An important aside...I think it has a place in this blog

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Hzgzim5m7oU&vq=medium

Forwarded via e-mail from some good friends.

Don't Worry - It's Just War

Don’t Worry – It’s Just War

An essay by Bill McKenna   ©2012

The Greeks and Romans gave us good illustrations of how building a military security system can be a tricky proposition.  We’ve discussed the pitfalls of alliances and rivalries, and the overwhelming cost of maintaining overwhelming military superiority.  If I stopped my thesis at this point, we could conclude that the use of a grand army to conduct belligerent state policy was appropriate state policy.  We only need the means of controlling our military and building a force proportional to getting the job done.  There’s a catch.  You knew there would be a catch, because this is Bill’s Peace Blog.  I’m not really going to tell you that peace is good because war is risky (well, OK, I think I have made that argument, but that’s not what’s important).

War is bad.  When I say bad, I’m referring to evil, and the concept of a universal set of ethics.  If you’re Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Jainist, Sikh, or attach yourself to any set of beliefs with a corresponding morality code you know it; killing is bad, wanton destruction is bad.  If you’re an atheist or irreligious, you’ve still got an innate sense of morality and, think that killing is wrong on a basic human level.  If there are any true nihilists out there who don’t go along with this most basic of ethical tenets, I have not met any.  Mental illness is beyond the scope of tonight’s essay, but sadly, we should address the mentally ill population in a peaceful society at some later date.

Well, I think I covered everyone in the last paragraph, but I specifically didn’t mention Christianity by name.  I’m singling out Christian thought tonight, because were starting on our philosophy section, and first up is an early Christian ethicist, a true heavyweight, and I have a problem with his world view.

Saint Augustine is one of the most profound thinkers in Christianity.  His ideas of a universal church, salvation, and ethics, provide guidance for the Christian philosopher throughout the Middle Ages, and are as good a link from the teachings of Christ, to man in a modern society as you are likely to find.  So why am I picking a fight with one of the most revered figures in history?

I have two reasons for picking an argument with Augustine.  The first is his theories on something called ‘just war’.  The second reason can wait.

Augustine did not invent the concept of just war.  There are discussions about the ethics of war thousands of years older than Augustine, but Augustine is the ‘go to’ guy when you want to discuss just war now, because he eloquently explained and codified his thoughts.  Later, Thomas Aquinis refined the ideas more, but I’m trying not to rehash Philosophy 101, so we’ll leave Aquinis alone, unless you’d care to comment.

Just War theory is a bridge between pure individual morality and the needs of a society.  In its simplest form it just makes the case that it is sometimes necessary to conduct a war, when the consequences of not conducting the war are more evil than the war itself.  The just war must not be waged for gain, and it must be wages to restore a state of peace.

So you’re probably thinking that this is common sense, and you can see how it had applied in the twentieth century against totalitarianism very easily.  How could I have a problem with such a sensible approach to the conduct of nations?

I have two problems with just war:  First, it lets us ‘off the hook’ far too easily in the lead up to war.  Secondly, it’s a convenient propaganda vessel for anyone who wants to try the case in the court of public opinion.

So there’s my first argument with Augustine, and now I’ll let him off the hook.  The two issues I have with Augustine’s philosophy are both related to human frailty.  If just leaders conducted their state affairs within the ethical tenets laid out by Augustine (and Aquinis), then just war would work much better in practice, and, in fact, would probably not be used much because the world would be a lot more peaceful.  So in the sphere of pure ethics, Augustine is still OK, and in a few nights, I promise to bring Immanuel Kant to his rescue, to square up this whole piece of the Augustine problem.

Still, we’re stuck in the real world, where leaders let causes of war stew for far too long, and suddenly someone unjustly lashes out, only to be stopped by our just warriors.  Then there is the unfortunate human trait to justify one’s own actions regardless of their merit.  In the case of a leader going to war, we unfortunately know that God’s will is too often invoked, and plain, ugly belligerence is sold as a just war.

