersed within the capitalistic system. The only
difference between the Christian situation and the Islamic situation is the
degree to which the institution espouses, or endorses, criminal activity for
the cause of God. This includes inflicting economic hardship upon those seen as
lesser humanity by both institutional bodies.
Islam’s culpability in criminal activity in the name
of religion is a theme which is taken up with finely tuned clarity in Bruce
Bawer’s
While Europe Slept: How Radical
Islam is Destroying the West from Within.
Islam directly endorses violence against infidels. Christianity indirectly
endorses violence within the framework of the teachings of
Saint Paul. “
Rome does not carry the sword in vain,” wrote
Paul.
The whole of the text in Romans is an appeal to
understand that civil authority is there to keep the peace and uphold the
general welfare. As stated earlier, it works questionably at the individual
level, but does not work in the gross, impersonal, mechanized military
operations today. The distinction became blurred in World War One when
civilians became direct targets of military action in order to destroy the
opponent’s ability to supply the economic resources to wage war. To date, few
have bothered to stop and think whether or not such action is wise.
In all fairness to the United States military
professionals and the military industrial complex which supports it, the
development of precision munitions has been an attempt to minimize the
destruction of non-combatants and innocents. At the same time, however,
criminalizing people who are defending their own country against an aggressive
force is unjustifiable within any context. If a military force invades a
neighbor country then all able bodied people become enemy combatants. The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, no matter what the
motives or necessity on our part, requires a dissident faction to defend its
homeland. If or when a foreign power does invade the U.S., our own “Christian
Red Necks” will be more than willing to take up arms to defend the nation even
if they do not have the sanction and uniforms of the U.S. military.
In
The Law of
Peoples, John Rawls sited eight principals by which people should interact
on an international level. They have a right to self-defense, and not to war.
They are to observe specific restrictions when fighting a war of self-defense.
They are to honor human rights.
The sword of Rome
may not be the best approach to asserting these principals. Moreover, it is a
rather expensive proposition. As sited in the IMF’s own magazine:
Successful reconstruction after conflict
involves rebuilding damaged institutions and infrastructure, which takes time
and often requires continued involvement of donors and the international
community. The IMF has been involved in lending in postconflict countries since
1995, as part of its emergency assistance facility. From 1995 to 2000, the IMF
provided $300 million to seven postconflict countries.
If the church cannot address the needs of one disheartened professional within its
own ranks, how can we expect it to address the weighty issues of global politics
across drastically opposing cultural lines, and highly complex issues? To
expect the ecclesiastical community
to develop a comprehensive plan to address geo-political conflict is idealistic
and somewhat absurd. It would be nice if they would join forces and come up
with a comprehensive statement based on the combined experience of centuries of
all-inclusive scholastic achievement, but as cited they are more inclined to
reflect the business community than the vision of the will of the Christian God.
So what are we left with? The soldier trained in the
role of peace officer may still be the best deterrent to the criminal activity
perpetrated by the “terrorist.” If crime is a rational choice, if specific
deterrence works,
if the goal is to eliminate the opportunity to commit terrorism,
then the only viable solution is a policing approach. In such an approach,
high-tech, wiz bang wonder tools cannot replace boots on the ground.
A quantity of trained men is the only viable
solution. Inclusive with that are the alliances with the people being protected
who allow them to trust the peace keeping forces and empower the citizens
themselves to be involved in their own protection. Self defense is still a
right of an individual even if many have forgotten that point over the decades
of civilized jurisprudence. Moreover this local policing needs to be done by
indigenous people of the given land. Iraq is the perfect example of this
point. U.S. troops are
policing Iraq
in the middle of an Iraqi civil war. The U.S. troops are becoming collateral
damage in the Iraqis war against each other.
In regards to corporatization of institutional
religion, a very Greek concept instituted by Constantine
with the construction of the first Universal
Church (i.e. Catholic),
the message of minimal violence, let alone non-violence is muted at best. Corporations
do not understand the application of the concept of a just war. It is against
their nature to minimize the approach they take in competition. Competition,
the best and most affordable, is extolled as the ultimate good for society.
Then, of course, as stated, do everything they can to quell any real
competition.
War should be understood as an actual, intentional
and widespread armed conflict between political communities. Thus, fisticuffs between
individual persons do not count as a war, nor does a gang fight, nor does a
feud on the order of the Hatfields versus the McCoys. War is a phenomenon which
occurs only
between political communities, defined as those entities which either are states
or intend to become states (in order to allow for civil war).
The War on Terrorism does not qualify as a war in any
sense of the classical definition.
