War means killing people

Among the many recent voices on these pages, two in particular are especially worth consideration. I offer my own reflection guided by one question and concern: who have the readers believed and felt more helpful in understanding the current rush to more war fighting, the respected professor (Malik Mufti, Casus belli, Oct. 3) or the compassionate student (Rana Abdul-Aziz, My City, Sept. 30, Waiting in fear, Oct. 7)?

Not being an expert on Middle East politics, history or culture, I found Mufti's essay quite informative for its various details and provocative for its interpretation of the trends described. I don't know enough to counter his claims of ostensible fact or his assertions of appropriate action based on his assessment of the situation.

But, as a peace educator I do recognize "realpolitik" and "geostrategic" discourse when I see it. And I have come to learn that such language conceals as much as it reveals and, like all paradigmatic and strategic thinking, that it is simultaneously a way of seeing and not seeing. Given that Mufti's views likely resonate with most people as being "realistic" in analyzing the way things are, an alternative perspective follows.

First, of course his purpose for writing is simple; his analysis finds justification for the use of force by the US military against Iraq, and he aims to persuade everyone he can to support that course of action. He believes the situation compels a "war to preempt" the threat of Arab fascism so described, in addition to overthrowing the Iraqi regime. Both must be "neutralized." Subsequently, "the US must foster and defend" a different regime and social order capable of engendering a new political culture for Arab people everywhere.

To keep it simple, the plain truth of all of such thinking is that violence against the Iraqi people must be used. In other words, they must be bombed, shot and killed by most any means necessary _ though the Bush administration insists every possible means may be appropriate _ in order for US soldiers and sailors to carry out the plan of removing the current Iraqi government and putting in place one designed by ours (and, as we now know, establishing another military base for our armed forces for the foreseeable future).

To complicate it a bit, also concealed is the fact that any unilateral preemptive war will undermine all international law and institutional arrangements for diplomatic and legal conflict resolution established or cultivated during the last half-century and more. Nor do we see how the new strategic plan for US military dominance in the 21st century is given concrete footing in yet another country (not unlike the new military base being built outside of Kosovo) by a US invasion. Nor are we told that many in the "Arab world" will see this as a bald-faced grab of empire. What Mufti does suggest, however, is that our armed violence will somehow lead to 'healing a [part of their] political culture.'

Really? From what I understand, not once in the 20th century did an armed invasion of one country lead directly to the establishment of democracy there. And when did violence ever lead to healing? Destructive violence is used when problems cannot be solved constructively. From what I know of nonviolence, the congruence of means and ends is of paramount concern in any strategic action to upset the bases of power of any dominant political actor or institution. I also know that "all-out conflict utilizing all the weapons at hand will become inevitable" is not and was not true for the roughly 3.3 billion people on Earth in the 20th century that gained new political leaders or created less oppressive cultures from nonviolent struggles.

In 1989 alone the overwhelmingly nonviolent dismemberment of the so-called "evil empire" positively affected the lives of more than 1.7 billion people. It was only the "realists" among us that were prepared to use all the weapons at hand to settle that global problematique.

For me, what Mufti's way of thinking and language conceals is the very inhumanity and terror that Rana's refuses to accept. For all that her article said, the plain truth is captured in what she tells simply: she, her extended family and many others live in fear. The "nightmare" Mufti fears if war is not waged is exactly the reality that Rana's family lives each night and day. Yet they not only wait for the worst and most direct terror, they already live with the ongoing toll of a war now carried out by "sanctions."

If the horrific witness of Sept. 11 should mean anything to each and every person, it is that similar destruction and suffering awaits the Iraqi people _ and their neighborhoods, places of business, caf?©s and parks _ when the first "smart bombs" fall (guided by technological and geostrategic thinking, though not bodies). Their fire fighters, police, and public servants will rush to aid their friends, families, and strangers with no less courage than did ours, regardless of the size and symbolism of any building destroyed. And though they will have no doubt as to who caused such horror, many will surely wonder why we "hate them so" for the ways of their government and political and cultural leaders.

Similar destruction and suffering were true for the Afghans. As it was for all those who lost their lives on Sept 11. As it was for every victim of "legitimate" armed violence in my lifetime (regardless of what thinking and who justified it).

In 1970, I was trained in our armed forces to handle the prototype generation of so-called smart bombs. I watched countless films of live aircraft missions against the Vietnamese and still more from World War II and aircraft carrier battle groups to prepare me for the fighting ahead. The taped death and destruction were enormous and nauseating. In all my training the most simple and direct message came from a non-commissioned officer as he forcefully slammed a pointer across a screen and screamed "men, the enemy must be killed!"

That alarmingly hostile act contained the simple truth in all the sophisticated machinations of realpolitik. When force is justified the plain truth is that someone _ and by ever larger numbers _ must be killed.

If there is a teachable moment in this truly Orwellian time, when the government that possesses more than half of the nuclear weapons on Earth fears another regime might produce one and use it against "us," it is this: killing people or not is what we are talking about. In these pages the student in effect said, "please, don't do it anymore." The professor said in so many words that "it makes sense and is okay"; indeed, "we must if we are to save lives." She spoke truth to power. He addressed power but omitted basic truth.



Dale Bryan is the assistant director of peace and justice studies at Tufts.