Normally, I post in these blogs my own thoughts. But today, I felt like publishing some of my favorite quotes. After how long this intro ended up, I decided to post the quotes separately.
Given the wars which the my government has chosen to fight at this moment in my name, it's not surprising that most of these quotes have to do with the folly of violence. I do not object to our military being used for the purpose of national self-defense. I just recognize that this is almost never it is deployed.
I've written before about those who initiate violence almost inevitably do so because they let ego get in the way of good judgement.
I'm repeatedly told that my generalized belief in non-violence as the best way to solve problems is naive. I believe the opposite is true.
As I wrote then: Look at all the damage and destruction and trauma that violence has caused over the millenia. And remember, I'm not just talking about militaristic violence, but physical and verbal violence as well. Societies and families torn apart. Progress stopped in its tracks. Millions of lives lost. Many times more lives ruined.
For anyone to believe that violence is a long-term solution to any problem given its miserable failure of a history, that's about the most naive thing anyone can possibly believe in.
When I was younger, I was a bit more casual about war. This is not to say I thought it was great. But I was a bit casual about the whole thing. The generally accepted framework in this country is to be casual about advocating military force against another country.
My 'Eureka' moment was really a period: the two years I spent in Guinea, West Africa. Guinea bordered two countries that were at war at the time: Liberia and Sierra Leone. There were over half a million refugees from those two countries living in Guinea. I became acquainted with several of them.
The wars in those countries were originally started for the purpose of overthrowing the corrupt military dictatorship in Sierra Leone and the fanatical Samuel Doe dictatorship in Liberia. But every single refugee I knew would gladly have returned to the days of the order of the strong man rather than the continuing nightmare that plagued their countries. I knew that Samuel Doe was a lunatic so to hear people saying they preferred him to the present of 1996 was an eye opening experience. But I suppose that even the corrupt military dictatorship in Sierra Leone didn't chop people's arms and hands off like the 'liberation' movement did.
Few Americans have experienced war and even fewer have experienced it as a civilian. But the simple human reality is this. The tyranny of chaos is worse that tyranny of authoritarianism. This is the law of unintended consequences that always applies to war, as the planners of the Iraq debacle are finding out.
My visit to a refugee camp was one of the most profound experiences of my life. The misery found at camps like that, not a shining democratic city on a hill or two bits of paper with a meaningless constitution on it, is the true face of war. The true face of war is hunger, suffering and despair. And the worst victims are not men with guns but unarmed women and children.
And this is where I truly learned that violence should only ever be used as an absolute last resort. Many people say this but few mean it. Violence should never be used because we get a little impatient or because someone said our president's mama wears combat boots or because we get our national nose out of joint or because the military-industrial complex needs a new enemy of the week or because the UN secretary-general won't carry our water or because weapons inspectors tell the truth instead of what we want to hear.
And most importantly, we should never, EVER impose the tyranny of chaos on innocent people who don't ask for it. We DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT!
Violence doesn't end problems. It just creates new ones.
How to help:
If people want to support the troops, they can do so by getting them out of unnecessary harm's way. I think we should focus our efforts on helping those who we put in harm's way without the benefit of guns, flack jackets, tanks and backup. The casualties of war who don't have the American military-industrial complex behind them. The victims of war who never chose to be a part of it.
-The UN refugee agency
-The International Rescue Committee
-The American Refugee Committee
-The Red Cross
-Doctors Without Borders (MSF)
3 comments:
Brian,
You might be surprised to know how much I agree with you and how many of your quotes I believe make sense, even though I still support the use of violence and force. I don't believe this is contradictory. If a peaceful solution will suffice, I'm all for it. If negotiation is the best way, then by all means. If economic measures will do the trick, great.However, if violence, be it assassination or bombing, is the best way I would support that as well.
That being said,it seems as if the law of unintended consequences is trotted out every time someone wants push a pacifistic agenda(as you yourself have done). And while it makes a great deal of sense to think about the possible unintended negative effects, I don't believe that should stop us from acting, should we deem that the consequences of not acting were to be too grave.