Since the corporations are increasingly becoming the
targets of opportunity, their group think driven, moralistic response is, as
Zinn stated, to “make no distinction”
and “send a message” that we will “retaliate” because we are at “war.”
It is a pity when perfectly civilized people who are
trained in the finer points of business management decide they have the ability
to second guess men who have spent their lives studying diplomacy and war. A
Yale MBA is not the equivalent of advanced diplomatic training. To address what
is now occurring around the world the only view which can be applied, though
distained by many, is to view it within the context of criminology. As such the
better approach comes from people who are trained in social work and crime control
from the intervention approach.
The manpower is already there. The expertise is
there. The will to use it wisely seems to be what is lacking in the
U.S.
culture. This is indicated by Mr. Bush’s approach to the Islamic fundamentalists
in
Afghanistan, and
Iraq.
It is also indicated in John F. Kennedy’s decision to minimize the invasion of
Cuba
in April 1961.
It is also indicated in the escalation of
Vietnam under Lyndon B. Johnson.
Fidel Castro is purported to have said that the
invasion as initially planned would have succeeded in toppling his government.
L.B.J.’s involvement in the
Vietnam
escalation remains in dispute. Many historians hold that the incident, if it
occurred at all, did not occur as reported by Johnson on August 4, 1964. This
so corrupted the
U.S.
government that, according to
Alan Axelrod’s Guide to American History, the Tonkin
Gulf incident toppled
Richard M. Nixon.
The Watergate break-in, which led
to Nixon’s embarrassment and eventual resignation, was an attempt to recover
the Pentagon Papers. Those papers revealed that Johnson had fabricated the
Tonkin Gulf Incident in much the same way Bush is accused of fabricating the
WMD threat posed by Iraq.
CREEP was not trying to cover up any real wrong doing by the Nixon
Administration, but was trying to preserve the national honor by keeping
Johnson’s duplicity under wraps. Presuming that is the case, then there can be
little question as to why there is no love lost between the GOP and the
Democrats. Nixon was, in effect, covering for a Democrat’s “screw up”. The
Democrats, in turn, went after him like a pack of rabid dogs. This alone can
explain why the Republicans persecuted Bill Clinton with such venom. It was
payback for Nixon.
As stated earlier, the charge which triggered
Nixon’s resignation was not stemming from the break-in. It was the personal
charge of income tax evasion. In 1974, that was a very serious charge. Unlike
today where the IRS notifies you that you can and should pay up, it was a
serious criminal offense. In that era, moreover, when it came to the IRS, the
individual was guilty until proven innocent. As such, going after Bill Clinton
for his indiscretion with Monica
Lewinsky, essentially a personal matter, was not off limits. It does not quite
reach the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, but was sufficient to repay
the Democrats for the Nixon scandal.
Nixon’s prosecution
of the war, inherited from Johnson, was focused on a resolved peace through the
efforts of Kissinger. Nixon’s escalation was, for the most part, an attempt to
fight a limited defensive war of attrition as advised by Westmoreland. When the
North Vietnamese, balked at negotiations, Nixon stepped up the pressure. North
Vietnam, the Viet Cong in the South, and China knew very well that the U.S. was
not in a strong position geographically, politically, or economically; the VC
were not going to go anywhere, we had to, like the British of the 1770s,
constantly transport our fighting forces into the region. Vietnam was not our home, it was
theirs. Eventually we would leave, and they would still be there. This is the
lesson learned from the French occupation earlier. As such, there was little
incentive for North Vietnamese to address the peace negotiations. In their
eyes, we simply had no reason to be there. They were right.
The tactics employed by Nixon were not conducive to
achieving the necessary ends of foreign policy on behalf of the U.S. corporations.
The real rub is that the Vietnamese, both North and South would have been, and
now are, happy to buy Coca-Cola, KFC, and McDonalds, they just wanted to do it
under their own flag without the interference of the United States. This now obvious
fact of 20/20 hindsight is why the corporations finally stepped up to the plate
to become more involved in Washington.
It may not be flippant to say that the U.S. corporations would rather kill
communism with kindness and cholesterol, than napalm, Agent Orange, and the
excessively wasteful thermal nuclear detonation devices. Such things ultimately
are bad for business and not in the best interest of the United States as a whole.
On a number of occasions there have been incidents
where curbing the aggression of the U.S. military was to our advantage.
The World War Two military hero, Curtis LeMay, wanted to go to war against the Soviet Union. He vehemently argued that the U.S.
nuclear arsenal should have been used in a preemptive strike against the
U.S.S.R. Kennedy refused. As we see today, millions of unnecessary deaths were
averted by that refusal. George H.W. Bush went to Malta and ended the Cold War, and
in 1991 the U.S.S.R. ceased to exist.
