The Quaker peace testimony holds that there is no certain endpoint where peacemaking becomes impossible, or war inevitable; that the onset of military action always coincides with a path to peace unexplored due to a failure of will, knowledge, or character. I love the Quakers for their consistent and courageous stand on this question, and for their persistent commitment to conflict resolution skills and practices.
In an absolute sense, I do not fully embrace the expression: I think history shows that there were wars that had to be fought, and that were necessary to remove serious obstacles to human progress. But in 99 percent of the conflicts where resort to arms and armies are now contemplated – the Quaker principle is most definitely true. In the era of nuclear weapons, as Dr King said the day before his death, "it’s not a question of violence or non-violence, its a question of non-violence or non-existence."
Further, as I write these lines on the anniversary of Dr. King's assassination, I think he would add that the entanglement of all the worlds peoples in interdependent and global economic, environmental, legal, migration and other social relations – only amplifies the truth of his message. Dr. King's name is forever bound to the message of peace and non-violence, and of friendship among all peoples. It will be everlasting in the memory of this country. But the names of race-haters and murderers, the warmongers and aggressors and chauvinists, the scoundrels who cloak their disrespect for life and liberty in false patriotism, will be forgotten and despised.
You can stand with the Quakers and, in my judgement, be wrong only one out of a hundred times on issues of war and peace. That’s a pretty good average for us mortals, and a much better average than the flip side where military solutions to political and economic problems fail far more often than they succeed. Even with military success comes the bad karma, enmities and hatreds between peoples that nonetheless find themselves bound even closer to each other than before, but with scores to settle.
This pacifist "peace testimony" is not only the judgement of Quakers, and Dr. King, but also of many whose entire lives were devoted to prosecuting, surviving and prevailing in armed conflicts. One of Benjamin Franklin's more profound commentaries near the end of his life concludes: "There never was a good war, nor a bad peace."
That is a good maxim to ponder as Americans consider the meaning of the latest "war of choice" launched against the regime of Muammar Gadhafi. And launched, once again for the umpteenth time since World War II, without a congressional declaration of war, without due consideration of the fatal damage done and redone to our nation by wars initiated without the consent and overwhelming support of the people of the United States, especially those whose families will be asked to give the full measure of devotion. Even worse – wars on the credit card demean the obligation all citizens to raise funds from their own pockets to help pay the costs of sending youth to war.
The president has cited humanitarian and strategic grounds for military intervention in the Libyan crisis. But the record of all recent US experiences in these "strategic and humanitarian" actions, at least since WWII, has been failure. The president and surely most politicians know this as well as anyone. Yet still they find themselves pulled by a cauldron of hellish forces seemingly beyond their ability to resist into another Mideast war with no better prospects for stability than in previous and ongoing fiascoes of Iraq and Afghanistan. I know some attribute this "hellish cauldron" of forces to an inherent imperialist feature in latter day capitalism. If so, it appears to be a stupid and futile attribute that results in perpetual failure.
Some argue persuasively that its all about oil, and that's certainly a big factor. If the world economies were a human bodies, their blood would be mostly oil, at least in this era. While I have never heard of an oil rich nation that refused to sell its oil, even a fluctuation in price, or price stability, is viewed as a threat of fatal infection requiring drastic surgery. Oil companies figure large as both perpetrators and subjects of oil politics and have spent vast sums over the years to dominate US foreign policy everywhere in the world where oil resources are affected.
Others point to the "military industrial complex" – as Eisenhower called it – and its pernicious incentives that favor an expensive military solution to nearly every conflict. There is plenty of evidence to support this claim as well.
It is the excessive influence of these interests over policy that puts the focus on conflict resolution, diplomacy, non-violent tactics, and peacemaking down on the list of alternatives when in fact, they are the least risky methods to protect our national security and well-being. Its worth noting that China – while arising with a very different history than the US and Europe – has yet managed to demonstrate that a much stronger non-interference policy with nations with whom one has trading relationships, is both possible and arguably a more secure.
The main point the adventure in Libya may prove is that the economic and political power of the military – which under its current leadership has already demonstrated borderline insubordination when refusing to define an exit strategy from Afghanistan – must be reduced. Or, ironically – and tragically – it will continue to keep losing regime change wars until it defeats our democracy and we will need our own regime change.