I would also wholeheartedly disagree with you that the 'tyranny of chaos' is worse than the 'tyranny of totalitarianism'. The 'tyranny of chaos' that you have seen is indeed awful. And an unintended consequence. However, I take it to mean that, should we see tyranny with all of its symptoms; [mass murders(though they are usually kept from the public eye because totalitarians hate an uncontrolled press), starvation ( a popular 'tool' of tyrants), and families being dragged from their homes in the night], that we should look for a peaceful solution, and should we not find one, or should years and decades go by, the diplomacy or economic measures failing year after year, that we should back off because the 'tyranny of chaos' is worse? If I am incorrect in guessing this to be your hypothetical solution, tell me. I ask because you specifically stated that "And this is where I truly learned that violence should only ever be used as an absolute last resort'.
How exactly would you define "absolute last resort"?
And I would ask other questions: Take a country racked by the 'tyranny of totalitarianism'. What if the assassination of key individuals early on and the placement of others might solve the problem sooner? Would that be acceptable? (Taking as a given that nothing else has worked or seems likely to) Even though there is a chance of chaos? Even though some might predict the likelyhood of chaos to be low?
Is it ever, in your opinion, allowable to initiate conflict?
World War II is often bandied about by the different sides of this argument both as an example of a 'necessary and good war' and also as far as the ramification of the 'law of unintended consequences'( as far as making Germany and Hitler a problem due to Treaty of Versailles and the end of World War I).
Which side do you fall on? How would you have dealt with it? What about the unintended consequences of inaction or not making a choice in a timely manner?
It also strikes me as inconsistent of you to say the 'tyranny of chaos' is worse than the 'tyranny of totalitarianism'. Not long ago on my blog you said, "Atrocities are atrocities, regardless of the purported ideology behind them." Does this mean that you have changed your mind? Or that you would prefer inaction to action? Do you mean that atrocities committed by totalitarian regimes are preferable(the lesser of two evils, as it were) to the atrocities of chaos? And what of the oppurtunity presented by chaos. It is both the easy thing and the obvious thing to tell of the horrors of chaos. But what about the oppurtunites that weren't there due to the bindings of totalitarianism? The freedom to leave, the freedom to fight back and for one's family? And the possiblity that your old friend the law of unintended consequences swings the other way( it is unlikely to swing the same way every time) and civilization flourishes in the absence of tyranny?
"Violence doesn't end problems. It just creates new ones."
A blanket generalization like that doesn't do the subject justice. It only inflames the mind of the reader already inclined to follow the most passionate statement but not necessarily the most reasonable one, much like your story of African atrocities (Argutmentum ad misericordium). While it doesn't necessarily make your argument false, it makes it weaker.
Back to my orignial statement, I agree with you that violence is indeed horrible. But, I also believe it is a tool, though a horrible one. Like a hammer, a screwdriver, a calculator, logic or a bomb. All can be used for evil ends. All can be used for useful, even good, ends. It is how they are used. I don't support the wanton use of violence to solve all problems, and I don't believe that I have made such a position, only quoting Heinlein and he doesn't make such a position either.
Jim,
First off, while my essay was inspired by your post because it got be thinking about the topic, it was not directly addressed to you. If you inferred that I was accusing you in some way, as some of the phrasing seems to suggest, you were mistaken.
I am not surprised you say you agree with me. When asked, most people will say they only support violence when it's necessary. Yet many seem to support any half baked war that's proposed... only to regret their support only a few years later when war's inevitable consequences occur. For me, the proof of the pudding is in the cake.
I'm always astonished how many people will say something like, "Violence is indeed horrible but here are 40 reasons why we should invade this country and 20 more why we should launch air strikes against this other one."
Jim, what bothers me the most in our society is not that support violent foreign policy choices. Each deserves a serious debate on its own merits.
What bothers me most is how casual so many Americans are about their support for such choices. I am not an absolute pacifist. But I believe the choice to use violence should be both thoroughly informed and considered with the utmost seriousness.
When support for an invasion is based on a false premise that boogeyman-of-the-week was responsible for an attack, then it is not informed. When support for an invasion is justified by comments like "Nuke em all and let Allah sort em out," it is not considered with the utmost seriousness.
I know many people who supported the war only reluctantly and after serious thought. I respect such people's positions. But you know as well as I do that too many Americans, the majority of war supporters I dare say, did not.
Furthermore, I believe that if violence is chosen, it must be a) to counter a specific and imminent threat, b) its sole purpose must be to defend yourself or someone who asks for your help, c) only proportionate enough to eliminate the specific threat (the idea of eliminating all future threats is debatable) and d) must have minimal negative impact done to innocent bystanders.
This is why the liberation of Kuwait, which met all four of these criteria, was much less controversial than the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which in my opinion fails all four. This is why I supported the British intervention in Sierra Leone earlier this decade, which also fulfilled all four criteria.