JFK also used minimal aggression when dealing with
the Soviet Union’s missiles in Cuba.
He blockaded the island, but refrained from a direct attack on it, and only
interfered with Soviet shipping which may have been transporting missiles. It
is a very good thing that U.S. Naval Admirals and captains can take orders from
civilian presidents. The fact that Kennedy was ex-Navy himself may have
bolstered their trust as well. As a PT boat commander he had a certain
understanding of surface warfare tactics.
Eisenhower went a bit further in the exercise of
civilian authority to stop the mayhem. After losing 54,000 men in four years of
fighting in the bloody back and forth game on the Korean peninsula, he called
for, and got, a cease fire, and shut down a war. He did so without any undue political
fallout. Again, his credibility may have come from his reputation with the
Armed Forces. “Ike,” as he was called, was one of the most respected, honored,
and lauded generals of World War Two. When he moved to shut down the Korean
Conflict, everyone listened.
It is an interesting note in history that the U.N.
involvement in the Korean conflict was a rather bungled affair. Initially, the
Truman White House sent mixed signals to the international community concerning
the border conflict between North Korea
and South Korea.
While Joseph Stalin told North Korea
not to attack South Korea, the U.S.
stance was that the situation was not of interest to the United States. The ambivalence on
the border skirmishes between the two antagonists signaled a green light for
the initial North Korean invasion. This situation is not too different from the
mixed signals sent to Iraq
by the administration of George H.W. Bush. That initial ambivalence gave Saddam
Hussein the go ahead to invade Kuwait.
On January 12, 1950, Secretary of State Dean Acheson
said that the defense of
Korea
was the U.N. responsibility.
In July of 1990, Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam Hussein that the
U.S. had “no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts,
like [the] border disagreement with
Kuwait.”
The similarities between the two statements may serve as a clue to
international relations in the future. When the U.S. says it has no strategic
interest in a given region, all parties involved need to step away from the
confrontation because, if history is any guide at all, the U.S. will come down
hard on whichever side it perceives as a threat to the interest of the U.S. corporations,
or which is the most benefit to the corporations. This is not a good thing in
the overall picture of peaceful commerce and global trade.
This discussion of Korea brings up the one dramatic,
and public time that civilian authority was invoked to quell a general’s
overzealousness. Truman fired General Douglas McArthur.
While some have attempted to idealize Douglas McArthur,
he was labeled by Patton as being a prima donna. He had a record of stepping
outside the boundaries of orders dating back to 1932; McArthur was one of the
commanders who used the full force of the military to run the World One
Veterans out of Washington,
D.C. during the Bonus Marches in
the spring and summer of that year.
By the end of the rout:
· Two veterans were shot and killed.
· Two infants died from tear gas asphyxiation.
· An 11 week old baby was in critical
condition resulting from shock
from tear gas exposure.
· An 11 year old boy, David Barscheski was
partially blinded by tear gas.
· One bystander was shot in the shoulder.
· One veteran, Christopher Bilger, had his ear
severed by a Cavalry saber.
· One veteran was stabbed in the hip with a
bayonet.
· At least twelve police were injured by the
veterans.
· Over 1,000 men, women, and children were
exposed to the tear gas, including
police, reporters, residents of Washington
D.C., and ambulance drivers.
McArthur’s actions, in no small part led to the
discredit of Herbert Hoover, and the election of FDR. Overzealous
authoritarianism against destitute people of one’s own country doesn’t bode
well in the newspapers and radio broadcasts the next day. Truman was well aware
of McArthur’s reputation and history of insubordination. Had he allowed
McArthur to stay in his post even after ordering him not to invade or bomb
China, McArthur would probably done as he felt best, outside his authority,
anyway. This, in conjunction with McArthur’s losses on the ground in Korea,
Truman had clear grounds to remove McArthur from command. What McArthur lost,
Ike eventually shut down. Our involvement in Korea was a mistake by any stretch
of the imagination.
It has to be noted that it was
General George Washington who warned the infant
U.S. to “beware of foreign
entanglements.”
It was
General Dwight D. “Ike”
Eisenhower who warned “beware of the Military Industrial Complex.”
We seem to have forgotten, or are oblivious to, both warnings.
If the corporations insist on running the show, then
perhaps it is best to re-evaluate their function within a capitalistic society.
It is literally to make money for the owners, and create jobs for the local
citizens. This is a monumental task in and of itself, but it can be done.
According to John C. Maxwell, it can be done ethically.
