Afghanistan 2009: Try Something Different
This article appeared in Huntington News on January 5, 2009
This article appeared in OpEdNews on January 6, 2009
This article appeared in AlterNet on January 9, 2009
This article appeared in Capital Times on January 11, 2009
This article appeared in Newberg Graphic on January 12, 2009
This article appeared in Veterans Today on January 17, 2009
Afghanistan will come roaring back onto our TV screens in 2009, with US plans to escalate military operations there. It will crowd out the current Gaza invasion – like that in turn swept away the Iraq occupation, now yesterday’s news – from our commercial media’s limited attention span.
However, for some of us who work in the peacebuilding field, the war in Afghanistan never left.
Each day I read articles from Afghani and international press about the violence engulfing that failed state. The US military releases reports of people it has killed, although it never calls them people.
Insurgents, militants, radicals, rebels, terrorists, Taliban and Al Qaeda, but never call them people, fellow human beings. Our government reports their deaths like sales figures, production quotas.
We cannot ever call them people – sons, brothers, fathers, uncles, friends – because that would challenge our ability to accept their deaths as positive goods, progress in the “war on terror.”
We can never allow ourselves to acknowledge that each of these deaths extinguishes a human being who will never breathe again, eat a meal, listen to music, sit with friends, or watch a sunset.
We can never allow ourselves to grieve, to recognize that others will grieve, or to feel the shame and failure of what we have done. We did not destroy another person. We merely killed the “enemy.”
I am not saying that “we” are “bad” any more than that “they” are “good.” I understand conflict. I understand that lives and quality of life are at stake, no matter what we do or don’t do there.
All I am saying is that killing is not progress, it is never good. It represents a supreme failure, an ultimate “defeat for humanity” in the words of Pope John Paul II on the eve of the Iraq War.
What if we took a different approach? What if instead of always trying to win the war we set about to build the peace. What if we measured building a peaceful world like we measure business success?
In that case, every act of violence anywhere in the world would be recorded as a “defect” in “quality” in our “production” process, not registered as a positive gain. Every act of killing would be recognized as a complete product failure to be scrutinized for what we can learn about how to do things better.
What if we measured building a peaceful world like we measure military success? Every death at the hand of another – no matter whose death, no matter whose hand – would be a battlefield defeat to be studied for what we can learn for the next campaign, the next theater of peacebuilding operations.
What if we adopt a public health model that regards killing as a preventable disease that ends lives before their time? We can set out to eradicate killing, just like we did with smallpox.
We can no longer accept killing as inevitable, much less good. We need to embark on a new policy of “zero tolerance” for killing, by us or anyone else.
President-elect Obama famously said that he wants “to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place” not just end a particular war. Let us ask him to begin with Afghanistan, and not repeat himself the mistakes that he saw others make with Iraq. Let’s try something different this time.
Bill Scheurer is the Executive Director of Beyond War (www.BeyondWar.org), Editor of PeaceMajority Report (www.PeaceMajority.org), and the author of “us & them: bridging the chasm of faith” (ISBN-13 9780972525411), a small book of interfaith inquiry.
This article appeared in OpEdNews on January 6, 2009
This article appeared in AlterNet on January 9, 2009
This article appeared in Capital Times on January 11, 2009
This article appeared in Newberg Graphic on January 12, 2009
This article appeared in Veterans Today on January 17, 2009
Afghanistan will come roaring back onto our TV screens in 2009, with US plans to escalate military operations there. It will crowd out the current Gaza invasion – like that in turn swept away the Iraq occupation, now yesterday’s news – from our commercial media’s limited attention span.
However, for some of us who work in the peacebuilding field, the war in Afghanistan never left.
Each day I read articles from Afghani and international press about the violence engulfing that failed state. The US military releases reports of people it has killed, although it never calls them people.
Insurgents, militants, radicals, rebels, terrorists, Taliban and Al Qaeda, but never call them people, fellow human beings. Our government reports their deaths like sales figures, production quotas.
We cannot ever call them people – sons, brothers, fathers, uncles, friends – because that would challenge our ability to accept their deaths as positive goods, progress in the “war on terror.”
We can never allow ourselves to acknowledge that each of these deaths extinguishes a human being who will never breathe again, eat a meal, listen to music, sit with friends, or watch a sunset.
We can never allow ourselves to grieve, to recognize that others will grieve, or to feel the shame and failure of what we have done. We did not destroy another person. We merely killed the “enemy.”
I am not saying that “we” are “bad” any more than that “they” are “good.” I understand conflict. I understand that lives and quality of life are at stake, no matter what we do or don’t do there.
All I am saying is that killing is not progress, it is never good. It represents a supreme failure, an ultimate “defeat for humanity” in the words of Pope John Paul II on the eve of the Iraq War.
What if we took a different approach? What if instead of always trying to win the war we set about to build the peace. What if we measured building a peaceful world like we measure business success?
In that case, every act of violence anywhere in the world would be recorded as a “defect” in “quality” in our “production” process, not registered as a positive gain. Every act of killing would be recognized as a complete product failure to be scrutinized for what we can learn about how to do things better.
What if we measured building a peaceful world like we measure military success? Every death at the hand of another – no matter whose death, no matter whose hand – would be a battlefield defeat to be studied for what we can learn for the next campaign, the next theater of peacebuilding operations.
What if we adopt a public health model that regards killing as a preventable disease that ends lives before their time? We can set out to eradicate killing, just like we did with smallpox.
We can no longer accept killing as inevitable, much less good. We need to embark on a new policy of “zero tolerance” for killing, by us or anyone else.
President-elect Obama famously said that he wants “to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place” not just end a particular war. Let us ask him to begin with Afghanistan, and not repeat himself the mistakes that he saw others make with Iraq. Let’s try something different this time.
Bill Scheurer is the Executive Director of Beyond War (www.BeyondWar.org), Editor of PeaceMajority Report (www.PeaceMajority.org), and the author of “us & them: bridging the chasm of faith” (ISBN-13 9780972525411), a small book of interfaith inquiry.
Tags: afghanistan, killing, peacebuilding
2 Comments
-
Comment by John Webster on January 6, 2009 at 2:35pm - Great article with many creative ideas. May everyone, including President-elect Obama, read and take these words to heart. Thanks Bill.
-
Comment by Cynthia Cannady on January 31, 2009 at 11:59am - Hi, I appreciate Bill Scheurer's article. We do need to examine the "mindset" that is getting us into this war. I feel that there should be articulated criteria for war, and that these "war threshold criteria" need to be discussed and analysed by the American people in transparent public debate before we enter into or expand wars. My candidates for these criteria are: 1.) the war is necessary for defense of the United States or other compelling ethical value; 2.) the anticipated human cost of the war is estimated and deemed acceptable; 3.) the financial cost of the war is estimated and deeded feasible; 4.) the party or parties that we support or with which we are allied are not corrupt and have popular support; 5.) alternative means to avoid war including diplomacy and peace initiatives have been attempted and failed. For example, in the case of Afghanistan, criterion 4 should be addressed. The evidence that the Karzai government is implicated in opium trade should be evaluated. By contrast, the Taliban during their regime,eradicated opium trade. This info should be aired and considered, but there is no discussion much less debate. In the war in Kosovo, the Kosovo Liberation Front, our ally, was implicated in opium trade and female trafficing. But this information was not widely known and was not evaluated by Congress, the media or the public at large. In sum, to keep peace, we need more information and discussion on the criteria for war.
Add a Comment
 |
 |
and the Foundation for Global Community. To join them as a sponsor or ally click here.
© 2009 Created by Beyond War
You need to be a member of Beyond War to add comments!
Join this network