A Thinking Reed

"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed" – Blaise Pascal

Quick update and "War isn’t working"

Abby came through her surgery like a champ and is doing well. Her mom and I are heading back to the hospital today to see her and if all goes well there’s a good chance she’ll be home tonight. Thanks for all your prayers and good wishes.

Meanwhile, do read this post from Jim Henley of Unqualified Offerings. I’d underline one point that he makes – even though we talk about war as a “last resort,” we don’t put nearly the kind of resources into seeking nonviolent solutions to conflict and injustice as we do in supporting war. So how can we truly say that nonviolent means of dealing with a particular situation have been exhausted when we go to war?

In his book When War Is Unjust: Being Honest in Just-War Thinking, John Howard Yoder wrote:

What constitutes a situation of last resort is not something that can be decided only at the last minute or only by one party. What is decisive to determine whether efforts to resolve political conflicts by means less destructive than war have been adequate will largely depend on whether there was any disposition or plan to attempt to use such prior means in the first place. (p. 72)

In other words, can we legitimately invoke “last resort” if there isn’t some kind of institutionalized commitment to seeking and supporting nonviolent solutions to conflicts?

In this light, the idea of a “Department of Peace” as proposed by Dennis Kucinich during the 2004 presidential primaries doesn’t sound quite so hippy-dippy. Interestingly, Congressman Kucinich wasn’t the first person to propose such a department. The creation of a “Peace-Office for the United States” to counter impulses toward militarism was idea floated early in the Republic’s existence. One such proponent was Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence, surgeon general of the Continental Army, treasurer of the U.S. Mint, and abolitionist among other things. According to Arthur A. Ekirch’s history of the American antimilitarist tradition, Rush proposed the idea of an Peace Office in 1798.

Although Rush had in mind particularly the recurrent wars with the Indians, his plan was also a thorough attack on other evidences of militarism. He urged the repeal of all capital punishment and militia laws, and the avoidance of any sort of military displays and titles. Finally, he recommended the establishment of a peace museum in Federal Hall to offer a favorable contrast to another room, inscribed ‘National Glory,’ in which the horrors of war would be depicted. Over the portals of the Department of War there would be painted the captions: ‘An office for butchering the human species,’ ‘A Widow and Orphan making office.’ (p. 43)

4 responses to “Quick update and "War isn’t working"”

  1. Chip Frontz

    Lee, I understand your point of view, but even if a “Department of Peace” was created, if war is an option on the table, non-violent means are superfluous at best. The reason I say this is that both you and “the enemy” will realize that all diplomatic negotiations, sanctions, remonstrations, etc., are prelude and ineffective substitutes for war.

    I guess what I’m saying here is that even when you are operating with the “war as a last resort” paradigm, you are taking war or conflict as the guiding principle of conflict resolution. You’d have to take war off the table completely in order to achieve peace in this way. I think Girard makes this point in his writings.

    But I still have a problem with the doctrine of pacifism that this seems to lead to, because of the power of sin and the necessity to protect the weak against evil people. Those who advocate for the use of only non-violent means of conflict resolution usually don’t believe in original sin. They seem to believe in sin which arises because of the oppression of strong uber-cultural powers, and think that if only we could remove the uber-cultural powers, humanity would live blissfully. What they ignore is the fact that strong uber-cultural powers arise or become so out of the need to control the uncontrolled violence of warlords, chieftains, and self-appointed Messiahs (like, for instance, Saddam Hussein).

    On another front, I have just finished the late Philip Reiff’s The Triumph of the Therapeutic: Uses of Faith after Freud.. Reiff’s death was noted on the First Things blog on July 12 (?), inspiring me to check out the book. I highly , HIGHLY, recommend picking it up. It has the unusual and valuable characteristic of being both a quick read and very insightful, even prophetic, considering that it was written in 1965.

    Reply
  2. Chip Frontz

    BTW, I’m glad Abby’s doing well.

    Reply
  3. jack perry

    Aren’t the State Department and the UN supposed to fulfill the role of exhausting all diplomatic, non-violent avenues before war is chosen? The State Dept for example lavishes huge sums of money on scholar exchanges, international aid, etc. The same with the UN, which purportedly provides a forum for world actors to come forward and present their grievances one against the other. What exactly would a Department of Peace do differently?

    Reply
  4. Lee

    Admittedly the Dept. of Peace is something I would only take half-seriously. Another thing for the government to screw up! 😉

    My point is this, though: Many Iraq war-hawks insist that the best reason for the campaign there is to act as a catalyst for transforming the Middle East into a more or less liberal and democratic place (which will therefore, it is supposed, not threaten us). But, given that it’s far from clear, to say the least, that war is an effective way of doing that, what if we were to pour equivalent resources into supporting liberalizing tendencies there by non-violent means? Education, cultural engagement, trade, etc. Even supporting non-violent resistance movements where they exist (along the lines of, e.g. Solidarity in Poland). Granted these means might not work either, but they have the added benefit of not killing large numbers of people.

    That doesn’t necessarily mean dispensing with military force, both to act as a deterrent and to pursue terrorist groups, but for the purposes of long-range cultural liberalization in the Middle East, it’s far from obvious to me that war is the best tool. And I think we’ve been too quick to resort to it.

    Reply

Leave a comment