Borrowing from Quarkhead in the John Lennon thread, I was struck on the notion that if everyone said no to war, the politicians would be in deep trouble.
However, if looking at it from a rational viewpoint, and taking in all aspects and vices of humanity, I wonder if there is any way possible for war to ever completely end.
Now, I've pledged the better part of my life to the defense of this nation, and in the offense when directed by my elected officials, but like nearly every other serviceman or woman, I don't think anyone wishes for world peace more than I. I certainly don't have a death wish, nor do I enjoy being away from my family. But knowing that evil lurks throughout the world, I cannot envision a time when some sort of warfare is not common somewhere in the world.

The questions I am pondering are:

What realistic efforts can ordinary citizens employ to end or mitigate warfare, and can such a movement ever really grow vast enough to make those voices effective?

Won't there always be some entity on the globe that will threaten peaceful existence?

Can committed pacifists find common ideological ground with hawks who believe that violence sometimes has to be employed to protect a democratic way of life?

I wouldn't call myself a pacifist, per se, even though I'm a Christian. I do believe that sometimes war is necessary after all other efforts have failed.

I do not think that we will ever see the end of war as long as so many people in this world are hungry and poor.

The only real motivation I can see behind "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is the preservation of America's access to part of the world's oil supply. As long as some of us continue to support wasteful lifestyles, we will have to fight over dwindling resources and war will continue.

What realistic efforts can ordinary citizens employ to end or mitigate warfare, and can such a movement ever really grow vast enough to make those voices effective?
Stop allowing our presidents to make deals with tyrants like saddam and others to begin with. i just don't buy the we "need" them argument. I believe very strongly in the saying "You can know them by the company they keep." Same thing with OBL. Make deals with devils don't be surprised by the results later in life. yes such a movement can grow large enough. Like anything though it depends on the cause and the reasoning. With the exception of some very fringe folks how much do we hear about afganistan? Not much.

Won't there always be some entity on the globe that will threaten peaceful existence?No, maybe, if i could predict things that well i wouldn't have to work for a living. I have faith however that as mankind evolves we will reach a point where war becomes a thing of past. yet the cynical side of me recognizes that for some people the need to force their views on others will always reign supreme. The excuse of "god said so" or "Its them or us" never seems to fade into history where it belongs.

Can committed pacifists find common ideological ground with hawks who believe that violence sometimes has to be employed to protect a democratic way of life? i think Afganistan proves that it can and does happen. David brin says it best to my mind there DTOM
Power of Strategic Listening

What realistic efforts can ordinary citizens employ to end or mitigate warfare, and can such a movement ever really grow vast enough to make those voices effective?

We live as we can and as we must. What impact this has on the future of war is beyond our wills and must come from movements, not of our choosing, but of our destinies.

And that's from a big promoter of will, as in shaping our own destinies. It's just that some things are bigger than us, like bad economies and hurricanes, flash floods and earthquakes, politicians and war mongers.

Won't there always be some entity on the globe that will threaten peaceful existence?

Not necessarily. I do think that, should we survive our own existence without poisoning or blowing ourselves up, the world will be as one, like John Lennon sang. Except it'll be as one because it makes sense to everyone except the insane or murderous, and we'll come to a point where we will know how insanity and murderousness works. We'll have a cure for both.

Can committed pacifists find common ideological ground with hawks who believe that violence sometimes has to be employed to protect a democratic way of life?

Yep, Jesus said it: Live by the sword, die by the sword. The meek shall inherit the Earth. We all have different destinies, and so we follow them partly by will and partly by accident. For example, it was my brother's destiny to taste war, although he had no will to do so. He did join the USAF, but his hope was to avoid Vietnam. That didn't happen. Me, I got a high lottery number in '71. War became a moot issue for my life, other than bitching about Iraq.

Committed pacifists try to avoid war in the first place. Hawks push for war when necessary. The two stances are in conflict, and so it goes--usually the hawks' way. I think the common ideological ground is pretty narrow, but it exists. One side wants to preserve, the other protect. Put in another way, pacifists want us not to shoot ourselves in the feet. Hawks don't want others to shoot our feet.

Either way, we want unshot feet so we can move ahead.

Representative democracy.

Won't there always be some entity on the globe that will threaten peaceful existence? As an adherent to the tragic vision of humanity, I hope so. Otherwise, the alternative is a global tyranny enforcing "peace."

Can committed pacifists find common ideological ground with hawks who believe that violence sometimes has to be employed to protect a democratic way of life? Yup, usually about the time that some nasty aggressor is about to snuff out, overwhelm, enslave, etc, the committed pacifists, they find "common ground" with the hawks. How any pacifists look to the State to protect them from common criminals?