This, of course, means rethinking the questionable
use of violence to achieve an end. Within that discussion on the nonviolent
approach is the retort, “well … what about Hitler?” While that specific case is
somewhat outside the scope of the limited discussion on nonviolence, it has to
be remembered that Hitler came to power
as a direct result of the economic sanctions and punishments imposed by England and France following World War One.
This economic violence, imposed over the objections of President Wilson, is
consistent with official indifference as a form of coercion. As such, Germany’s
response is not outside the scope of predictable behavior. If they had not been
pushed into a no-win situation then they would not have responded with such
reckless violence, and World War Two could have been avoided. This is
consistent with Maslow’s work, Merton’s work, and Colvin’s work discussed
earlier.
The rethinking of violence as a means to an end is
equally necessary for the various religious and political parties around the
globe. Unfortunately, Zinn and Beacon Press direct their remarks to a U.S.
audience. There is some evidence, as we have noted, to support the idea that
the U.S.
is prone to violence, and that evidence does show why. However, violence is not
just an issue in the U.S.
It is an outcome of competition for resources getting out of control. That is a
human issue, not just a national political issue.
Terrorism, bombing “soft” targets, is said to have
started with the IRA (Irish Republican Army). The validity of that observation
is somewhat questionable. The act of raping and pillaging civilian population
centers, terrorism if you will, seems to be thematic throughout recorded
history’s 6,500 years.
In modern times the tactic of attacking civilian
targets to hamper war production was first used by a desperate
Germany
during World War One. This was also the first use of aerial bombardment as the
Kaiser sent Zeppelins against
London,
England on May
31, 1915. Over the course of World War One 550 British Civilians were killed by
German Zeppelins.
This closely followed the u-boat raids on civilian commercial shipping which
began on February 4, 1915.
This in turn brought the
U.S.
into World War One following, after some delay, the sinking of the RMS
Lusitania.
One torpedo was fired by U-20 on
May 7, 1915 killing 1,198 people, 128 of them were
U.S. citizens. After all diplomatic
avenues were exhausted, the
U.S.
entered World War One in April of 1917. The war ended on November 11, 1918.
For years it
was rumored that the
Lusitania
had been carrying munitions. This is how the swiftness of the sinking was
explained. The ships manifest, however, made no mention of munitions aboard.
Recently, using variations on the same technology which explored the wreckage
of the
RMS Titanic, examination of the
Lusitania’s wreckage
revealed that the German torpedo struck one of the forward coal holds (the
boilers on the ship were coal fired) of the ship. The impact of the torpedo
shook the coal dust loose, and the explosion ignited the coal dust. This
accounts for the secondary explosion which was reported at the time. In 2006,
however, during a manned exploration of the wreckage, boxes of British 303
rounds were found in the wreckage; some 15,000 rounds were discovered. While
this may explain the secondary explosion for some, it has to be noted that
small-arms ammunition usually “cooks off” (fires one by one as the temperature
ignites the gun-powder in the brass casing). It doesn’t necessarily explode.
Moreover, the on-going exploration does not invalidate the initial discovery of
the torpedo’s insertion into the forward coal-hold. The disagreement goes on.
The bottom
line is that once blood was spilled it was inevitable that the violence would
be met with more violence. Escalation was inevitable. Kaiser Wilhelm II
had every opportunity to stop the targeting of civilian shipping, but chose to
continue the practice. He bowed to the pressure of his admiralty.
In a work, now lost to antiquity, which was published
in the 1970s, by a Canadian group espousing non-violence, it was said that once
battle begins there is no thought of ideology, no thought of just or un-just
causes, no thought of right or wrong, there is only battle. The man in the fire-fight
is only concerned with his survival and the survival of his “buds.” This is
reflected in the 2001 film by Ridley Scott, Black
Hawk Down.
A careful examination of some of the activities of
the
U.S. troops in
Iraq
would indicate that the battle mindset has overwhelmed rational judgment. It is
taking a toll on
U.S.
forces.
The suicide rate among our troops is escalating. Errors in judgment range from
abuse of prisoners to friendly fire incidents.
Saddam used violence to suppress his own people.
We’ve used violence to remove Saddam and liberate the Iraqi people. We did
manage to free them from Saddam’s reign, but set off a civil war in the
process. This civil war is due, in no small part, to how the British carved up
the region following World War One.
It is no great leap of logic to see that World War
One led to World War Two. That in turn led to the Cold War (inclusive of Korea and Vietnam). This has brought us down
to today and the U.S.
invasion of Iraq, and the
tensions with Iran.
