Cluster Bombs in Afghanstan

[Victoria Penna]

The use of weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan has caused some major health and developmental issues. According to a human rights watch group based in New York, they visited 250 locations in Afghanistan where they found evidence of United States having used cluster bombs. What would be a beyond war approach to preventing the usage of such weapons in the future?

[Leonora]

Right Victoria, war is pretty unhealthy, actually it is insanity. Some kind of negotiation about which bombs are OK to rain down on human beings and which bombs are not OK to use is just too outrageous to even consider. No bombs are OK, period. No land minds, no drones. No. The only solution is to work to come to agreement with all parties concerned. The middle east has festered for so long, the situation is a mess. It just means we must work all the harder. What if we devoted all the money and all the people power now being use to make war, to making positive relationships, improving living conditions, building trust?

[Melissa Ruhl]

I'm not sure I agree that we shouldn't be talking about preventing the use of cluster bombs merely because it would not be discussing the complete abolition of war. As seen in the study series, there are many treaties that the US has not signed concerning weapons and the newest treaty agreed upon internationally though not signed by the US would be one banning cluster bombs. How can we get anywhere, literally, in our efforts to bring the world closer to peace if we see any agreement as either peace or not peace? We must focus on the little steps that bring us increasingly closer. I believe that there is no historical example of a nation, much less the world, coming from one point to its absolute reversal without taking steps, and probably baby steps, in between. If we are truly dedicated to bringing ourselves beyond war, we must hungrily take every opportunity possible to show that war is immoral and can be curtailed.

[Helay]

Thank You Melissa. I couldn't agree with you more. We as a country have to come up with a process towards taking those baby steps, I am sure the world would follow. The solution would cost most likely less with better results. The US is the number one producers of the cluster bombs and as you mentioned above, US is also one of the few countries who has not signed the treaty to ban cluster bombs. Here is a little link you might want to check out about the effects of the bombs especially on little kids.
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view...
Thank You,

[Loni Bowers]

I have nothing against baby steps - and the more the better. But sometimes I wonder, when we consider how "hot" the temperature has gotten on this planet regarding war and possibly nuclear war, if we have enough time for too many baby steps. An example that gives me hope is a theory of evolution. Whereas it was once taught that evolution of the species and survival of the fittest took thousands of years to take place, now it is taught that evolution sometimes has spurts of rapid, possibly even instantaneous growth. The article I read said that if one morning some crawlers had part of a wing, they would all have been picked off. So the writer theorized that wings came all at once, suddenly. So I do hope that amidst our taking of baby steps (when they are what seem possible) that by participating in our own evolution this time, we can take a sudden leap and evolve as a species.....beyond war. It could happen.......

[Mora Rogers]

Hi, Loni --

I agree -- it could happen!

I do believe that an evolutionary leap in consciousness is possible, and that we are all a part of it. As we bring conscious awareness into every aspect of our own lives and decisions (and in this way tranform our personal behavior), and thence into the lives and decisions of our political entities (and in this way transform our collective action), we are building the momentum and gathering the energy for that leap to occur.

Thanks for the example!

[Victoria Penna]

Thank you for your responses! I tend to get very frustrated at the continued use of very harmful weapons. Cluster bombs have been shown to cause such horrible devastation to primarily civilians. I am just dumbfounded that we have not evolved past using such weapons. I hope that we will decide to sign such treaties that we have neglected to sign in the past. We think of the United States as a technologically advanced society and a "super power," but we are using very outdated and destructive techniques.

[Winslow Myers]

This discussion reminds me of the famous Jewish storyi: Two disputing parties come to a rabbi. After the first presents his case, the rabbi says, “You’re right.” And after the other presents his case, the rabbi says to him, “You’re right.” Whereupon the rabbi’s secretary says, “Rabbi, you just told them both that they’re right when they take opposing positions.” And the rabbi said famously, “And you’re right too.”