Committed pacifists only exist under the protective umbrella provided by the "hawks." Most hawks have little problem with this arrangement, until the committed pacifists go all holier than thou and begin attacking the character and morality of their protectors.

(What is most odd is when the committed pacifists also deny the existence of objective, universal moral standards, yet choose to condemn others based on their own "personal" standards. Clearly, some CPs accept universal objective morality, but many others do not.)

I believe that the committed pacifist and the responsible hawk both desire the same goal, peace. The CP believes it can be achieved without violence, the RH believes it can't.

All war involves violence, but not all violence happens in war. When we are between wars, we still have violence. So by this take, we have never experienced peace, i.e., no violence.

This renders the questions meaningless. There is no existence without violence, and there is no peace within existence. So, the CP will never realize the goal, while the RH congratulates self for being R. That is, if the H actually practices R, which is arguably not the case. Those who call the loudest for war are usually those who will not feel the violence.

However, the RH cannot carry out war without the CP practicing R by paying taxes. Experiences in Iraq and other wars show how when supplies aren't provided, the war doesn't go well. The supplies have to come from somewhere, and nothing is free.

If we take the notion of violence as being universally a part of existence and define war as organized violence between and among nations, then we have a shot at a world without war. Violence, well that's just something we all live with. If it's not coming from nations, it will come from nature.

The universal moral issue that will likely be the working value is mutual survival. Nation A does not want to attack nation B because of interdependence, and the reverse of the equation works as well. Right now it looks like a world economy is our best shot at world peace, as defined above.

This does not mean that world economics is the only way. It's simply what makes sense right now.

I've been thinking about this thread for a few days. Christmas is almost here, certainly a good time to talk about "peace on earth, and good will toward men."

Now before I get to the questions, I want to address a couple of things in the framework of your question.



I reject your using the word "rational" in opposition to the first statement. However unlikely such a scenario may be, it is in no way irrational.



And your service is honorable. I am certain that most soldiers wish for peace. However, pacifism is different than being merely 'for' peace, or against war. Pacifism is a profound personal choice. There are people who are against all war, who are not pacifists. I think when we use the word, we must recognize the difference. To choose pacifism is to make a personal repudiation of all violence in one's life. To speak of global pacifism can only be as an extension of personal pacifism.

What realistic efforts can ordinary citizens employ to end or mitigate warfare, and can such a movement ever really grow vast enough to make those voices effective?

The only lasting effort one can make to end warfare is the effort to rid oneself of warfare. Of course this does not mean that one should not speak out against macro-warfare. But our most realistic goals, and the beginning of any peaceful world, are within ourselves. Working on ourselves, we are not telling others how to live, we are teaching by our example. When we show unconditional love, when we act in a peaceful way, when we forgive our trespassers, we are changing the world.

Won't there always be some entity on the globe that will threaten peaceful existence?

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean we cannot or should not repudiate all violence in our lives. Real pacifists can never be conquered, only killed.

Can committed pacifists find common ideological ground with hawks who believe that violence sometimes has to be employed to protect a democratic way of life?

No, because being a committed pacifist is not about having a 'democratic way of life.' Pacifism is personal and outside the bounds of political ideology or national borders. Of course on a philosophical level there are probably certain things these two groups have in common, but a committed pacifist cannot endorse war, particularly for something as abstract as a democratic way of life. The acts which make me question my commitment to pacifism are acts of extreme state terror - the Indonesian genocide of East Timor; the horrible genocide in Rwanda; the 30 million killed by Mao's Cultural Revolution; the American bombings in Germany and Japan.

Now, I already know that most people disagree with me; and that's alright. I think it is true, however, that as long as we are willing to compromise peace, to resort to violence, whatever the cause, the world will not know peace. To say, "I will lay down my arms as soon as they lay down their's," is to never understand or accept pacifism. Pacifism is saying, I will lay down my arms, whether you do or not. I will exhort you to do the same, but I will not strike you. I will condemn your actions, I will cry out from the tops of mountains the wrongs you are committing, I will offer you love and forgiveness, but I will not fight you, even though you may raise your arm and strike me down.

Correct, which is why I consider the "committed" pacifist to be a utopian fool.

Better to "congratulate self" for recognizing the reality of the world than preening as a moral narcissist

Well, if all the Hs practiced R, then the CP would see his goal realized, wouldn't he? That they don't is the recognition of reality that differentiates the Responsible Hawk from the Committed Pacifist.


So don't pay taxes. As a practical political reality, the very nature of the social welfare state, whether mild as in the US, or robust as in Western Europe, means that there's no way in H eeee double hockey sticks that the body politic is going to give up all the government provided benefits in order to protest a war. Ditto for the religiously motivated. Once one has chosen the government as the vehicle for caring for widows, orphans, and the lame, how is it morally acceptable to cut off the resources for that care as an expression of pacifism? Of course, if we had a very limited government, then the folks would have a lot more leverage and wouldn't be caught in a devil's bargain.