This is the almost unbroken chain of violence which has ripped through the
world since 1914. That has been some 93 years now. Isn’t it about time to find
some better approach to conflict resolution? The globe honestly does not need
any more wars.
Nonviolence is berated as being naive, and often
unpatriotic. However, Gandhi said, “Nonviolence is a weapon of the strong.”
Martin Luther King said, “Nonviolence
means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence
of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him.”
While
some would dispute the effectiveness of nonviolence, as Joan Baez observed, “Nonviolence
is a flop. The only bigger flop is violence.”
Gene
Sharp’s
assertion adds clarity to the discussion.
"Nonviolent action is a means of
combat, as is war. It involves the matching of forces and the waging of
'battle,' requires wise strategy and tactics and demands of its 'soldiers'
courage, discipline and sacrifice. This view of nonviolent action as a
technique of active combat is diametrically opposed to the popular assumption
that, at its strongest, nonviolent action relies on rational persuasion of the
opponent, and more commonly it consists simply of passive submission. Nonviolent
action is just what it says: action which is nonviolent, not inaction. This
technique consists, not simply of words, but of active protest, noncooperation,
and intervention. Overwhelmingly, it is a group or mass action.”
How leftist
and unpatriotic were George Washington and Dwight D. Eisenhower?
Specifically,
this is what George Washington said:
“The
great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our
commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as
possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled
with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.”
There is
little doubt that our current globalized economy would have been detestable to
General Washington. He saw the trouble created by being so intertwined in the
political affairs of others. While the world has changed, human nature has not.
It is not an
alarmist statement to say that every war which we have engaged in since 1900 is
a direct result to being entwined in the affairs of others. Some would argue
that
Washington
was not advocating isolationism. However, based on this phrasing, he was
certainly advocating caution in regards to the
U.S.’s involvement with European
affairs. That caution needs to be applied to the larger globalized community,
now. Let’s face it, how better off would we have been if we declined the
British invitation to get involved with the toppling of the Iranian Nationalist
Government in 1952? Was it in the best interest of the
United States to shore up the
Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now British Petroleum)?
Eisenhower, the Commanding General of European
Theater of Operations, cannot be considered anything less than an American patriot,
yet his words seem to fall mute in this current age.
Here in America we are descended in blood
and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to
dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest
dissent with disloyal subversion.
Much of what has come out of
Washington, DC
since September 11, 2001 has associated “honest dissent” with “disloyal
subversion.” Within the context of the Uniting
and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate
Tools Required to Intercept
and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (Public Law
107-56) or the USA Patriot Act,
are we not destroying what we have struggled to gain these past? Eisenhower
asked a very similar question:
How far you can go without destroying from
within what you are trying to defend from without?
While not perfect in his own nonviolent approach,
Eisenhower understood the interplay in the economic welfare of the nation.
Every gun that is made, every warship
launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those
who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
There is little doubt that today’s Republicans, at
best, play lip service to the needs of the hungry, cold, and unclothed. In
today’s world, we condemn them to wander aimlessly through the streets of our
cities, and ban them from our public spaces. Based on what we have seen in the
wake of Hurricane Katrina throughout the entire Gulf Cost, today’s Republicans
have no concern whatsoever for the hungry, cold, and destitute. What little is
left is even now being destroyed.
Why? Because we have collectively bought into the goals and aims of violence as
a means to life. Eisenhower’s warning has not been heeded.
In
the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial
complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and
will persist.
The essence
of his observations is summed up in his statement, “A people that values its
privileges above its principles soon loses both.” It is submitted that in the
current capitalistic system, governed directly or indirectly by the corporations,
we are losing both our principles and our privileges. The words of Jacob Marley
from the pen of Charles Dickens seem to echo down the ages:
Business? Mankind was my business! The
common welfare was my business!
We have had, over time, leaders who have looked at
the carnage of violence and have rejected it. Yet, we seem to be lacking such
leadership today. We are called weak and simple if we look for nonviolent
solutions to our conflict with the current enemies of our nation. We are also
taught that nonviolence is essentially appeasement of the forces who are
undermining our ideals and principles. This is the essence of While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is
Destroying The West From Within by Bruce Bawer. There has to be a different
way! There has to be resistance without appeasement, and without violence.
It would logically seem that nonviolence should be in
the kit bag of the most conservative politician. War has nothing to do with the
conservation of anything, except some
rather outdated impulses from the reptilian cortex, some id gratification of
the infantile nature to have its own way, or worse the only solution available
to someone so chained in socioeconomic deprivation that no other way is seen.
