March 01, 2003
The Myth Of Peace
Note: This post you are about to read is the handiwork of guest author Dane Spencer. It is a revision of a piece posted to WagingPeace.org in April of last year. Mr. Spencer can be reached at fontleroy -at- bainbridge.net. Thanks, Dane!
If history is any indication, the United States may be subject to the violence of war within my lifetime (I am 42). Military scholars say that war and its resulting violence on a civilian population is unavoidable. We are told that peace just isn’t obtainable in the Middle East, or in other war-torn countries across the globe; that violent conflict will always be a fact of life as we try to control territory and natural resources. We are given example after example of how, throughout history and including today, violent conflict is inevitable and in some cases necessary.
Some people are quick to defend the notion that there is nothing to be done about civilian death and destruction caused by violent conflict, that in times such as these, war is best left to the experts. It is true that only war experts know how to successfully conduct war, that to win a conflict is to win by any means -- and that includes civilian casualties. Talking heads for the military tell us that they are working to reduce the number of civilian casualties through more efficient means of killing: smarter bombs, better technology. But, the truth remains that while any military is good at killing, it is inept at not targeting civilians. After all, to target civilians is to terrorize a population and to attack an enemy’s infrastructure. With this illogic, there is no such thing as a non-military target.
Yet, if we leave war to the war experts, who will oversee the peace process? Who are our peace experts? Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld? They have been buddies since their early thirties, and they have amassed power by putting their friends in important positions throughout the government and the military. They are war experts dictating military policy for this country, yet there is not a diplomat for peace between the two of them. There is no peace equivalent to the Department of Defense, we have no such office or branch of government that we can go to in times such as these. Our non-existent Department of Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution Services does not receive a $400 Billion infusion for its capital, operating, and maintenance budget -- that is our Department of War. Blind military spending appears to be a priority for our country, with no visible way to counteract or slow it down. The peace dividend has long since been chucked out the window.
And, what has become of our domestic programs that deal with our children's education, our failing health care system, our weakened social security, our declining environmental health, and our loss of morale as citizens of this country?
It isn’t the destruction of the twin towers on September 11, 2001 and the threat of terrorism that is causing this country’s morale to plummet. It is the lack of hope that things will ever get better in the lifetime that is ahead. There is no clear way out, no end in sight. That is because we are spending billions of dollars on high tech toys of destruction for a group of people who want to see major conflict such as with Iraq, so that they can use their toys against military targets, and civilians if necessary. They want to see this conflict happen just like a six-year-old boy with a firecracker wants to see it explode.
Civilian Casualties
Let the facts speak for themselves: World War II resulted in killing 61 million people, 67% of those killed (40 million) were civilian. Violent clashes and wars world-wide in the 1950s resulted in 4.6 million people killed, 50 percent being civilian (2.3 million). In the the 1960s, 6.5 million people were killed, 56% were civilian (3.64 million). The 1970s saw fewer people killed (3 million), but most of them were civilians (2 million). The 1980s saw 5.5 million people killed through violent conflict around the world, with over 4 million being civilian. Conflict and wars of the 1990s left 5 million people killed world wide, half were civilian. From World War II to 2000 we have seen 85.6 million killed, with 63% of those being civilian (54 million).
The 1st Gulf War
The Gulf War has seen tens thousands of casualties, both civilian and military, by the end of the conflict. But, ten years after the end of this conflict, nearly 10,000 American service-men and -women have died from the Gulf War Syndrome. Of the 600,000 troops that had served in the Gulf War, 230,000 have applied for medical assistance since the end of that conflict. A combination of things are suspected in the causing of this widespread illness. It is believed that either untested anthrax vaccinations, the transfer of toxic polyvinlylchloride from plastic packaging of MREs (meals ready to eat), or troop use of depleted uranium munitions (which was never disclosed to the troops who were using them) have caused severe illness.
Dr. Doug Rokke who headed the clean-up effort from the first Gulf War was a career military man and a patriot. He had 90 people under his supervision who specialized in nuclear medicine. Thirty of those who served this country are now dead due to depleted uranium exposure (or at least it is believed). Dr. Rokke also is sick from his exposure to the same unknown.
Whatever the cause, this is a better kill and injury rate than any enemy could hope to level on our troops.
Because of sanctions on Iraq, 500,000 children have died from diarrhea and malnutrition because of the lack of clean water, a direct result of targeting civilian infrastructure by the U.S. military.