Cluster bombs are horrible, especially the ones that have bomblets inside that look like childrens' toys. But there is an inherent absurdity in banning this or that method of killing people in war. Cluster bombs are not OK but napalm is? Machine guns that fire a thousand rounds a minute? Bunker busters? One is reminded of the just war argument, and all meliorating efforts to rationalize and "civilize" war. The ultimate issue is war itself. I'm involved with Beyond War because I don't want any more children dying in war by any weapon. It is a subset of the war mentality, which justifies any destructive means that might provide a winning edge or demoralize the adversary, that the United States refuses to sign treaties prohibiting the use of cluster bombs. Of course it would be a positive step if they did. But how much more effective to spread a value system that abrogates the use of war altogether in favor of better alternatives!

[David Kean]

I think I'll have to use that story when applicable, it's quite amusing and sensible at the same time. I am in total agreement with the idea that certain steps must be taken to eliminate the use of weapons that ultimately wind up as unexploded munitions throughout residential areas or any other land where citizens reside. While Mr. Myers and Leonora are correct in their assertion that we must focus on making sure that war itself ends up in the dust bin of history, I believe that world will be achieved through a process more than any single event. It will obviously stem from a grassroots movement as most world leaders seem to be stuck in the paradigm of "Just" war and wars of necessity. Unfortunately for America, many citizens have adopted or been indoctrinated into that belief system. We must unlearn what we have been taught and deconstruct this perspective from the bottom up.

[Melissa Ruhl]

My thoughts concerning the importance of banning tools of war like cluster bombs are more practical than ideological. It so often seems that the best method of suasion is not preaching or teaching, but rather acting. Do as I say and not as I do isn't very effective, as we all know. If we as Americans preach the message of peace, but shrug at efforts to decrease the power and corruption of the military machine, people won't listen. And how are we going to get to this point at which the world sees war as pointless? How are we going to get to the goal of this organization? Only one vague "changing of values" method will not work.

I first heard about cluster bombs with the news of the treaty to ban them. This alerted me to yet another horrible facet of the war machine and convinced me further just how much we need to rid ourselves of it, starting with cluster bombs. The same can be said of napalm, agent orange, white phosphorus, grenades or whatever. The value of this and other such treaties is that it reveals the methods of killing. It is not some sanitized "collateral damage," but rather human lives that are brutally stolen.

In the book club, we recently read Chris Hedges' War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning in which he showed the enormous complexities of war. He also showed how easily people are duped into war is right mentality. But what could possibly be right about a weapon that has almost no "military" application? Showing how wrong something like cluster bomb usage is and how our military readily and for years has accepted this weapon can lead people to a greater appreciation of the futility of war. Banning cluster bombs has nothing to do with the just war theory. Just war theory has more to do with justifying war than with finding just reasons to downsize military industries as I believe is the purpose of this treaty.

It seems quite strange to me and certainly backwards that we would try and discourage signing of this treaty.

[Martin Jones]

I agree that the approach is a "both -- and". I am against all war, because there are always workable alternatives that can prospectively be employed to prevent them -- or, in the case of ongoing conflicts, to resolve them. This is covered to a large extent in the Study Series and in Winslow's book. And I agree with Melissa that there are many stepping stones that must be placed over the quagmire of war before we get to the other side -- where peaceful resolution of conflicts reigns. We must consider those 18 unsigned treaties in the Study Series individually, as Congress will have to address them one at a time. Signing onto each is another stepping stone in the right direction -- or another brick in building a Palace of Peace.

As far as Beyond War's approach to specifically rid our military of cluster bombs, education still remains the cornerstone of change: educating citizens and legislators alike about the horror of cluster bombs, about the immorality of taking innocent human life, even years after an area is no longer a conflict zone. And we need to consider the hard questions: Who are we to each other in our country? How could we be so off track that we would condone such weapons? (Analogy: Would we let our inebriated friend drive? -- no, we would take him home. Well, it's our responsibility to get our country sane again). Who are we to the families and children in the rest of the world? Would we plant cluster bombs in our neighbors backyard? No? Then how can we do it to our neighbors in other countries?

