ESSAY: Make Peace Not War - An Alternate Response to Terrorism

(A radical interpretation of the events of 9/11 and the United States reaction to it as viewed through the writings of the Buddhist teacher and peace activist, Thich Nhat Hanh. Nhat Hanh was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1967 for his contribution to the Vietnam War peace effort.)

“If men are not afraid to die,
It is of no avail to threaten them with death.” Tao Te Ching

A Cataclysmic Event:

We live in a violent time; violent games, violent entertainment, violent streets, violent world. If the 17th century was the Renaissance, the 18th the Age of Reason, the 19th the Industrial Age, then the 20th century is surely the Age of Violence. Instead of reaping the bounty of technology, we are aiming weapons at each other. On September 11, 2001, terrorists flew 3 airplanes into major symbols of America’s capitalist and military strength. This resulted in the death of thousands of American citizens. Whether they were “innocent” or merely “non-combatants” is one of the central issues of this essay. As a result of this attack, their lives, their families’ lives and the lives of every American citizen was changed forever. Although we have always been an aggressive and violent nation, that violence has always been on foreign shores. Not since Pearl Harbor has it occurred within our nation’s borders. The reaction to Pearl Harbor was a nuclear holocaust that took 200,000 lives in one afternoon. The response to 9/11 has far surpassed this in casualties. Unlike Hiroshima, it is not directed at a single country, it is directed at a vague target, called terrorism, which exists in every country throughout the globe, hidden amongst the people of the earth.

The 9/11 attack was brutal. What we find most alarming is that it is seemingly, to us, without motive. It was a deliberate, premeditated plan, executed to extract the maximum amount of carnage on men, women and children who had never consciously intended to harm those who had attacked them. The attackers did not consider them people, only targets; the enemy. We were suddenly at war with an enemy totally unknown to us. We have a vague picture that they are of another world, another religion, and another region. How would we define them; Middle Eastern, Muslim, radical extremists? But so far away, so remote from our daily lives, we cannot understand how they can hate us enough to kill us indiscriminately. Is it simply because we are Americans, Christians, capitalists? Or is it because we have done something to them that we are not even aware of?

And what was our response? It has “filled us with disbelief, terrible sadness and a quiet unyielding anger…the search is underway for those that are behind these evil acts. I’ve directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities, to find those responsible and bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them…we stand together to win the war against terrorism…God Bless America” (George Bush, September 11, 2001). So we are at war in the name of God! We have already attacked two countries, unseated the ruling regimes, and are preparing to attack another. And yet, the terrorists who flew the engines of destruction on 9/11 were already dead before the “War on Terror” began.

“The Roots of Peace” An Alternative:

“Practicing non-violence is first of all to become non-violence…we have to transcend the tendency to take sides” Thich Nhat Hanh, Peace is Every Step (See note 1.)

Is the only answer to violence – violence? In the face of tragedy, isn’t anger, fear, outrage a natural response? How can we discuss peace when we are under attack? What would Nhat Hanh do? He believes in justice. “I am not saying that someone who viciously attacks us should not be disciplined, but what is most important is that we first take care of the seeds of negativity in ourselves. Then if someone needs to be helped or disciplined, we will do so out of compassion, not anger and retribution” (p 64). Also, he is no stranger to anger. “Anger is an unpleasant feeling, it is like a blazing flame that burns up our self control and causes us to say and do things that we regret later. When someone is angry we can see clearly that he or she is abiding in hell. Anger and hatred are the materials from which hell is made” (p 57). Clearly, Hanh has known hatred and anger; anyone who knows anger this deeply has experienced and conquered it. What is most important is not to act until we have gotten our anger under control. If we think on this deeply enough, we will come to realize that those who caused the acts of 9/11 are angry too. Our anger will not lessen their anger it will only add fuel to the fire.

We seek an alternate path because war does not work. It does not eliminate those responsible; it does not address the source of the problem. War may attempt to seek justice, but does not address injustice. War is, by its very definition, born from the dualistic view of life. It is the ultimate “us – them” argument. Hahn would say violence will only create more violence. Violence born from suffering can only cause more suffering. Before we can deal with violence in the outer world we must first deal with it in ourselves.