Okay, but what you are describing is a pragmatic pacifist, not a "committed" (i.e. principled) pacifist. Principled or radical pacifism - Wikipedia

I don't think that a world economy is the best shot, although I do agree that interdependence is a key element. Representative democracy along with participatory economics is the best shot, if history is any indication. The more participation "the folks" have in the decision making, the more likely peace.

While I believe the beauty of true pacifism in all would be a wonderful thing, isn't it a bit nieve to live ones life this way. There are those who will strike you down until you cannot get back up again, and they don't care about being condemned.

Evil does exist, and pacifism is not the way to thwart it.

Perhaps I should have said 'realistic', though since this sentence was not part of my question, it is strictly my opinion that the total absence or war is not a rational expectation given human nature.



Please don't think that I am dismissing your point of view out of hand, I applaud you for your convictions and think that they are honorable.
But your above quotes contain no correlation to the real world for me. They are abstract. They sound great when one has the luxury of speaking his or her mind, and the ability to sustain those convictions in a surrounding relatively free of oppression and violence.
You may be able to tell me, since I have no way of knowing.......are there many (still living) pacifists living under the yoke of totalitarianism? When you speak of laying down arms, giving love and forgiveness, being struck down.......that's may be fine on a personal level, but it would seem selfish to possibly acquiesce to a life of virtual slavery or death for one's family members and compatriots. I believe that democracy has everything to with pacifism, and will steal a quote from Bikerdad to illustrate:
The more participation "the folks" have in the decision making, the more likely peace.

For pacifism to have any chance of becoming a reality, that ideal has to work hand in hand with the idea of democracy. Otherwise one is just farting into the wind, so to speak. Pacifists who lay down their lives in a struggle against war and violence may be lauded briefly, but I contend that nothing changes.
My personal beliefs lead me to realize that oppression must be confronted if people are to be allowed the luxury of being a pacifist and live.......among other beliefs that free people will hold dear.

I think we can agree to disagree without insults. Bikerdad sees me as a utopian fool. To you I am naive. Oh well.



No, it isn't naive at all. Allow me a comparison. Many people, given the opportunity, will cheat in order to succeed. If someone says, "I will never cheat, even though others may cheat and beat me," is that being naive? Is the "realistic" choice to go ahead and cheat, since others undoubtable will? I don't buy that kind of thinking. "I will cheat in order to stop cheaters!" doesn't get us anywhere.

I do find it interesting that many of the same people who argue for moral absolutes become so relativistic on the subject of violence and war.



Of course. I am not naive, I realize there are people like this. The pacifist will rise and continue to repudiate the violence until she can rise no more. How long do you think anyone would be on Israel's side if all the Palestinians decided to demand citizenship and equality in a purely nonviolent, Gandhian way? If they decided to render the checkpoints and barriers useless by civil disobedience - if they kept on, even as they were beaten and perhaps killed, how long would we stand by and watch?

The only reason movements like this are "never going to happen" are because people always say they "could never happen."



I believe the contrary is true. Pacifism is ultimately the only way to thwart evil.



Once again, you have shown your inability to argue a subject without resorting to cheap shots and insults. Yes, we are fools who simply don't recognize reality. That's telling us! Magnificent points!

Just as an FYI, my post was not in response to yours, as I didna even read yours until now.

"preening as a moral narcissist" is a retort and contrast to AM's "self congragulation" shot.

Would you rather that I sully the memory of Saint Lennon by referring to committed pacifists as "Utopian imaginers?"

As I said, I subscribe to the "tragic vision" of human nature. As long as there are people, there will be violence.[b/] Some people [b]will use violence for evil ends, and no amount of pacifist action (an oxymoron) will stop all of them. There is absolutely no historical evidence that pacifism by itself ever has changed anything, save for changing freemen to slaves.

Mandela is held up as an example, as is Ghandi. However, it was the sanctions against South Africa that eventually brought down the Apartheid government, sanctions that were enforced by the power (aka violence) of the state. Similar conditions existed for Ghandi and India, namely the very real risk of violence and other negatives were what truly led to Indian independence.

And, of course, we see how those two nations, theoretically brought into being by pacifism, are the very models of modern pacifism.

BD,

I see, so eventually China and the ilk will have to be repdems in order for world peace to break out. But we know from our own war history that repdems can be pretty aggressive too. What is it about people participating in government that makes the system less warlike than any other system?

Are they that aggressive? And more importantly, do democracies go to war with each other?.

Historically, the answer is "No."

Freedom, democide, war and the democratic peace.