Knowledge demands responsibility to act on that knowledge, if we are to be true human beings. Helping spread the principles and personal practices upon which Beyond War is founded -- and educating others about the specifics, such as cluster bombs and unsigned treaties -- moves us all closer to a world where conflicts are resolved nonviolently. And, as always, speak out: contact your legislators and the White House with your opinions, write a letter to the editor, lead or participate in a Beyond War Study Series.

[Melissa Ruhl]

This has been a wonderful discussion! I hope we can have more lively discussions with more threads, since that is what makes our website attractive. :)

What it all comes down to for me is that we can talk about how we want the world to change, but the only way we are going to change it is if we act. We are an educational organization, but what are we doing to educate? We have our study series, we have Winslow's book, we have the library list, the book club (and eventual book discussion guide), we have the website, we do tabling, etc. Very few of these discuss current events. Very few of these discuss current wars. Very few of these even discuss war, but rather peace. If we continue just talking about our dream of a world beyond war, if most of our educational materials also focus almost totally on this dream, I think people will stop paying attention. Slavery ended, not because we happened to have a benevolent president—Lincoln did not run on a platform of abolition and had to be convinced about emancipation. Slavery was abolished because it tore our nation apart. Women gained the vote because they stood up and fought and showed how far some would go to stop women from voting. Segregation policies ended because activists forced the ugliness of segregation into the open for the world to see. Etc.

Here's my proposal. I believe that if we are going to move this world beyond war, we must show the ugliness of war. We must be an educational organization that educates people of war and all its atrocities. No on will care about peace if they don't understand why war must be done away with. I propose that we make a war library. In this library, we can have books and articles on the history of war, biological/evolutionary perspectives of war, nuclear war, current wars around the world, and, of course, various weapons of war, like cluster bombs. If we are to overcome this thing called war, we must ourselves be aware of what it is in all its parts and be a resource for others who wish to know what this monster is that we must abolish.

What do you all think?

Here is a discussion of the logistics. http://beyondwar.ning.com/forum/topics/library-of-war

[Winslow Myers]

For me the most effective approach is to find a few excellent resources, test to see if people respond well to them, and, if they do, spread the word on them. It is difficult to know where peoples' heads are today, especially young people. In the 80s it was easy for BW, because with a little prodding (using the BBs, the film "The Last Epidemic," which showed that hospitals wouldn't nearly be able to cope with the injured, etc. people could get the possibility of a nuclear holocaust pretty easily).

In our current situation there are at least three levels of horror to try to get our heads around: all-out nuclear war, which seems remote as a possibility but is actually not (which does not seem to resonate with people, except in terms of the issue of nuclear abolition, which is pretty hot right now within the peace community), the terrorist use of a nuclear weapon, which certainly makes people anxious but also makes them feel helpless, and the horror of the kind of war and violence we see in Afghanistan and Iraq and Somalia and Darfur right now.

Even mainstream Hollywood films ("Saving Private Ryan" is a good example) are much more honest about picturing the ugliness of war than the silly, simplistic, chauvinist war films that were around when I was growing up.

In the 1980s, people felt despair to the extent that it was very important to think about balancing problem and solution. Too much emphasis on doom and gloom, and people would start to say "I know all that; tell me something hopeful I can DO."

I think a few really hard-hitting resources about the ugliness of war could be very helpful. I'll always remember a painting by the surrealist Magritte that hit me hard. It showed an artillery shell standing unfired on a shelf, but wrapped around with human intestines that glistened and bled. Certainly the mainstream nightly news would help to change our view of war if they showed us more screaming children and less flag-waving. They are afraid we wouldn't watch if they did show how ugly war really is, and in some cases they are owned by corporate interests who manufacture weapons.