Regarding the law of unintended consequences, I think you misinterpreted my comment. I did not mean that the law should prohibit action. I meant that it should be factored into the equation. It is clear that inaction has consequences too. The question is how to balance them all. My position is that unless there is a extremely high probability that the action of war is going to improve the situation, it should not be undertaken.
The reason the tyranny of chaos is worse than the tyranny of totalitarianism is related to the basic human need for security and predictability.
What I am saying is that under the tyranny of totalitarianism, there is a certain predictability that makes life a tiny shred easier. As long as you keep your mouth shut about politics, you will probably be left alone. At least you know how to avoid trouble. This is not to justify that system. As a regular reader of this blog, you surely know that I criticize totalitarianism in all its forms.
But in the tyranny of chaos, you have all of the repression but none of the predictability. It is not inherently worse but I contend its effects almost inevitably are.
The tyranny of chaos has the worst of both worlds. In the tyranny of totalitarianism, the rules may be unfair but at least you know what they are. Shut up and you'll probably be ok. In the tyranny of chaos, you have no such certainty. Humans are used to living in a rules-based society (whether formalized or understood).
Russians are generally content with the predictable authoritarianism of Putin because they remember the generalized chaos of Yeltsin's democracy. Is this because they are stupid? Is this because Putin is a charismatic genius who's brainwashed them? Or is it because they feel that they have only two choices and that while they are both hideous, one is slightly less so than the other?
This is why, frankly, most Arabs accept their corrupt, dictatorial regimes without revolting. This may not be what we in the west want to hear, especially a human rights agitator like myself, but this is related to basic human nature.
I am not saying that one form of tyranny is morally worse than another, all things being equal. I always rejected the Cold War propaganda that anti-communist oppression incarnated freedom and liberty in a way that communist oppression did not. However, the purpose of this entry is to counter the bias in foreign policy circles that factors in the human rights danger of exercising too much authority but doesn't factor in the comparable danger of there being none at all.
I contend that chaos is worse for the simple fact that under totalitarianism, you know where the power lies. And because of that, you also know how to undermine it. History is replete with examples of those who resisted totalitarianism. But resisting chaos is far less straight forward.
It is far easier to envisage short- or medium-term prosperity in post-totalitarian societies like South Africa or the Czech Republic than in post-chaotic societies like Liberia and Sierra Leone.
Simply put, all of the ills you attribute to the tyranny of totalitarianism are completely accurate. However, there is not a single one of them to which the tyranny of chaos is immune.
I am very hesitant about meddling in the affairs of other countries. Americans are fairly ignorant about other countries. And human nature is such that no one likes to have foreigners tell them what to do. Meddling quite often plays into the hands of despots who are keen to use such intervention to rally nationalist sentiment behind them, thus giving them unintended support that wouldn't have been there otherwise.
While the Soviet bloc was an infinitely greater threat to North America and Western Europe than Saddam's Iraq, it's worth remembering that Eastern Europe was not freed from Soviet domination because American troops marched on Warsaw or because NATO tanks rolled into Prague. Soviet influence was undermined by the power of America's moral example. Warts and all, we set an example that Eastern Europeans WANTED to follow. So much so that they stepped up and made it happen. Eastern Europeans wanted to be like us. Since the invasion of two Muslim countries and threats of attacks against a third, America's moral influence is at its nadir. Because our moral power is so low, this is why we are resorting to military power and threats thereof so much more often.
It seems to me that if the great anti-communist leader Reagan can negotiate with what he himself called The Evil Empire, then we can negotiate with just about anybody. If we really want to.
I'm sorry that you think I'm not allowed to use anecdotes. I used them not to make my point but to illustrate what I felt was already amply supported by rational argument.
Violence is indeed a tool. I'd liken it amputation. Necessary in very extreme circumstances, but not something you can survive very often.
Furthermore, libertarians (which I am not) contend that the Patriot Act and other powers centralized in the hands of the federal government represent a dangerous first step in the slippery slope toward the tyranny of totalitarianism.
Defenders of the national security state counter that such sacrifices of freedom are an insignificant price to pay to prevent terrorism, which is a form of the tyranny of chaos.
Hence, I'd contend that the premise that the tyranny of chaos is even more undesirable than the tyranny of totalitarianism is the very foundation of what has been called the war on terror.
Post a Comment