I was wondering about this explaination Bikerdad. How would you categorize civil wars? Wars like that do occur in democracies, your own country is an example of this. Representative democracy is probably the best political system to secure stability and peace within a society / region, but it does not automatically prevent war from happening.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German theologian who openly opposed Hitler during World War II. He started out as a pacifist himself, but eventually helped friends and family members involved in more than one plot to assassinate Hitler. He was executed by the German government in the last days of the war.

"If your opponent has a conscience, then follow Gandhi and nonviolence. But if your enemy has no conscience like Hitler, then follow Bonhoeffer." - Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.



I think you've summed up the tragedy of the Palestinian people, but I'm not convinced it's an argument for pacifism. You're right that the Palestinians' cause would be advanced if they adopted nonviolent means. Israel is exactly the kind of liberal democracy that can be shamed into doing the right thing. Israel, like the British Empire faced by Gandhi, and 1960s America faced by King, is an opponent with a conscience.

A world in which there are no enemies without conscience, and the Palestinians embrace nonviolence, would be a wonderful world to live in. Until that world exists, I'm with MLK. Some enemies need to be fought with violence.

What realistic efforts can ordinary citizens employ to end or mitigate warfare, and can such a movement ever really grow vast enough to make those voices effective?

I don't have a good answer for this one. So much war and violence is caused by nations and organizations that don't care what "ordinary citizens" think or say.

Won't there always be some entity on the globe that will threaten peaceful existence?

I'm afraid the answer to this is yes, though I'd love to be wrong. "Always" is a long time...

Can committed pacifists find common ideological ground with hawks who believe that violence sometimes has to be employed to protect a democratic way of life?

I'm not close enough to the mindset of committed pacifism to say. Quarkhead seems persuasive in saying there's no common ground; I'm inclined to take his word for it.

QUOTE

There are the obvious things, like supporting those parties and candidates whom you feel have the best plan for avoiding conflict. Beyond this, all we can do is to try to win one heart at a time to the way of peace. This isn't easy, and almost all of us will fail, at times, to avoid the temptation to strike back when we have been hurt. (I just read a newspaper article today which claims that 90% of all American drivers have experienced road rage.)

QUOTE

Of course. We don't have to lower ourselves to that level.

QUOTE

I would suggest that all of us stop thinking of committed pacifists as "unrealistic dreamers" and instead honor them as role models, even if we are not capable of reaching that level of humanity. Even if we come to the conclusion that some form of force is necessary in desperate situations, I believe we can learn some lessons from the way of peace.

1. Always avoid the use of force whenever possible.

2. When this is not possible, always use the least amount of force possible.

3. When force is used, always use it with sorrow and reluctance.

What realistic efforts can ordinary citizens employ to end or mitigate warfare, and can such a movement ever really grow vast enough to make those voices effective?

Ordinary citizens can strive to be peaceable on a personal level, communicate with government officials and encourage them to find non-violent ways to solve problems, teach their children ("well" with apologies to Crosby, Stills & Nash) that violence begets violence.

Won't there always be some entity on the globe that will threaten peaceful existence?

Probably for as long as we live, anyway. Did that discourage Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Mother Teresa of Calcutta, or Pope John Paul II from living their messages?

Can committed pacifists find common ideological ground with hawks who believe that violence sometimes has to be employed to protect a democratic way of life?

As has already been mentioned in this thread, it would be good to look upon violence as a LAST MEASURE only, not the way George W. Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rummy have looked at it. Violence, if it were looked upon as a failure to find any other means to solve problems and not something of which to be proud, might not be used as often.

But then, a person who is striving for glory and power of some sort rarely accomplishes it by peaceful means. The path of peace is not for someone who is in it for his/her self-aggrandisement. It takes many, many individuals quietly working for peace to make it a priority. It is certainly not for wimps--witness how many of the peacemakers have suffered or died because of violence perpetrated against them.

But the violence came from people who did not comprehend non-violence; these are the ones who need to learn the non-violent path most of all. They will never know of or choose the non-violent path if they never see someone on that path.

What good is it to send our children to religious education where they learn "You shall do no murder" or "Blessed are the peacemakers," when their parents and siblings can't wait to pick up a gun and head off to kill somebody? In Matthew 18:6-7 (New American Bible), Jesus is quoted as saying, "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!"

Those who believe in the power of violence will always scoff at those who try to serve the cause of peace by living non-violent lives. That does not mean in the least that those who work for peace are wrong or foolish; it means that their goal is further uphill and therefore the path is steeper. John 1:5 states that "the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it."

I'm curious about this sentiment. I know you to be a peaceful person, but where does a pacifist mark the boundary of sacrificing ideals when confronted with oppression and suffering?
Does a pacifist turn a blind eye to the plight of others when they are persecuted? Or can there truly be instances when brute force must be used to stop atrocities?, i.e. genocide, slavery, ethnic cleansing, forced starvation, etc.

