Living Beyond War -- Challenging Interview Questions

[Beyond War]

Winslow Myers, author of "Living Beyond War: A Citizen's Guide" published in April of this year (Orbis 2009), is beginning a series of radio interviews in which he will discuss the book and the Beyond War philosophy. From his list of tough and challenging questions, here are two, including his responses. How would you answer them?

Winslow welcomes your feedback and comments. Please post in the Reply box to each question.

[Beyond War]

Q. You argue that a world beyond war requires that we move from a tolerance of differences to pluralism. How do you distinguish between the two? And what promise does this hold as the Judeo-Christian West and Islamic East increasingly meet in this global age?

A. The Muslims and Jews living peacefully together in Neve Shalom do not merely tolerate each other. Tolerance is a word whose definition is a moving target. It began as a good thing, the opposite of intolerance. But in the world that is emerging, mere tolerance is not enough. Tolerance has come to mean something like “you and I don’t like each other much and certainly don’t understand each other, but we’ll agree to grudgingly tolerate each other." In the perilous conditions of the modern world, this is an inadequate position. How many tragedies have occurred in the Iraq war merely because the occupying power didn’t understand the language and customs of the occupied? We need to move to a paradigm of pluralism, which includes celebrating our diversity and our differences, because it will take many different points of view to find the way through the complexity of our current global challenges. It’s not simply a good idea. We actually need to appreciate and understand each other if we are to survive.

Pluralism implies the initial assumption that there are multiple frames of reference, as many as there are people. To come to understanding requires that I start from that reality. This doesn’t mean all the frames are equal in value, or accurate with respect to reality or moral virtue. It just means I begin with a curiosity to find out what you think, which means I have to listen. If I do that well, perhaps you will also listen. That will allow our deeper assumptions to surface, which then may be corrected or affirmed. By this process, understanding grows, and empathy and compassion are not far behind.

Beyond war is saying that into this mix of diversity we must add two realities: nuclear weapons on the one hand, and radical interdependence on the other because these two realities are inextricably bound together. It’s as if two parties to a dispute are both convinced they are right, and both are holding nuclear bombs. If either bomb goes off, both die.

Pluralism promises an alternative, a means of survival: rigorously pursue understanding, no bombs go off, and both sides live. So—let’s decide to work it out, let’s talk and listen.

[Beyond War]

Q. Poor. Uneducated. Religious zealots. What common thread unites all suicide bombers more than such stereotypes?
A. It has become clear that many of them are not poor or uneducated at all. Robert Pape, who wrote the leading book on suicide bombing, "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism", says that most of these bombings are in response to an army of occupation, and cease when that army leaves. I’m not an expert on suicide bombing, but I wonder if Mr. Pape is right. It seems, at least now, to be a technique in the civil conflict in Iraq. Would it stop if all American troops left, or continue to be a tactic employed by Shia against Sunni, or Al Quaeda against the Maliki government? What we can assert is that conventional war-making as practiced up to now by nation-states doesn’t work very well against terrorist groups. They can blend in. As we are seeing in Afghanistan, if you kill civilians, you are arousing resentment that creates terrorists faster than you can kill them.

"Terrorist" itself is a tricky word, like tolerance. There’s the cliché that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Terrorism was instrumental in the creation of Israel, for example. But that only gets us to the place where we’re coming up with comparative rationalizations for violence that is justified by the rightness of the cause. That rationalizes all kinds of undesirable behavior, including torture.

[Jim Pankey]

Winslow, with the disguised goal of capitalistic dominance (profit) and selfish control (military occupation) as the forefront of our foreign policy, aided by the covert activities of the CIA and commercial paramilitary groups like Blackwater, is it even possible to talk peace? It seems as if our new 'manifest destiny' is to profit above all else---and more handily control the course of that profit through continuing unrest at home (TV and radio pundits throwing mud) and by creating and maintaining wars abroad, and to hell with humanitarian concerns like respect and trust between neighbors domestic and international. We claim to be a nation of laws, but usurp even the most basic ones (thou shalt not kill...) and even international ones (Geneva conventions 1954) regarding torture.

Peace just doesn't seem to enter into the equation of today's USA's increasing use of the military-industrial complex (too powerful to resist, too big to fail) as the visible bargaining chip on the table, replete with back-up six-shooter under the table

How do we stop the juggernaut?

[Winslow Myers]

First of all, I don't think I answered the question about what terrorists have in common very directly. Maybe one thing all terrorists share is a conviction that all other alternatives have been closed to them. Recall President Kennedy in 1962: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

I certainly take your point about the juggernaut, but I also think the juggernaut contains within itself some built-in checks. One is the sense in our armed forces themselves that they are exhausted. Another is a sense of history among policymakers and citizens: people can see the similar pattern of our involvements in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Our job is to put a model out there of preventive, constructive initiatives that are opportunities to do well by doing good. Al Gore has been very good on the economic opportunity our environmental challenges provides. Windmills not Predators!