The second case critique is the simplest to discuss, and it has the simplest response.  When a leader invokes the ethical right or need to conduct a war, citizens of good conscience have to deliberately appraise that invocation, and stand against false claims.  As a citizen of the US, I am sad to say that we collectively failed to do our duty in this regard in 2002, as the Iraq War loomed.  It failed to meet many of the ethical hurdles to be considered ‘just’, the most grievous of which was our pre-emption, yet we allowed the president to invoke the morality of the war.

The first problem – knowing that we are doing enough to deflect a war before our involvement becomes necessary and therefore just-is much more difficult to grapple with.  I feel that we are not doing enough right now to avoid a war with Iran, but should Iran someday launch a war do I then look back in retrospect and say that it’s OK to conduct that war now?  I don’t know how to answer that.  In fact my inability to answer the question about justification for a war in which the maintenance of peace prior to that war was insufficient introduces my second (and last) argument with Augustine.

Here’s my issue:  In a perfect world, we will look several generations into the future, identify our differences, and make plans to address them long before they lead to a war.  In reality, such foresight is tremendously difficult, the time frame to consider can be immense.  Warring ethnic groups often have unresolved grievances that are hundreds of years old.  Perhaps we can only unravel some of these issues post bellum.

We have to be careful too about the weak olive branch.  There was a time when we could have avoided the Second World War.  Unfortunately, it was probably prior to the First World War, although better foresight in 1919 may have worked.  Certainly by the mid-1930’s Hitler was a proximate threat, and I am hard pressed to think of a non-military solution to the evils of Naziism available by then.  So, when Neville Chamberlain traded the Sudetanland for false  peace, he deserved every bit of scorn he received. 

So in a just war scenario, when have you done the right amount of work to prevent that just war?  If you say that you have only done enough when there is no war, you have then disavowed just war as a concept, because it should have been prevented.  This is an extremely high standard, yet you come into a logic trap if you accept less than perfect prevention.  Those who hold the extreme view have the moral high ground, but also have an impossible standard to bear.  These people are pacifists by definition, and, I would argue, that only those keeping the high standard of avoiding all war can be described as pacifists.  The logic trap that you are either a pacifist or a realist who accepts just war is my second problem with Augustine.  The division seems unfair.

As described, I regrettably can lay no claim to pacifism.  I see that there really can be a just war in Augustine’s ethical construct.  Fortunately, Kant will help us out of this conundrum as well, but we’re not quite ready for A Critique of Pure Reason. 

So, in concluding a really long essay tonight, I don’t really have a gripe with Augustine.  As the Augustinian Order is partly responsible for my oldest daughter’s college education, I’m glad I will be able to give him the enormous respect and admiration he is due.  Yet, there’s a lot of ground to be covered, and just war is a tough concept to deal with when you’re trying to get to peace

Comments?  Are you having nightmares of sitting through Philosophy 101 again?  I hope not.  I also hope I didn’t misrepresent Augustine or Aquinis, although if anyone of you with a contact at that Augustinian College forwards this to a member of the Order, you may be setting me up for a real education (I’m OK with that BTW).

I’m tired and past 1500 words.  I’ll leave you now so you can ponder how I might take up Hobbes’ Leviathan.  Good night, and Peace,  Bill

The fall of Rome

An essay by Bill McKenna   ©2012

In the prior essay, I described how rivalry and reliance on military alliances ruined a classical age.  Tonight, we can talk about another way by which the quest for security through arms can lead to collapse, and that is the story of the death of Rome.

First, I need to say an aside on perspective.  I am reasonably well educated, and know history quite well.  However as I went to US grade school in the 1960’s and ‘70’s, and college in the early ‘80’s, my historic education was strongly skewed toward ‘western civilization’ (not always western, not always civilized… do we have an oxymoron here??).  In any case, a lot of my thesis relies on both the history and the intellectual movements of the west.  I wish I could offer a more worldwide perspective, but I’m, going to stick to what I know best.  Perhaps I should collaborate with like-minded bloggers who can widen the scope, and help in my ongoing education.  More on collaboration on another night though.