Violence, more specifically war, may be seen as the ultimate form of urban
renewal, but it lacks the plasticity of more creative expressions. Again,
creativity comes from a higher level of development on Maslow’s pyramid, and it
is not apparent in today’s culture. However, to point out the obvious,
Chicago did not get rid of
The Robert Taylor Housing Project,
or infamous Cabrini Green
Housing Project, by bombing them into radioactive oblivion.
Perhaps that is a weak argument. Perhaps it is not
compelling enough to alter one’s thinking. However, at the end of apartheid in
South Africa, Nelson Mandela set up the Truth
and Reconciliation Commission and began
the process of healing
South
Africa. It asked the victims of atrocities
to come forth and tell their stories. It also asked those who committed crimes
to step forth and “confess their sins.” This process brought
South Africa out of years of bloody
strife, and moved it into the 20
th Century. The final report was
delivered on October 28, 1998; it fairly denounced all sides in the South
African conflict for the crimes committed during apartheid.
If nothing else, how much did the TRC conserve of the
corporate investment in South
Africa? As asked before, how does one write
off 90% of a corporation’s physical plant, the majority of its corporate
officers, and a good percentage of its shareholders on a P&L? It doesn’t
even save on dividend payments since they have to be paid to the estates of the
survivors. War is dumb.
There is an argument that violence is inevitable. Ask
any police officer about that. Ask a good police officer who takes pride in the
profession and he or she will tell you that violence is not inevitable. As a
matter of fact, violence is the exception in police work, not the rule. The
majority of contact situations do not end in violence. The business of stopping
crime and exerting the will of civilization for the common good does not have
to end in violence. There are those who say that the police do not have to
stoop to violence because they carry the threat of violence, but that does not
seem to be the case. Violence is an expression of the cognitive landscape of
the individuals involved in the confrontation. That is to say that violence is
accepted. If it is not accepted then alternative means to conflict resolution
becomes possible.
Police science is a science. It is studied, documented, reviewed, and re-evaluated over
time. It begins with the study of criminal process which dictates the rules of
conduct within the given understanding of the social process. It defines what a
police officer is and is not allowed to do in a given society. It also defines
what we know about the causes of crimes with a society.
Even if one doesn’t trust the courts, one can trust
the police officers. Even within a society which defines itself in its liberty,
the processes are there to maintain the general welfare of every individual
within society. However one looks at the criminal process, neither due process nor
crime control lead directly to physical violence. While the process may lead to
economic violence and miscarriages of justice through human error,
shortsightedness of the system, or deliberate willful corruption, it does not
lead directly to physical violence. If the criminal, insurgent, revolutionary
does resort to physical violence the police officer only uses as much force as
is necessary to regain control of the situation and subdue the criminal. Very
seldom does the situation end up with the type of mayhem experienced in war.
There are police officers who deal with dysfunctional
criminals on a daily basis. It is a thankless, high stress job. They do the job
with humor, honor, and dignity using their ability to think and reason in
stressful situations and talk down the suspect. Though considered a situation
comedy the Barney Miller, which ran
on ABC Television from 1975 to 1982, is a better depiction of real law
enforcement than NBC’s Miami Vice
which aired from 1984 to 1989. It is, however, unfortunate that depictions like
NYPD Blue (ABC, 1993 to 2005) with
the sardonic, rough, seedy side of police work have become the norm in the
mindset of the nation. This was style of police interactions was also reflected
in NBC’s Hill Street Blues
(1981-1987). While such may make for good drama, they are not the reality of
the situation.
The nonviolent approach does work. Ask a London
bobby if violence is necessary. Ask the arresting officers of the terrorist who
recently threatened Fort
Dix. Ask the police who
foiled the plot to blow up airliners over the Atlantic
in July of 2006. The police are dealing with very determined and violent
people; yet, the police stopped them and brought them under the control of the
judicial system without resorting to violence. Terrorism is a crime, but one
does not have to resort to criminal activity in order to subdue the terrorist.
Unlike the dramatic fare offered up by television,
Police work is pretty much mundane. Actually it is rather mind-numbing. Watch a
few episodes of Fox’s COPS. What is not depicted is the hours of driving around
just being visible in the community. As hokey as it may seem today the old Andy Griffith Show (1960 to 1968)
depicting the challenges of police work in Mayberry, North Carolina,
may actually be a closer depiction of police effort than what is in the media
landscape today. The effectiveness of going in guns blazing is a myth. It is
however the one we have bought into, and have made into our daily reality play.