9/11: A Bell of Mindfulness:

Can such a terrible event, an event that took the lives of thousands, be a bell of mindfulness to the path of peace? The Buddhists say, “Life is suffering.” Can suffering be the event that opens us to the truth behind it? Following the roots of our feelings down into ourselves, we begin to discover, who we are. “When we want to understand something, we cannot stand outside and observe it…to comprehend something is to pick it up and be one with it, there is no other way to understand something. In Buddhism, we call this kind of understanding “non-duality.” Not two” (p 100) I am certain that Hanh would say that the only way out of the violent conflict in which we find ourselves, is compassion. Whenever we feel our anger welling up inside of us, we must return to the event of 9/11 and let this act lead us through our feelings mindfully, to discover the compassion in ourselves that we will need to resolve this conflict.

What will we find if we look deeply inside ourselves? Will we find that those that attacked us are suffering too? It is not because of their anger that they attack us; it is because of their suffering. If we counterattack in anger we will feed their anger, but if we address their suffering through compassion, we might find a way to put out the blaze of their anger. We transform our anger into something useful and in doing so, we change the world. And although we change only the world inside of us, this is the first step in transforming the world around us. “To transform our situation is also to transform our minds, to transform our minds is also to transform our situation, because the situation is mind and the mind is situation…The nature of the bombs, the nature of injustice and the nature of our own beings are the same” (p 112). Therefore, if we can see through our fear and anger, and truly feel compassion for the suffering of our enemy, we transform not only our own world, but the world of our enemy as well.

“Engaged Buddhism” A Platform for Action:

Once one understands that the violence on both sides is due to the suffering of our enemy and ourselves, one comes to realize that the suffering of both is related. Buddhism teaches us that all life is an interconnected membrane, much like a spider web, and like a fly trapped in the web, the spider can feel his struggle through the strands of the web. This leads us to the concept of inter-being. “We cannot just be by ourselves. We have to inter-be with every other thing” (p 96). To look deeply into our relationship with the terrorist is for us to realize that we are somewhat responsible for his actions against us. As we stated earlier, we are “non-combatants” but we are not “innocent.” The terrorists are members of a third world society that lives in the shadow of our affluence. All the wonders of our modern world run on engines driven by oil, the very oil that lies beneath their lands, their homes, their cities. We rape their natural resources for our own pleasure and give them nothing in return. It is true that vast sums of money go into the hands of the dictators that rule these lands, but little of this money finds its way into the pockets or kitchens of the people. “Let us look at wealth and poverty. The affluent society and the deprived society inter-are. The wealth of one society is made of the poverty of the other…we cannot just be, we can only inter-be. We are responsible for everything that happens around us” (p 98).

America has built a marvelous land, we have enjoyed prosperity at home and peace within our borders, but we have paid a terrible price in the poverty of others. The central problem is there is not enough to go around, so some must have more, while others have less. This is the injustice felt by the entire third world, and as the flames of injustice boil to the surface through the acts of the terrorist, the only way to solve terrorism is to extinguish the source of the fire. So what does the Buddhist do in the face of violence and injustice? “Should we continue to practice in our monasteries, or should we leave the meditation halls in order to help the people who are suffering under the bombs? After careful reflection we decided to do both –to go out and help people and to do so in mindfulness. We called it engaged Buddhism” (p 91). In the West, we do not need to be Buddhist to think expansively, we can be engaged Humanists. What would Hanh do? Hanh would act to relieve the suffering of everyone, he would demonstrate for peace, he would lead others to the meditation halls to quench their anger, and he would write his congressman. Hanh would “wage peace” with all the determination that America now wages war. “If the earth were your body, you would be able to feel the many areas where it is suffering. War, political and economic oppression, famine, and pollution wreak havoc in so many places. Every day children are becoming blind from malnutrition, their hands searching hopelessly through mounds of trash for a few ounces of food. Adults are dying slowly in prisons for trying to oppose violence…real strength is not in power, money or weapons, but in deep, inner peace…with clarity, determination and patience – the fruits of meditation – we can sustain a life of action and be real instruments of peace” (p 99).