What realistic efforts can ordinary citizens employ to end or mitigate warfare, and can such a movement ever really grow vast enough to make those voices effective?

The philosophy of war is probably one of the most complicated subjects in all of philosophy. One must examine motives, justifications, conditions,
relative strengths, past history, methods and capabilities, as well as consequences of both action and inaction. A war can be just in one man's eyes and be intolerable in his neighbor's.

Many philosophers, dating back to ancient Greece, have postulated that war is a force of nature. Others have said that war is in man's very nature. Others have argued that man formed society as an escape from war and conflict while still others say that man formed society to help him conduct war.

Here is a good primer on the philosophies of war : The Philosophy of War

As the article indicates, opinions vary from the absolutist pacifist, who deny that war (or any violence) is morally defensible to those that see war as an ethical means to a great many goals.

How can one person (an "ordinary citizen") influence war? Stand up for your beliefs. In a democratic society (in any open society, actually), the government needs the will of the people to fight. Without that will, the government's effort will fail. Therefore, if you oppose a war you must let people know about it. Organize, protest.

Won't there always be some entity on the globe that will threaten peaceful existence?

I believe there will always be war. There is war in nature: the hyena and the lion, the ant versus ant and other examples of rivals who kill each other over territory, food sources, or instincts. In fact, nature is a constant war between prey and predator.

As long as there is one society willing to use war, then war will be there. Since pacifism is not an inborn trait in humans (although trust is), war cannot be eradicated from humans.

Can committed pacifists find common ideological ground with hawks who believe that violence sometimes has to be employed to protect a democratic way of life?

I don't think so. The ideologies are polar opposites.

This is a good question, and there is no easy answer. It is clear that this is a planet full of horrible oppression. All I can suggest is that all possible methods of pressure (economic, diplomatic, and so on) be used before force, and that the absolute minimum amount of force be used when necessary.

1. The answer to the first question is obvious. Stop participating in the games of deceit and death that benefit a few and not the many. Or to put it another way, what if they had a war and nobody showed up? Ordinary citizens don't start wars. The politicians we elect and the bureaucrats and generals we don't start the wars.

Appeals to patriotism and dark warnings of dire threats to our "national security" have proven to be extraordinarily successful in persuading mothers and fathers to send their sons and daughters off to fight and die for the interests of other people who won't send their sons and daughters. But when my son turns 18 in three years should George W. Bush come sniffing around looking for more fresh meat to send off to another pointless war, I'd sooner dress him up in ruby red lipstick and high-heels than allow him to get killed over the delusional dreams of a chickenhawk Chief Executive.

Ordinary citizens have the power to let the political classes know they won't particpate in their dirty little wars over land, power and resources, but only when the national security and/or national interest is involved. Reasonable people can disagree upon what circumstances meet that stress test. However, let's not kid ourselves that wars are fought because one side wears the white hats and the other side wears the black hats. The reasons presented for the war may be cast in stark terms of good versus evil, but what lies beneath the surface justifications is often far more complex and a good deal less noble.

2. Yes, there will always be rogue nations, militaristic madmen and despots with their heart set upon coveting what their neighbors possess. What of it? Tyrants have always been with us looking to start mischief all over the globe. That is no reason to constantly pound the war drum. Is our natural inclination toward the pursuit of peace or war? If we believe human beings are inherently warlike and barbaric, then civilization is only a farce we maintain long enough until we find a large enough rock to bash the other fellow's brains out.

I believe most people want nothing more than to live and die a simple life without being prematurely killed for the sake of national pride or corporate bottom lines.

Fear of violent men is why we still need guns, tanks, aircraft carriers and standing armies. But we can't be slaves to our fears because most people are not suicide bombers, fanatical terrorists or blood enemies to our way of life. You can kill a man with a bullet, but you can't convert him from his violent tendencies. Only through peaceful means can enemies be eventually turned into friends. Consider the cases of the Germans and the Japanese and where we were in 1945 as opposed to 2005.

3. I'm not a pacifist by any means. I admire and respect the teachings of Gandhi and Dr. King, but I'm not a turn-the-other-cheek fellow. I believe more in Malcolm X's philosophy that you treat everyone as you would want to be treated yourself, but if anyone lays their hands on you do your best to send them to the cemetery.

Still, I don't think committed pacifists and committed hawks are that far apart. Both of them want peace. They just differ on how best to achieve it. Most hawks I know aren't bloodthirsty war lovers, but they believe it's best to keep the knife sharpened and the gun close at hand just in case. Better to have and not need than to need and not have and all that...

