Making Peace

by Glenn C. Koenig

5 September 2006
1 October 2006 (slight modifications)

1. Political Bankruptcy

I have been watching and thinking.

Yesterday, Howard Zinn had a column published on the op ed page of the Boston Globe (and perhaps elsewhere) about our failed war policy in Iraq. Today, I wake up and the upcoming elections are all over the news. Even the 2008 presidential election is being discussed. Again, the major issue being discussed is how the public is unhappy with what's going on in Iraq.

OK, two years from now (until the election in 2008) is a long time. Who knows what could happen in Iraq, or in other places, for that matter, between now and then?

But what's on my mind is how the debate about Iraq is being framed right now. It's all about where the troops are. Do we keep them in or take them out. On the face of it, one thing is baffling to me. If you're on the side of take them out, then that position is easily attacked by those in favor of keeping them in. Taking them out seems so negative, so empty. The argument that we are planning to "cut and run" in the face of an enemy is difficult to counter. And rightly so. After all, taking troops out of an area where a fight continues seems like a non-plan.

What are we doing to actually bring hostilities to an end? Sure the current situation seems intractable. But I don't hear much of anything about a truly positive plan. Or even a selection of possible plans. So, I'm left wondering how anyone is going to win an election without at least proposing a few.

2. Origins

I think there are a number of reasons why we're not discussing what "to do" rather than what "not to do." I believe that our problem goes to the very structure of our current federal government and the culture in which we live that continues to support it. My thoughts on Government Dynamics explain this in more detail.

Along with a government that functions in a way that perhaps we don't realize comes a number of other cultural factors.

One of these is the economics that underlie the "Military Industrial Complex." In other words, modern warfare is an economically intense affair. It channels our taxes, which we are required by law to pay, into government, then back out to the industries that supply the military with its tools and services. Of course, it's easy to point to the heads of those industries with their huge salaries as the 'bad guys' in this arrangement. But it's easy to forget that literally millions of people get up every morning to go to work at jobs that are just as much a part of this 'complex' as those of the big wigs.

So, until we can say to those millions of workers, "Look, we have alternative jobs for you, with similar pay and benefits," then it seems that we're stuck with this incredible capacity to build armaments and prepare for war with nothing better to do.

There are, of course, many better things to do, but until we begin talking about this out in the open, as a nation, many people will regard our propensity for war as an ongoing mystery.

3. Our Resolve

Even if we re-arranged our government to represent us better, and dismantled our economic dependence on military production, we still will have not produced a plan to move from war to peace.

To start with, we must ask ourselves, how do we make peace?

One thing that comes to mind is a story I remember hearing on the news a few years ago about how the US invaded Iraq with almost no personnel on hand who could speak the language spoken there. I don't know the exact numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised. Recently, in the movie "The War Tapes" this comes out again when the troops explain how no one showed them the hand motion for "stop," which is different from the gesture we use here in the US.

Now, on the one hand, this seems essentially foolish and dangerous. Send troops into a place without knowing much of anything about the local customs and language? This is bound to make matters worse.

But for me, this error spoke volumes to me. What were we thinking about the people there in the first place? What was our attitude towards them, to roll in with all our military hardware, sophisticated electronics, trained troops, etc. and not be able to connect with the very people we're supposed to be fighting for?

Indeed, peace starts with understanding. Conflict often arises from misunderstanding. Granted, even with understanding, there can still be conflict, but without it, how can the conflict be resolved? Understanding takes work beyond military preparedness. And that brings up the question, if you're going to do the work, then what's your reason for doing it?

OK, I know there are plenty of opinions that all center around our selfish motives. It's for the oil. It's to enrich Halliburton. It's to gain power for the party in power in the US. If we really only have a one party political system, then I can understand how we're 'stuck' in Iraq because if enough of us want to be stuck there, there cannot be a resolve to end the war. In a sense, we're in conflict with ourselves here in our own country.

4. Far Fetched

But what if we found that resolve? What if we really decided to work for peace. What would we do? How would we proceed?

First, imagine what it would take to show respect for another people. Yes, even show our love for them. That's right, love. If you loved them, how would you treat them? What would you do to understand their challenges? Learn their language? Learn their geography? Learn more about their religion? Ask the soldiers, generals, reporters, negotiators, aid workers, and others who have been there what they think? Of course. At least you'd start to get a picture. This approach is free for the taking when considering helping people to get along without violence in any part of the world.

Can we take a critical look at ourselves and admit that in some ways how we live in the US, the goods & services we seem to find so necessary, causes us to take advantage of others to satisfy our desires? That the industries that supply these things act as our agents elsewhere in the world, obtaining what we demand at the check out counter? What if we shifted our priorities to say that our share of the planet should be better balanced with the desires of others? What a risk that would be for many people!

But even if we don't get to that point right away, our plan for peace, it seems to me, must start with a basic respect for the person in the other culture. Before we can act, we must learn. At least we must be committed to learning as we prepare to act.

Perhaps we in the US cannot afford to do this work all over the world. On the other hand, perhaps we cannot afford not to. If we are a "world power" what does that mean? That we are able to bring our violence to someone else's land whenever we see fit? That seems a sure way to bring about our own demise because we are bound to create enemies where there were none before.

Peace is not just a cry to 'withdraw our troops.' Peace is based on an attitude toward others. Peace is based on the understanding that most people don't want violence. And those people who don't want violence, in their own land, have to become empowered, and become our allies against those that do, in order for us to create peace. And to do that, we must make the commitment to understand them, their culture, and how to communicate our desire for cooperation unquestionably. Underlying that, our motive must be to connect with others as human beings sharing the planet with us. People deserving of our love as much as anyone.