So, let us get back to Rome.  The unlikely city of Rome managed to conquer the entire Mediterranean basin.  The conquest came at a cost though.  Rome used a powerful military and innovative technology and tactics to win their empire.  That military cost Rome dearly in simple maintenance costs, but even more so in civil liberties.  The military wasn’t sufficiently reined, so over hundreds of years, Rome developed a military-based culture and emperors who were often the most ambitious of the generals.  In the long run, Rome didn’t fall, so much as rot.  The military consumed the people and wealth of the empire; remote legions became permanently established in far-flung provinces and became less Roman.  The ‘barbarians’ didn’t invade, so much as they were absorbed.  They were poorly treated immigrants and refugees who stayed together in nomadic communities.  The so-called invasions were typically from inside Roman boundaries, by these groups who were prompted to violent raiding out of desperation.  In time, the city of Rome no longer mattered; it was the capital of nothing, and the Italian Peninsula became the kingdom of the Ostrogoths.  As my friend Arkady recently reminded me, this was not the end of the empire, but the ‘Roman’ Empire no longer held Rome and gradually became something far different from its new home in Byzantium.

Rome was essentially crushed by its own military culture.  All of the popular notions of Rome’s decline:   Social malaise, fractured provinces, faltering infrastructure were all effects brought about by maintaining a military too big to support.  Mistreatment of an underclass of absorbed tribes was the end result, and the proximate cause of the long fall.

I won’t hit you over the head with comparisons to US society today.  I think were the parallels are obvious they fit.  American culture, however, is still more vibrant, our republican government still works; we’re doing a better job than Rome did, even if some days it looks like were caught in a similar trap.  So, if you think you see the later empire in America today, I would ask you to take reassurance that we have learned to govern ourselves better than they ever did, but also to take pause that we sometimes think American power alone will sustain us.

No essay today - just some quick notes

I find that I enjoy writing essays.  I wish that I had enjoyed writing them when I was in school.  Nonetheless, if you've been following along, you might want a break from my writing.  So, to keep things fresh, I'm going to change it up a little today.  I will continue with my train of thought soon, though.

Do you remember the Cenepa War?  I had never heard of it until I was poking around on the internet.  It was a border between Peru and Ecueador dispute in 1995 that became horribly violent in in January and February of that year.  It killed 1,000 people.  No one 'won'.  I think arbitration might have prevented it.  In any case, today is a day to be joyful, because 17 years ago today, the UN brokered a cease-fire (and later a peace treaty), and the war ended.  So take a moment and celebrate the anniverary of some peace.

So, today, I'd like it to be your turn, please use the comment tool and let me know:

1. Do you consider yourself a peacemaker?

2. Have you ever been involved in a war or other significant violence?  If so, how did it change how you look at the world?

3. Have you ever participated in a peace action (protest meeting or the like)?  What did you think of the experience?

That's it.  Comment as little or as much as you want.  I hope to hear from you.

Sorry - one more:  Do any of you out there blog?  I'd love to sgare contact info with you for help on practical and technical stuff.

Peace,

Bill

Can war and great culture coexist? Lessons from Greece

An essay by Bill McKenna   ©2012

 I hope you liked my last post.  I think it is important to start with yourself before you undertake anything as dramatic as helping to create a peaceful world.  I’ve cajoled a few friends to read, and I am happy to see that I am getting some nice response.  If you like this blog, please pass the word along.

Sadly, life gets harder when you start to get more involved.  Let’s face it, there are 7 billion of us, and only a few of us are peacemakers.  Getting people’s attention, then getting them to take peace seriously is difficult.  So keep trying, and don’t worry if you feel too small to change the world.  If you think peace is important, and are even just giving it some serious thought, the world is slowly getting better.

Now, I’d like to focus on a hard lesson learned about 2400 years ago.  In the 5^th Century BC, the Greek city-states were at the forefront of great thought.  They were pioneers in democracy, philosophy, the arts, and scientific progress.  The center of classical Greek culture was Athens.

At the beginning of their golden age, the Greeks defended themselves against the terrifying Persian Empire.  Facing annihilation by a much greater force, the Persian Wars ended in an unlikely routing of the Persians, and allowed the Greeks to flourish.  I could argue that the Persian Wars, like all wars, would have been better unfought.  In ancient times, however, many empires expanded through strength of arms, without regard for peace.   For the sake of brevity, let us take it as given that the Greeks had no choice in participating in those wars.