Consider this, however, more was done to secure the legal and economic status
of the blacks in the U.S.
during the nonviolence of the 1960’s Civil Rights movement, than was done to
secure their freedom during the 1860’s Civil War. In the great struggles for
human dignity within the economic system the only successful approach is nonviolent
action.
By definition, within most civilized societies,
people who resort to violence are “bad.” We call them bad men. We call them
criminals. However, very few criminals resort to violence. Even under the
conditions of severe economic deprivation most do people do not resort to
wanton criminal violence.
Violent crime makes the news because it is news. It
is out of the ordinary. It is unusual. It is not the staple of peaceful daily
existence. It is not the norm in society. As a matter of fact, when the media
stops reporting violent crime is when it is time to become concerned. Such
non-coverage means that violence has become so mundane that it is no longer
newsworthy. That in itself is a sad commentary on any society and the media
which covers it.
When violence does erupt, the response is to go after
the individual or group who committed the violence. As tempting as it is, it is
poor policy and tactics to level a whole block of innocent civilian homes
because there is one idiot with an AK-47. Sometimes, out of necessity, and the
preservation of human life and dignity, the idiot with the AK-47 is allowed to
get away. A police officer knows only too well that the criminal will be caught
eventually.
The Senior trainer, Antonio “Tony” Sanchez, at Statewide Training
Academy in Richardson,
Texas, just north of Dallas, Texas,
has a habit of referring to people as sheep. When asked, he explains that
people tend to live their lives oblivious to the real threats which exist
around them. “They are the sheep,” he
explains, “and we are the sheep dogs.
The sheep are nervous and distrusting of the sheep dogs because we look like
wolves, we have teeth like wolves, but our job is to stop the wolves from
attacking the sheep.”
That is a good analogy. It is valid. Our police and
military are suspect because they are as dangerous as the bad guys. However,
they are not the bad guys. Their use of violence in a civilized society is only
as much as needed to apprehend the criminals and establish the peace. War, in
contrast, strips away all civilization, and creates an environment where
policing is impossible. The difference is a matter of investing in the proper
policing approach to the situation in a given community. In places like Iraq, and Afghanistan, that translates to well
trained troops on the ground, in mass, to patrol as law enforcement every
single block of every community which needs to be pacified. Anything short of a
commitment to that approach will leave the criminals in charge with opportunity
to engage in violence with impunity.
Nonviolence is not just a concept within the
Christian tradition. Islam has the root of nonviolence within their writings.
“No one of you is a believer until he loves for his neighbor what he loves for
himself.”
This instruction is enough to see that even in the
Middle
East there is a root of the tree of peace.
The Beacon Anthology on Nonviolence was released in
2002 before the U.S.
invasion of Iraq.
The last three entries speak mostly to the U.S.
collation operation in Afghanistan.
That operation was considered a success within the traditional establishment.
Today, in 2007, Afghanis who supported the NATO presence in Afghanistan are uncertain if the
forces there can defeat the new version of the Taliban. The traditional type of
military action does not effectively subdue a population who sees itself as
being occupied. Zinn asks whether we learned anything from the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict; one has to wonder if we learned anything from Vietnam!
With the Vietnam conflict ending in 1975,
there is a generation and a half who don’t know of the mistakes made in that
mission. Moreover, many of today’s Generation X would rather not hear anymore
of it. More than one discussion about the ill-fated venture in South East Asia
ends with something akin to “Vietnam!
Get over it!” Yet, the ill fought, ill remembered 30 year conflict still haunts
the discussion on intervention and foreign affairs. Some observers have
wondered if the excursions into Afghanistan
and Iraq aren’t some kind of
repeat of the bloody experiment by Baby Boomers and their Gen X offspring to
prove that Korea and Vietnam could have been victories for U.S.
foreign policy.
In the case of
Vietnam, at least, it was a victory
for them. The Communist forces of
North Vietnam finally unified the
country under a government which, arguably, works for them. Over the years
since the end of our intervention in that country, a rising economy has emerged
in
Ho Chi Minh City
(formally
Saigon). While the government is communist
in name, they are doing a booming capitalist business. Capitalism when
approached from the right direction works under any official name. Alcoa,
American Airlines, and American Express won.
Couldn’t that have happened without the lost of two million Vietnamese and
fifty-eight thousand
U.S.
servicemen?
What of Korea? The South is a booming
Democratic capitalist economy. The North is the ghetto of Asia which has both Japan and China worried. South Korea is bent on helping its
northern neighbor get into the 21st Century. They would like to do
so without the carnage of another regional war. Now that China has embraced the free market
economy, they can see the advantage of sitting on Kim Jong-il until the man
fades into the oblivion of the eternal. Then they can help North Korea out of the mess it has been in since
it invaded South Korea
in 1950.