The National Response – A Nation of Engaged Humanists:

“The Tao of Heaven is to take from those who have too much
and give to those who do have not enough.
Man’s way is different.
He takes from those who do not have enough to give to those
who already have too much.
What man has more than enough and gives it to the world?
Only the man of Tao.” Tao Te Ching

The present national response to terrorism shatters the world into two opposing camps, us and them, the enemy. In preparation to kill our enemy, we must demonize him. He becomes “the evil-doer” and we become the champions of justice, all under the watchful eye of our Christian God. We have turned the clock back a thousand years to the Crusades, a Christian military expedition to recover the Holy Lands from the Muslims. How can this ever bring peace to the world? If we succeed in capturing the lands and ousting their governments, will the people accept us as friends and equals, or will they view us as just the new dictator in town. “In order to fight each other, the chicks born from the same mother hen, put colors on their faces. This is a well known Vietnamese saying; putting colors on our own face is to make ourselves a stranger to our own brothers and sisters. We can only shoot others when they are strangers. Real efforts for reconciliation arise when we see with the eyes of compassion, and that ability comes when we see clearly the nature of inter-being and inter-penetration of all beings” (p 118). We must put out the fires of war that will only tear us apart. We must take off our colors and learn to embrace the enemy as brothers and sisters.

Consider the trillions of dollars that America will pour into the war effort. We have spent billions in Afghanistan, and hundreds of billions in Iraq. Think of the good we could do with that money if it were invested in the poor of the earth. If the only way to eliminate terrorism is to put an end to the suffering caused by hunger, hopelessness and despair, then as a nation of engaged humanists we would share our wealth and prosperity with people, not just the rulers. We would go to Congress and levy a tax on every barrel of oil extracted from the third world and use that money to build schools, hospitals and farms, to feed and heal all the people of the world. In the schools we would train them to teach themselves and heal themselves and feed themselves. We would not make them dependent on us, but we would share our prosperity. Eventually, the poor of the earth will come to see the goodness in our hearts, once they recognize the goodness and love that is flowing from us; they will take off their colors too. We will have removed the source of injustice that fuels the terrorists’ actions. If the terrorists persist in this climate, their own people will see the injustice in their actions and will no longer hide them in their homes or in their hearts. Without the people’s support, terrorism can not exist.

“I think we need a policy for dealing with our suffering. We do not want to condone it, but we need to find a way to make use of our suffering, for our good and for the good of others…we need to use the suffering of the 20th century as compost for the 21st century…
If we are willing to work together and learn together, we can all benefit from the mistakes of our time, and, seeing with the eyes of compassion and understanding, we can offer the next century a beautiful garden and a clear path” (p 134).

“Peace is available in every moment, in every breath, in every step” (p 134).

Note 1: Unless noted otherwise, all page references are to “Peace is Every Step,” Thich Nhat Hanh, Bantam, 1992.

Political Hoax - "War on Terror"

The America I believe in is a democracy built on freedom. Not just freedom for some, but freedom for all. It applies the “rule of law” uniformly in all its dealings both domestic and foreign. It does not invade countries, depose leaders, torture citizens, and set itself up as the oppressor of third world nations for its own self interest. Yet America, with the sanction of its legislative bodies and by extension the American people, has done all of the above. How do we as thinking, moral beings justify this course of action? Perhaps, before defining a path forward, we need to open a dialogue on how we got here, trapped between Iraq and a hard decision to leave.

I am certainly not alone in believing that the war against Iraq was one of the single biggest policy mistakes in the history of the United States. The cost in money and human life, if you include the Iraqis, is rapidly becoming incalculable. The further loss in international stature, credibility, and moral leadership is perhaps irreparable. As much as I love this country I am often sad to be an American in today’s world. Although, it is my general impression that most of the public is now against the war and would like us to leave, our political leadership on both sides seems to lack the moral courage to do anything but continue. There seems to be some vague, pervasive idea that somehow we might still “win” something, but no one can describe in any meaningful way what this might be. The general consensus seems to be, “We should not be there, we cannot win, we cannot leave, and so we will just do nothing but stay the course.” Does this make any sense?