After the defeat of the Persians, the Greeks made preparations for the possibility of another invasion.  Given the fact that the Persians had already invaded twice it was certainly a prudent action.  Unfortunately, defensive stance taken by the Greeks led to a disaster.  Over time, a rift between powerful city-states, primarily Athens and Sparta, developed.  This led to rival defensive alliances, Athens’ Delian League, and Sparta’s Peloponnesian League.  Soon, the two alliances were no longer focused on a defense against Persia, but a hegemony struggle between themselves.

The Delian League was dominated by Athens’ naval power.  It was originally a voluntary alliance, but over time, Athens began to demand payment in lieu of city-states providing direct military support.  Over time, the alliance took on some of the characteristics of an extortion scheme.

The Peloponnesian Wars began as a series of small proxy wars with Athens and Sparta each preparing for an ultimate conflict between the opposing leagues.  The lead-up to the main wars were similar to the 20^th Century Cold War engagements.  The main war soon ensued and, thanks to remarkably modern feeling narrative provided by the historian Thucydides, we know that there were spectacular privations and atrocities.  Athens might was decimated when the population gathered behind defensive walls for an extended period and sanitary conditions precipitated a terrible plague.  The utter destruction of the warfare led Athens and Sparta to agree to peace for several years, but the peace was fragile, and the war renewed after several years.  Finally, in 404 BC, Athens was defeated, and for a time effectively subjugated by Sparta.

The wars were a catastrophe.  I don’t know how many were killed, but it was certainly a great number of people.  The wars were 27 years in duration, devouring a generation.  It destroyed classical Greece, and foreshadowed the Macedonian hegemony made famous by Alexander.

The parallels between Athens at its cultural and military apex and the United States of today are striking.  As we invest enormous amounts of resources into our military preparedness and rely on our NATO alliance to extend our global reach, while we try to maintain cultural excellence, are we really improving our security, or are we preparing to close an American Classical era?

As always, please feel free to discuss this with me.  I’ll pick up the thread with the decline of Rome, and then probably get into some of my favorite intellectuals.  It’ll be Augustine, Anselm, Kant, Hegel, Hobbes and Locke from the point of view of an amateur philosopher (me).  I look forward to your corrections!

Getting started:  What inspires you?

An essay by Bill McKenna   ©2012

Now that I have two postings about US policy done, let me try to explain what I want to do with this blog.  I do want to explore the events of the day that bring us further, or hopefully closer, to peace from time to time.  But I am more interested in laying out a comprehensive argument that we, as a world community, can improve our relationships to a greater degree than we have been able to before, and it is probably the single most important aspiration that we can strive for.

I have a lot to say on the subject of peace, and I intend to be somewhat systematic in my thesis, so I ask for your patience as you read on.  I think it will be a more interesting blog if you engage me with commentary.  The best way to explore some of the things I post will be to engage in dialogue.  It is my hope that I can influence you to think about peace in a constructive way, and perhaps even inspire you to do great things.  I sincerely wish that you thoughtfully reciprocate.

I plan to bring the discussion along by discussing inspiration first:  Why should we try to be peacemakers?  In fact, that is where I am taking you this evening.  In the next few posts, I will want to discuss some of the important philosophical milestones, and some of the history of war and peace.  Before you get glassy eyes over philosophy and history, please understand that I don’t intend to dwell too long on those matters.  I am trying to make the case that we are approaching a time where peace is going to become more likely; in fact, I will try to make the case that it will be inevitable.  Once I have my thesis presented, at least in a sketch, I want to undertake some logic discussions which will give us an idea of what a more peaceful world will look like.  I’m afraid my vision isn’t utopian, but it is uplifting and optimistic.

So, would you like to be a peacemaker?  I think you can be, and it starts with yourself.

                “You must be the change you want to see in the world.” – Mahatma Gandhi

Rejecting violence is difficult.  Have you ever been outraged?  When someone acts so irresponsibly that they endanger someone, or in fact kill or harm someone, outrage is a normal reaction.  I have felt outrage toward drunk drivers and domestic abusers.  But my outrage never erased the harm done by the object of my scorn.  The most we can hope for from a feeling of outrage is an outcome of justice.  While that justice may be partly satisfactory to our sense of order and fairness, dwelling on justice for a callous act will most likely yield disappointment.