Why are these numbers significant?
As technology improves and as dollars increase, the efficiency of killing also improves. But improving the efficiency of killing doesn’t reduce the number of civilian deaths, it increases the number of civilian deaths. The number increases because there is a greater tendency to use these weapons on lesser known targets. If it can be claimed that a "smart bomb" (remember, bombs are only as smart as the people who use them) can "surgically" remove a military target within tight civilian quarters with minimal civilian casualties, then the tendency to use these weapons in tight civilian quarters will increase, resulting in higher numbers of civilian deaths.
The myth of Peace
Civilians do not wage war. Indeed, war and military police actions are argued as necessary to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure. So, civilians agree to support the military in promise that the war will not touch them. Civilians are confident that their families will not suffer the losses of their enemies. Most civilians who have experienced war however, come to know that war only means to reduce profits and production, bringing only pain, suffering, and agony down the road. But none the less, these civilians have been convinced that their experts have exhausted all other diplomatic avenues and have come up empty handed. The leaders come back to say, "Sorry, war is inevitable. Prepare for war," and the civilians feel they have no other choice.
How many times have you heard someone say that it is in our "human nature" to go to war? That the Human Species is violent and warlike and there is nothing that we can do about it? Might makes right, to the winner goes the spoils?
To say that it is in our human nature to kill others and that war is inevitable perpetuates the myth that war is forever our way. It is not our nature to kill others who don’t agree with us or who think differently from ourselves. But, it is our human nature to be fearful of others who have opposing ideas or who are different from ourselves. This fear may go in two directions: Our fear may sway into curiosity or it may sway into anger and violence.
Another trait of our "human nature" is to divide ourselves into leaders and followers. Leaders can choose to go to war for entire populations and will not hesitate to call upon the followers to do the dirty work. It is not our human nature to go to war, but it is in our human nature to be led into war.
Therefore, if we can be led into war, we can be led into peace.
People are not warlike creatures. It is the random individual who sees value in herding the masses into violence. Every war is led by someone who has convinced a critical mass of people that war is the only option. This is true with either side of any war or violent conflict. And, it is the same for peace. Any conflict that has not escalated into violence or where violence has ceased, a leader has led a critical mass of people to great change.
Will our current leader seize upon this opportunity for great change? Will President Bush see value in stepping back from the precipice to regain the popular support he once held? Only time will tell.
A war with Iraq will not bring greater stability to the Middle East, nor will it make the U.S. a safer place. A war with Iraq can only cause greater suffering and death of innocent Iraqis, greatly destabilize the world, and create profound despair for the hope of a better future.
Take notice when the President speaks about "Peace" in the Middle East: he speaks only in terms of war. He talks of liberating Iraqis, yet he never mentions their inevitable deaths. The idea of American troop deaths never crosses his lips.
The myth of peace begins within the very roots of the Judeo-Christian religion. Peace in this religious sense is an unattainable time/place. Peace is symbolized by the phrase, ""When the lion lays down with the lamb," which indicates that all life on Earth will be as one, living in harmony for the rest of all eternity.
This peace does not exist, nor will it ever exist, on this Earth inhabited by our wonderfully fallible human species. Peace is not the cessation of conflict with a resulting agreement in totality. Peace is a continuing evolving process that produces nonviolent results. Peace can revert to war or it can be sustained through constant communication, but it can never be stagnant or absolute.
Peace begins when violence ends. That doesn’t mean that the conflicting ideas will suddenly disappear. It means that when people stop doing violence to each other -- stop killing -- negotiations can begin. In the simplest terms, peace is a process where no one is dying from an act of aggression. This is a real living peace that is attainable and quite possible when built upon the hard work of conflict resolution and diplomacy. Peace is not a time/place. Peace is a process that is ongoing and never without tension.
Posted by Eddie Tews at March 1, 2003 10:24 PM
Comments
I love this site...Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one against this war. It's sad how americans are so easily mislead.
Keep up the good work.
Thanks -- Posted by: Joseph on April 3, 2003 08:20 AM
Is Killing A White Man In Texas No Big Deal?
In Texas, three white men were tried and convicted of murder for the dragging death of a black man, James Byrd, Jr. in June of 1998. Two of the men, Bill King, 25, and Russell Brewer Jr., 32, who were the ones who actually killed Byrd, were sentenced to death.
