The dogs of war

[The following post is a slightly-expanded version of a column I wrote for The Eagle, published on 13JAN07]

In questioning whether it is possible to fight war and manage conflict at the same time, the authors of Leashing the Dogs of War , acclaimed as "the definitive volume on the sources of contemporary conflict and the array of possible responses to it," conclude the following:

Our conclusion...is that peacemaking and conflict management are central for creating a less divided, less conflicted world—no matter the complexities and, at times, high odds against success.

The book provides ample evidence that the international community—both its leading official actors and its nonofficial components—can check hostile adversaries of the international order and make peace at the same time. We are learning to leash the dogs of war.

So, with respect to resolving domestic and international contentions, why are we not as willing to employ sophisticated ways of making peace as we are in using violence and waging war?

We have expended prodigious amounts of money, time, and creative energy in developing sophisticated weapons of war, such as laser-guided bombs that from a position miles away can be steered dead center down the smokestacks of an enemy, yet we fail and refuse to develop and employ sophisticated techniques aimed at creating peaceful solutions to contentious issues. It seems we’d rather kill or maim someone’s children, sisters, brothers, and parents, killing and maiming our own children, sisters, brothers, and parents in the process, than to leave no stone unturned in an effort to resolve conflict without bloodshed.

Why haven’t we as a country developed a Culture of Peace, that is, a set of values, attitudes, modes of behavior and ways of life that reject violence and prevent conflicts by tackling their root causes to solve problems through dialogue and negotiation? How come we scoff at the idea of establishing a Cabinet-level U.S. Department of Peace, while at the same time we voluntarily send our children and other members of our families directly into the path of bullets and bombs? I defy anyone to argue that our current approach isn’t barbaric, insane and criminal.

Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, speaking of his leadership during the Viet Nam War, said, “We knew nothing about Vietnamese religion, psychology or culture – and we had no one to tell us.” And yet here we are 32-years after our war on Vietnam ended, arming our children and other members of our families in the military with all of the high-tech gadgets of waging war our country can imagine, but we haven’t done a damn thing with providing our society with a high-level infrastructure for creating peace. We're still using the same asinine and bloody paradigm of employing bombs and bullets to resolve conflicts.

That there is no high-level dedicated approach by our federal government to reject violence and create nonviolent solutions to international and domestic conflict doesn't make sense. Domestically, a Department of Peace (legislation for which has been introduced in the 110th Congress by Representative Dennis Kucinich) would be responsible for developing policies to effectively reduce the levels of our domestic violence, child abuse, violence in our schools, racial violence, mistreatment of the elderly and animal abuse, all of which are a national disgrace of the first magnitude. Internationally, the Department of Peace would develop policies and make recommendations to the President and Congress on the most sophisticated ideas and techniques regarding peace-creation among nations, including the protection of human rights. But establishing a Department of Peace and making peace a national priority is not going happen unless each one of us makes it a priority in our own lives to learn more about this and collectively act to make it happen. As Wilhelm Reich said in The Mass Psychology of Fascism, the responsibility for wars falls directly upon the shoulders of the citizenry, for they have all the necessary means to avert war in their own hands.

I have a few more questions: What kind of world do we want for our families and communities? What possibly could be of greater support to our troops over the long haul than a sophisticated effort to make active duty on the battlefield less necessary? And most importantly at the moment, what are we going to do to help make peace a national priority and a major institution of the U.S. Government? Are we willing to stand up and be a voice for peace, or do we prefer to just continue our current bloody and barbaric conflict resolution model?

The very agonies of war and the dark night of suffering that has
lasted for centuries are awakening civilization to a new understanding:
the peoples of the Earth have a sacred right to peace.
—Douglas Roche, Canadian Senator
[Tip 'o the hat to Annamarie Deneen at Verbena-19 where I first came across this quote.]