There is another way we can deal with such acts, and that is through forgiveness.  I don’t know if we can ever abandon that outrage we feel from time to time, and the drive for justice helps us maintain civil society. Yet if we learn forgiveness, we hold open the door for redemption and improvement.  Even if the offending person is sentenced to life in prison their humanity is worth consideration.  So is your own.

Learning compassion is difficult and slow.  Perhaps you will never master the self-control to be considered truly compassionate.  Nonetheless, if you consider forgiveness, and try to be a more compassionate person you are on the right track.  You may inspire someone else to change themselves in a similar way.  If so, you are then a peacemaker.

To start looking at the world as a peacemaker, you’re going to need support.  Positive support from people who notice your peaceful attitude and encourage you are important, but you can’t rely on sustaining your outlook on occasional personal encouragement.  Instead, you need to see that it is the right way to conduct yourself, and this comes from a sense of ethics.

At this point, I want to reveal to you that I am a Christian, and believe that humanity has been saved through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  I have not mentioned this so far for two important reasons.  First, I don’t think that my own life and faith is important to the development of these postings.  It is most certainly the greatest wellspring of my inspiration, and influences my world outlook so it is essential to me, but frankly, these posts aren’t about me.  Secondly, although I would be glad to discuss Christianity as it applies to my thesis, or perhaps as it may apply to you personally, the teachings of Christ are only one source of wisdom and inspiration, and encourage everyone to find a peaceful self.  In faith, I will personally maintain a singular eschatology, that the resurrected Christ is the savior of the world, but otherwise claim no unique wisdom in Christianity.  The desire for peace, the virtue of forgiveness and the hope for the betterment of humanity can be found in all worthwhile faiths, and secular philosophies.  I believe it is these virtues that, in fact, define humanity.

So to conclude tonight’s post, ask yourself where you derive your inspiration from.  Are you able to develop the wisdom to look toward peace with that inspiration?  Leave me a comment on how you are doing with being the change you want to see in the world.  I sincerely thank you for your attention.

No War with Iran

Massachusetts Peace Action has a petition on their website, http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/161/c/3952/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9263, which I ask you to consider signing.  It ask's President Obama not to start a war with Iran, and to try to prevent Israel from doing so as well.

You might take a look at the petition and say 'Hold on, isn't Iran threatening Israeli and US interests, and barely masking the fact that their developing nuclear weapons?'  Those certainly seem like prudent concerns. Iran doesn't hide it's animosity or distrust of the US, and the idea of Iran with nuclear weapons is unsettling, at least.

The problem is, a military strike against Iran will not help, nor is escalating a crisis to the level where Iran will strike.  War would be a calamity for all parties involved, and like the Iraq and Afghan wars, there is no satisfactory outcome, no subsequent peace treaty where the US dicatates terms to a pacified nation.  Instead, the only outcome is a drawn out war with death and growing animosity.  So if we manage to delay the Iranian bomb, which we can only assume is less ethereal that Iraq's infamous WMD's, we cannot undo their research, and if they want a nuclear weapon, they will have one sooner or later.  I don't think a war will make that 'later' date very much further along.

The real problem is distrust.  For our part, we have collectively disliked Iran since the 1979 revolution and the subsequent hostage crisis.  We suspect that they support terrorists, and hear them openly cite their desire to destroy Israel.  From Iran's perspective, we openly threaten them, placing them in an 'axis of evil'.  We were the primary support for the Shah, who their revolution deposed, and we perpetuate a grave injustice to the Palestinian people through our support of Israel.

We need to break the mistrust.  It will take years, and it will be frustrating, but we need to start working on it.  What if our efforts yielded a peaceful and prosperous Islamic Republic of Iran?  What if no one needed to escalate a crisis there because we had a dialogue and some mutual understanding?  It sounds a lot better than a war.