The doves or pacifists, can recount chapter and verse how useless and futile war is and sincerely believe that rational appeals to our shared humanity can overcome the deep and vast differences between Muslim and Jew, China and Taiwan, North and South Korea, between African tribes, peasant and land baron and Howard Dean and Zell Miller.

As in most things in life, there is a middle course between pacifism and war lust. Peace IS Possible, but only once we stop thinking War IS Inevitable.

What realistic efforts can ordinary citizens employ to end or mitigate warfare, and can such a movement ever really grow vast enough to make those voices effective?

Elect officials that are very reluctant to go to war unless very vital interests are at stake. Insist that all nations abide by agreed upon rules dealing with regimes like Saddam’s. The UN obviously has problems in this area.

Won't there always be some entity on the globe that will threaten peaceful existence?
Yes.

Can committed pacifists find common ideological ground with hawks who believe that violence sometimes has to be employed to protect a democratic way of life?
It’s possible. We have to remember that repressive brutal regimes like all of the Communist regimes and many right wing dictatorships have killed far more people then all wars combined.

There have been times in history that "society" has claimed warfare obsolete. Immediately before WWI, many Europeans believed this, and were completely oblivious to the upcoming disaster commonly referred to as "The War to End All Wars." How did that work out?

The Hawks and the Pacifists both want peace, but have a different outlook on how to go about it. I think any sort of aggression needs to be a last resort, but I can't for the life of me understand pacifism. If any nation actually took on a totally pacifist policy it wouldn't be long before someone took advantage of that country. Pacifism invites aggression from others, making things worse instead of better. Being prepared for war actually prevents it from happening.

As long as people can sit down and have civilized discussions like these, common ground can be found.

I agree. In fact we could say that the invention of nuclear weapons and the subsequent reluctance to use them (MAD) has sharply reduced the possibility of another World War and saved millions of lives (see link). Although we know Communist and right wing Regimes in China, Russia, North Korea, and elsewhere killed many millions internally it is difficult to see how this could have been prevented


http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-1900.htm

That is a question a libertarian would ask!

I'll post one of my favourite all time quotes because it is applicable;

"Politics is nothing more than the continuation of war by other means." Karl Von Clausewitz

Seriously though, Harry Browne has posed this question in his speeches and the result always takes to sovernty, equal access to resources, and a live and let live philosophy.

Won't there always be some entity on the globe that will threaten peaceful existence?

Yes and I'd call it the IMF. As long as we use 20th century banking practices there will always be a creditor and debtor to disrupt the natural flow of wealth.

Can committed pacifists find common ideological ground with hawks who believe that violence sometimes has to be employed to protect a democratic way of life?[/b]

Yes and the framers of the constitution set just the basic minumums of property rights and economic freedom.

Beyond basic minimums like healthcare and schooling I'd say you have an uphill battle.

What realistic efforts can ordinary citizens employ to end or mitigate warfare, and can such a movement ever really grow vast enough to make those voices effective?
I would say cut down on consumption of resources and limit family size. Support public policies that encourage these objectives. Competition over space and resources is the principal road to war.

Won't there always be some entity on the globe that will threaten peaceful existence?
Probably, but I support a powerful UN type body to mediate regional differences. Getting rid of WMDs and setting up international institutions for conflict resolution would seem to be the direction we should take.

Can committed pacifists find common ideological ground with hawks who believe that violence sometimes has to be employed to protect a democratic way of life?
Neither are completely realistic. Perhaps if they could genuinely take on the question, "how do we make war an absolutely last resort" they could find common ground to search out a solution together.

As I've implied elsewhere, all conflict exists because of differing values derived from the self. Replicators are, by necessity, selfish. That means that competition for scarce resources will always exist with those that are not "self". The curious thing is that death due to war, in per capita terms, is at an all-time historic low. Even WW I and II were relatively benign compared to vicious tribal conflicts in which 30-50% of a male population could be eliminated. The fact that some Americans are in a furor over a death rate of less than 3000 soldiers out of a population almost 100,000 times that number is quite illustrative. Our country has lost less than 0.001% of its population due to the Iraq war. I believe statisticians would call that "statistically insignificant." Of course, that is not to belittle the sacrifice those brave men and women made for a country they believed in. It's merely pointing out that it's a far, far cry from the 60,000+ soldiers who died in Vietnam just three decades ago (not to mention the 1,000,000+ Vietnamese).

So why is war at such an historic low, given that we have the technology to obliterate all of mankind? Well, the primary reason is that technology has made it possible to increase the definition of "self" to such an extent that there are relatively few enemies left to fight. Even though there are millions of people starving in the world, that's not a technical problem so much as a socioeconomic one. The resources we are fighting over are not food, but rather energy. Ultimately, energy drives a post-industrial society, and there is enough of it available that most of it can be acquired more cheaply through economic means than military means. When someone like Saddam Hussein decides to threaten that ecological balance by doing something like threatening to redenominate Iraqi oil contracts in Euros instead of USD, one cannot expect any other result than military action from those protecting their own interests.