The one major distinction between the actions in
South East Asia and the current actions in Afghanistan
and Iraq is that North Korea did not attack the U.S. Vietnam did not attack the U.S. The
Islamic Radicals did attack the U.S.
on U.S.
soil when we, the individual citizens with no connection to the leadership of
the nation would just have as soon left them to their own tribal squabbles in
the dessert.
The corporations were involved in the Middle East on a commercial level; however, we limited
our military activities to the protection of the oil fields, and arms shipments.
There is no connection between Iraq
and the attack on the U.S.
The connection is there in Saudi Arabia
and Afghanistan.
We have done nothing, due to Bush’s intervention, concerning the Saudi
connection. This situation differs from the early wars in Asia
because we were attacked. That difference matters. And that difference has, in
part, galvanized the divisions of the United States.
Some would say that nonviolence is impractical, and
not realistic. As true as this may seem from an individual perspective, it has
worked for the Swiss since 1815. The official Swiss stance today is as follows:
The primary objective of Swiss foreign
policy is to preserve the independence
and well-being of the country. To achieve this in the best way possible,
Switzerland
works to promote peaceful coexistence among peoples, to combat poverty and to
promote human rights, democracy and the careful use of natural resources. In
addition, it supports the activities of Swiss business abroad.
At one time the Swiss were the rugged mountain men of
Celtic origin. They were similar to the Irish immigrants who provided so much
of the fighting capability of both the North and the South during the U.S.
Civil War, and the Gallic forces who fought for
Greece
and established the region of
Galatia
in
Mesopotamia. The Swiss, likewise, provided
much of the mercenary fighting force for
Europe’s
various protracted religious wars.
At one point they realized that their bravest were dying for the idiotic causes
of others. They pulled back to the
Alps and
became the bankers and humanitarians of the world.
What would the world be like if the U.S. decided to do the same thing?
How much of the GNP would be available for national development if we stopped
dumping the resources of the nation into dead end military projects? Moreover,
how technologically effective would our military be if we did focus the
military mission on National Defense incorporating policing tactics as opposed
to offensive systems battlefield tactics? What would it be like if the majority
of the nations decided to do the same? How far back in history can one go
before one stops seeing today’s conflict rooted in the interference by another nation
state for their own political and economic needs. What would Iran be like today if the British,
upon discovering oil there, decided to act ethically with the people who owned
the mineral rights to that oil and not attempt to steal it?
The U.S.
takes a lot of heat from Europe, and as of late France,
over the current events in the Middle East and Persia. However, this current mess
was created when France and England decided to carve up the Ottoman Empire. At some point, before the current
conflict ignites World War Three, something different has to be attempted. What
the Western World has been doing so far is
not working!
Christianity is of no small influence in the U.S. Many
in the U.S.
consider the nation a Christian nation, and as such evangelical in approach to
spreading its culture. It considers itself on a mission for God. We have
discussed this in depth. However, it is necessary to be very clear on the
instructions given by Jesus on this matter:
But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they
receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say, Even
the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you:
notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto
you.
There is no ground in the Evangelical instruction to
impose the Christian ethic on others through the force of arms! If other
nations do not want the Christian Gospel and the Christian ethic, then let them
be. If the Christian approach to life is superior to others it will prove out
in the manifestation in the real world. That will prove the validity of the
message. Even Jesus said they will know the tree by the fruit it bears.
If insanity is defined, as it has been said, as doing
the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, then what
we’ve been witnessing over the past 100 years can only be described as insane.
Arundhati Roy wrote, in 2001, “There is no easy way
out of the spiraling morass of terror and brutality that confronts the world
today. It is time now for the human race to hold still, to delve into its wells
of collective wisdom, both ancient and modern. What happened on September 11
changed the world forever. Freedom, progress, wealth, technology, war – these
words have taken on new meaning. Governments have to acknowledge this
transformation, and approach their new task with a modicum of honesty and
humility.”
Not only do governments need to acknowledge this
transformation, but for the sake of their own survival and collective sanity,
the corporations who hold the various governments’ leashes need to re-think
what is being done.
It is a rule in business that you look around to see
who is prospering and, if possible, emulate them. However, the constant propensity
of resorting to overwhelming force, violence, and bombardment is not working in
the long run, nor is it effective in the short run. As such, the question has
to be asked, why do corporations keep returning to a market strategy which is not working?
Maybe it is time to do a little brainstorming and
come up with some “out of the box” ideas which might just work for business,
people, institutional religions, and the various governments which give them
validity.