Afghanistan and the Heroin Problem

Afghanistan and the Heroin Problem

An essay by Bill McKenna   ©2012

It will be a great day when we end our war in Afghanistan.  Now that we are free from combat operations, and hopefully all forms of war, in Iraq, the shadow of the Afghan War seems darker.  I hear that we’re planning on leaving by the end of 2013.  I wish the day was tomorrow, but the responsibility of leaving the country as stable and safe as possible correctly weigh on the minds of our leaders.  Now, if we are slowly approaching the end of our tragic adventure there, what steps can we start to take that will bring us that elusive stability and safety?  I am sure there are a vast number of things that Afghanistan and the US need to do to accomplish those goals, but I am thinking of one set of actions that, if we successfully undertake them, will help bring about a successful departure, and yield greater benefits, ultimately bringing us toward meaningful peace.  Those activities involve the disruption of the opium trade in a meaningful, permanent way.

Before you consider how difficult it might be to undertake a serious effort to disrupt black market opiates, consider the following:

·         About 90% of the world’s opium poppy cultivation occurs in Afghanistan,

·         The Taliban earn hundreds of millions of dollars, often in the form of direct barter for armaments from their control of cultivation areas, and

·         Islamic tenets strongly oppose the use of non-medicinal drugs.

Given these facts, one can see that the strategic importance of opium to the Taliban is a liability, too.  By disrupting the trade we can directly impact their ability to conduct war.  Further, we can force the Taliban to choose between their supply chain and the support of the Afghan people.  Finally, the disruption of the heroin trade to the US and Europe will yield benefits at home.

It has been notoriously difficult to disrupt illegal international drug trade.  I think one of the reasons for the difficulty has been that the traffickers are willing to take high risks to yield high profits, and that the demand side is never adequately addressed.  For this reason, we need to coordinate efforts in Afghanistan with a meaningful heroin use reduction program.  If this effort is limited to the US domestically, the effort will be effective, but can be much more effective if the effort is spread to other countries with opiate usage problems.

Most of the effort will involve the use of ‘soft’ power, as opposed to military effort, which makes the plan especially attractive as we wind down our involvement.  The only direct military effort will be to interdict poppy shipments and find and destroy processing facilities.  NATO forces need to reinvigorate efforts to compel Afghan farmers to grow crops which will yield long term economic advantage.  To bolster this effort, western markets should be encouraged to import Afghan agricultural products.  At the same time, Afghan farmers should be educated that the opium poppy they produce is used to support an illegal drug empire that in conflict with Islamic tenets.

The part of the effort to curb the opiate sources in Afghanistan could be complete with the efforts outlined above.  However, if it is deemed wise to negotiate with moderate Taliban as we prepare to depart, we should encourage Taliban leaders inclined to help in the progress in the countries future to accede to the cessation of poppy cultivation in their areas.  This would be a good step toward converting the fighters there, into future participants in a country that is not likely to be purged of Taliban influence altogether.  In fact, it may be a sort of litmus test to determine who is willing to look beyond the current conflict.

I am particularly interested in the domestic side of this program.  If we can first link resolution to the Afghan War with decreasing heroin demand, we can use the link as a way to overcome the disinterest of the heroin abuse problem.  The public relations aspect of the program needs to be vigorous, because traditional reticence about treatment on a public health scale has to be overcome.  Making distribution difficult with enhanced police efforts is important, but will only have temporary effects without attacking demand directly.  Serving addicts with adequate treatment protocols will require people to abandon puritanical notions of ‘just desserts’ for these people, and fear of treatment clinics in neighborhoods must be more than balanced by the sense of urgency to control usage.

If the US can take a lead in addressing heroin demand, we should be prepared to assist other NATO countries with similar heroin problems undertake similar efforts.  Moreover, we should make diplomatic overtures to Russia to coordinate with them, as the problem there is terrible.  If we can work with the ‘demand’ countries effectively, we will have reaped an additional benefit of international goodwill.

I have no intention or ability to discuss the Afghan War anti-drug effort in tactical detail in a short essay.  I simply want to catch the readers’ attentions and imaginations, and hopefully start a conversation which will yield a broader discussion, and perhaps even get the attention of our leaders to act in this sphere.  Any efforts we make in undertaking such a program will yield better chances for a peaceful transition in Afghanistan with the prospect for a long term economic stability, better relationships with many other countries, and a meaningful reduction in a long-standing domestic scourge.  While it is not a wholesale solution to a peaceful Afghanistan or a seemingly intractable domestic drug program, it is fair to say that these ideas merit discussion.