But what of the self-righteous pacifists that condemn war while at the same time reaping its benefits? Well, simply put, they are hypocrites. When they stop driving cars, riding buses, wearing nylon and polyester clothes, using plastic bags, computers, food packages, etc. they will have climbed the moral high ground from whence to justifiably launch their tirades. But whether they like it or not, 100% of the pacifists in industrialized nations benefit tremendously from cheap oil, whether ill-gotten or "legitimately" acquired. Almost none of them would be able to communicate their message of pacifism without the accoutrements of modern technology which accrue from petroleum products. Even "green" technologies like bicycles are largely manufactured by and from oil.

And when considering a situation like Iraq, one must admit that the Iraqis themselves benefit, even though they pay the price of "insurgency" (which would be called "terrorism" in any other context) and "collateral damage". As much as the media likes to portray the American presence as unwelcome, I'm sure the average Iraqi on the street would rather have a humvee with a roof-mounted .50 cal driving up and down their street than a Shiite death squad or Sunni insurgent or Syrian terrorist. But asking the average Iraqi that very question doesn't make for interesting news.

Still, war is hell. And for humans, it will continue to be, until the meta-beings whose bodies are composed of us as cells eventually duke it out to the death and there is a final victor, which will be the human Self, the Global 'I'. There are currently many such meta-beings, and they largely overlap. We call them "Islam" and "Hinduism" and "Christianity" and "Republicanism" and "Labor" and "Pacifism" and "Pakistan" and "Venezuela" and "Riyadh" and "Saxony" and "YMCA" and "MCI" and "IMF" etc. They live in us and they are us and we are them. These beings fight by subsuming us, controlling us, manipulating us, and even rewarding us. Of course, the reward is why we join them. A self-interested agent cannot do any less. We are cells within simultaneously overlapping social bodies that are in a struggle for life and death. These meta-physical amoebas are the next higher form of organism on this planet. War will end when we all belong to roughly the same meta-amoebas. Then the remaining conflict will be roughly analogous to cancer or auto-immune disorders, and dealt with appropriately.

So what can the average citizen do to hasten this social Grand Unification? Well, the unification is primarily driven by economics, which is primarily driven by technology. So if you want World Peace, you're gonna have to buy it. It happens to look just like an iPod. Seriously. It might seem crass to say that consumerism will save humanity, but free market forces are what drive innovation. And innovation is what advances the state of the art. The market creates what consumers demand. If we demand technologies that trickle down to the Third World, then we will have made progress. In practical terms, consumers should reward technological risk-takers. People who are willing to take bold steps in a new direction. If we only reward conservative innovators, we will set the pace of technology at a disheartening level. Buy radical products that might fail, but are headed in the right direction. Tell innovators and investors that you want new technology and you want it bad. Buy Playstations and PCs and plasma displays. Yes, you are giving your money to evil corporate conglomerates that operate sweat shops and bilk investors out of their money. Unfortunately those are some of the inevitable costs of operating a free market economy. But you are also funding a push for innovation that will result in more research grants, more funding for schools and universities, and ultimately more technology that will do things like reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

Do high gas prices annoy you? Do you feel that the oil companies are ripping us off? Well, they are, and you should be glad. There are several reasons that high oil prices are good for our future. First, they make alternative fuels more competitive. The longer oil prices remain high, the more confident investors will be that alternative fuels will be imminently profitable. You want a green future? Pay twice as much at the pump for a black present and don't even blink. But still vote with your wallet. Buy those Priuses and Insights. Tell automakers that they must go green or die. It's no accident that the most successful automaker in the world is also the leading green manfacturer. Oil companies aren't stupid. They can see the writing on the wall. They are used to making 10 year investments in oil fields and drilling rigs. They know how to plan for the future. Yes, they are taking a windfall today, but they are setting up for a green tomorrow. They will always be energy companies, but they won't always be oil companies. Petroleum today, natural gas tomorrow, methanol, hydrogen, and uranium in the next decade and century. All powered by expensive oil. The high prices at the pump are paying for a cleaner future for our children, and that should be reason for satisfaction. We are paying a future tax, but one that is better paid sooner than later.