In this blog I would like to address the basis of the argument that was used to sell the invasion of Iraq to the American people. The provocation, as everyone knows, was the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. It was a horrific and immoral event. But when George Bush spoke publicly of his plans for retribution he used the phrase, “War on terror.” Now “war” as opposed to “aggression” is a term generally used to refer to conflicts between nation states. “Terror” or “terrorism” on the other hand, is the action of lone individuals and/or organizations. (I am specifically excluding nationally sponsored terrorism as this could form a just basis for warlike behavior.) To declare “war on terror” seems to me to be a relatively meaningless statement, although it does serve conveniently to raise the conflict to a higher level than would be justified by a terrorist attack. That is, unless the purpose of the phrase was to justify an attack on nation states. In hindsight, this seems to be the case. This topic is covered nicely in a paper by the philosopher Noam Chomsky entitled “War on Terror” delivered at the Amnesty International Lecture hosted by Trinity College in January 2006. (http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20060118.pdf)

What troubles me is the lack of critical thinking which occurred shortly after the attack and persists even to this day, regarding the basis of the argument used to justify the attack on Afghanistan and then later Iraq. I understand the nation was grieving over the events of 9/11, but “war” is not the rational response to “terrorism.” The intelligent response to terrorism is to find the perpetrators and bring them to justice. In fact, to attack nation states is to play into the hands of the terrorists by justifying their claims to the communities amongst which they hide. And what have we achieved in the name of “War on Terror”? We have failed to arrest the architect of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center; we have invaded several countries creating complete chaos; and we have participated in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people and the displacement of over one million! This was all in the name of “War on Terror,” a kind of westernized version of “Jihad.” Why didn’t the Senate, or the Congress, or the press, or the people say, “George, this doesn’t make sense, what are you saying? What is a ‘War on Terror’? Who are you fighting? To whom does ‘Terror’ refer?”

OK, I know what you are thinking. This is politics, and not a skeptical issue. I’m not sure I agree with that position. This is a hoax! And it is a cleverly designed hoax that we, the American people, should have detected and stopped at the onset. The specific language, “War on Terror”, was intended to fool us into thinking the government could take actions beyond the scope of the event which provoked it. It allowed the government to wage war and bypass civil liberties that are at the core of our Constitution, such as freedom of speech, assumption of innocence, and trial without representation. The Bush Administration even interpreted “War on Terror” to mean they had the right to ignore the rules of the Geneva Convention relating to detention and torture of prisoners whose guilt had not been determined. In effect, this was not a war until we made it one.

The "War on Terror" was an intentional hoax of gigantic proportion! This is a hoax on which millions of lives depended. Shouldn’t the rules of skeptical thinking inform us about statements like this? Shouldn’t legislators and the media question our use of language when the language doesn’t make sense? If the president had declared “War on Terror” against the perpetrators of the Oklahoma City bombing, wouldn’t we have thought he was daft? But we said nothing. The phrase “War on Terror” became the basis for an argument for the justification of the government’s actions. It was an argument from consequences; we were attacked by terrorists so we are going to war on terror. It was a straw man in that it simplified what is a very complex historical, social, and political situation into something simple and easy to deal with. “Let’s get ‘em!” But it was not simple and we find ourselves enmeshed in a quagmire from which we cannot easily extricate ourselves. If we have any hope of getting out of this, we need to go back to the beginning and try to understand how we were duped into getting there in the first place.

Caught up in the hurt and anger over 9/11 we suspended our disbelief. We naively assumed the Bush Administration would seek out justice by bringing the terrorists to trial, and attempt to reduce the threat of terrorism instead of increasing it by aggressive and unjustified actions. If we are to end the war and help redress the wrongs we have committed in the name of “War on Terror” we must first change our rhetoric. We need to drop the “War on Terror” and re-define our position. Our entire understanding of the world is through the use of language. The language we use in framing our ideas is important. If we seek "war" we will find it. I'd prefer we seek "justice" instead, as this is consistent with our national charter. "Justice for terrorists" is a far better goal than "War on Terrorism." If justice, not war, is our goal, we need to work through international organizations like the United Nations to bring international terrorists to justice. We must change direction, tone down our rhetoric and address a comprehensive strategy to engage the world in our struggle to bring peace, and not war, to the Middle East.

In the midst of the Iraq war I often find myself drifting back to thoughts of the 60s during the Vietnam War, when the phrase “Make love, not war” came into vogue. You don’t hear much about peace and love anymore in the rhetoric of today’s world. Are we to abandon such thoughts and live forever in fear and terror? It’s not a world I’m interested in. We can seek justice and peace at the same time. They are not incompatible. But it will take a new language, a new dialogue, between America and the world. It’s time for those of us seeking a new direction to speak out. Let us hope, “We won’t be fooled again.”