The third man, Shawn Berry, who owned the truck involved, had picked up James Byrd, walking 10 miles home from his job, as he often did for both white and black pedestrians. His action angered King, who sported racist tattoos. The indictment clearly showed that Berry was threatened with the "same treatment" when he attempted to stop the murder. At one point he even ran away from the scene and it was Berry who immediately contacted authorities about the murder. Many witnesses, both black and white, testified he was not a racist. Yet, to satisfy organized groups screaming for blood, Berry was sentenced to life imprisonment for the horrible murder.
In the Presidential election campaign of 2000, the Byrd murder became an issue used against Republican candidate George W. Bush. The National Voter Fund, (a project of the NAACP) and the Human Rights Campaign launched ad campaigns that inferred Bush was somehow responsible for the Byrd murder.
A daughter of James Byrd, Rene Mullins, was shown accompanied by a picture of a truck and a chain saying: "I'm Renee Mullins, James Byrd's daughter. On June 7, 1998, in Texas, my father was killed. He was beaten, chained, and then dragged three miles to his death, all because he was black. So when Governor George W. Bush refused to support hate crimes legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again. Call George W. Bush and tell him to support hate crimes legislation. We won´t be dragged away from our future."
Yet, in October 2001 another vehicle dragging death took place in Texas. Chante (or Shantae) Mallard, described it in her own words to a friend, giggling, simply as, "I hit this white man." This time the driver of the vehicle was a black woman and the man dragged to his death was a white man, 37 year old Gregory Glenn Biggs. Whether or not Mallard, a nurse´s aide, hit the "white man" by accident or on purpose has not been asked, apparently. However, she did not stop her car and render aid but continued driving with Biggs pinned in the windshield until she got to her home and into her garage.
In this case, the NAACP and the Human Rights Campaign have not said a word about a white man being "dragged to his death, all because he was white." In fact, it took longer for Mallard to kill Biggs, who was alive and begging for help for two days, than it took Bill King and Russell Brewer, Jr. to kill Byrd. According to Mallard´s testimony in a March 7, 2002 affidavit after one of her friends alerted the police, the injured man was "sticking halfway into the passenger compartment through the windshield." She "went inside, had sex with her boyfriend, Terrance, went out to the garage and the man wasn´t dead yet, but he was dying. Shantae stated that the man was asking them to help him, but that they just walked back inside. Shantae advised that they waited until he died, which was a couple of days."
After he died, the affidavit says, "Terrance and his brother took the body and dumped it in Cobb Park" where it was found on October 27, 2001.
According to the Fort Worth, Texas Star Telegram, "Mallard agreed to go to the police station for questioning. There, she gave a statement and was arrested for failure to stop and render aid. She was free on bail when officers arrived at her home Wednesday morning and arrested her on the upgraded warrant charging her with murder. Later in the day, she was released on a $10,000 writ bond."
Her attorney, Mike Heiskell called the woman's arrest on a murder warrant premature. "I think this is overreaching on the part of the prosecution and the police, and in the end, I believe the law will shake out that this was simply a case of failure to stop and render aid.
After the judge increased the $10,000 bail to $250,000, in apparent response to community outrage in Fort Worth, Heiskell was quoted as saying prosecutors have blown some aspects of the case out of proportion and that the victim was probably in the garage only 24 hours. He said his client was devastated by the accident and went into a panic.
"She is not the cold, harsh, inhumane person they would have you think," Heiskell said. "This girl is not a monster."
Really? What else would you call a person who would leave another human being impaled in glass to bleed, suffer and die for two days and DO NOTHING? If Mallard had been a white woman and Biggs had been black, considering the national clamor over James Byrd, I suspect that the NAACP and the Human Rights Campaign would be calling her a lot worse things than "monster." And, what about her accomplices to Biggs murder? Terrance certainly is far more involved in the Biggs killing than Berry was in the Byrd killing and Berry is in jail for life. Why hasn´t Terrance been arrested for murder? Why isn´t there a national clamor about the death of Gregory Biggs at the hands of a group of conspiring black people? Why is no one suggesting the death penalty for what appears to be a racially motivated murder of Gregory Biggs? Would Mallard and her friends have left a black man impaled in glass for two days until he died?
It would appear from Heiskell´s statement and the media response that it is OK to torture and kill white people these days. Apparently, it´s a race crime only when the dead person is black.
-- Posted by: Is Killing A White Man In Texas No Big Deal? on June 24, 2003 10:01 AM