Depends on the cost/benefit ratio of conflict. Neighbors in the same town typically don't wage war with one another, because there is so little to be gained and so much to be lost. Not so in hunter-gatherer groups where there may not be enough game in a given area to support two tribes/clans. When it comes to food, technology has bought us peace. The same is true for shelter and clothing. Now we don't fight for food but for energy (or rather, food for our machines, which are the more powerful extensions of our bodies). We spend money on the military because that is the cost of evolution...machine evolution. The military-industrial complexes of modern nations are like hulking robots of the future that are in a continual process of refit and upgrade. Game theory shows us that for this scenario, the best strategy is to upgrade at the highest sustainable rate until you dominate. Surprise! The "hunting grounds" of today are vast deserts of black gold and swamp gas. And they are hunted by metal beasts that spit fire and cloak themselves from far-seeing eyes. This era, too, shall pass.

What then? The superorganism that some call "Gaia" will then have matured to a harmonious whole, and at that point will seek to test its wings in the vast reaches of space. Already, we can see those wings starting to unfold in projects like Apollo, the ISS, numerous Mars missions, and even the recent successes of the Chinese space program. Gaia herself will become hungry and will seek food elsewhere. The hunting grounds will abstract to a higher plane, and the conflict will start all over again. But this time humans will be a single organism. Who will be our enemy? Only time will tell.


The ideological distinction between hawks and doves is just as artificial and moot as the distinction between Republicrats and Democans. Such distinctions are engineered by various groups (not all of which are the government) to produce a certain desired end goal...namely power. Ghandi was not interested in pacifism for its own sake. He wanted a free India, plain and simple. I guarantee you if he felt that the only way to obtain a free India was through armed resistance, Ghandi would have picked up a gun and told his followers to do the same. Ghandi's brilliance was the observation that with the British, a non-violent coup would both succeed and benefit all sides through reduced casualties. Pacifism was a means to an end. If you don't agree, then try rewriting history by placing Ghandi as a Slav in Stalinist Russia circa 1940's. See how many hunger protests it would take to stop the butcher of Stalingrad.

Ghandi's strategy worked not only because the British had a "democratic conscience", but because there was a certain level of mutual respect between the British and the Indians. They had led a relatively peaceful colonial existence for many years, and the British made no attempt to demonize Indians as sub-human. That is to say, Indians were already halfway into the Briton's in-group by the time Ghandi came onto the scene, and it didn't take much effort to push them all the way in. On the other hand, Hitler's and Stalin's and Hirohito's genocides depended on explicitly pushing their victims into a sub-human out-group. This strategy should clearly indicate that no amount of pacifism would placate such bloodthirsty barbarians. Furthermore, pacifistically observing genocide while possessing the ability to prevent it would seem quite strongly to be an endorsement of the genocide itself. Witness the recent case of a West Virginia police chief charged with denying first aid to a gay man.

"Committed pacifism" is merely a theoretical ideology that has no bearing on real-world events. Pacifists will not be able to cancel a war in Rwanda by not showing up. That's because they can't prevent the Rwandans from showing up with AK-47's and machetes. But standing by and watching the genocide from afar, we in the North are nodding in implicit approval of the wanton killing. When white Europeans in Bosnia and Kosovo were allegedly genocided, we rushed to their aid with all the technology the West had at its disposal. When black Somalians dying of starvation in numbers ten and a hundred times higher than the Bosnians killed 19 of our bravest, we turned tail and ran. It took 60,000 body bags to get us out of Vietnam. Does that mean we regarded the South Vietnamese as 3,000 times more important than the Somalians? I can't help but draw that conclusion. The level of our committment is indicated by the level of our sacrifice.

On the other hand, "Responsible Hawk" means "I profit highly from the military-industrial complex and have no shame about it". Point to one hawk in the Beltway that does not profit highly from the defense sector and I will retract my accusation. Of course, a "citizen hawk" is a meaningless term, because the average citizen has no means by which to wage war on a significant scale. A citizen hawk is just a paper tiger, or, in more unfortunate circumstances, cannon fodder. That does not mean we should disrespect those who serve proudly in the military. In fact, they deserve the highest respect, because they are the ones putting their lives on the line for what they believe, which is, in fact, more than you can say for the pacifists. Consider that most of the casualties in Iraq do not get the opportunity to shoot at their enemy before they come home on a stretcher or in a body bag, and it suddenly becomes crass to caricature them as bloodthirsty, gun-toting hicks. Some of them are out of control. There is no doubt. Some are just immature, and do stupid things like shoot at camels. Others are more sinister, and do things like torture prisoners, but most certainly not only on their own accord. Nonetheless, it is the military that maintains the balance of power in favor of the US. Who controls the seas controls the world. In the time when the sun never set on the British empire, England owned the high seas. Now the US is the only power to field 15 supercarriers and countless nuclear submarines. The next time you're on your way to an anti-war rally and stop by Starbuck's to get a double latte cappucino, consider that your Starbuck's exists and is profitable largely because of the US hegemony enforced by military fiat.