September 18, 2001 ~ Why Pacifism Doesn't Sell

I mentioned a few days ago that I have been doing a lot of thinking about some really big things. Well, that thinking turned into a column that I will be publishing through the opinions magazine in the next week. The following writing is that column as it stands right now. I am going to make some small adjustments, but this is fairly close to the final version.

If you have any criticisms of my pacifist ideals, now is the time to voice them to me, for I am criticizing them myself, in hopes that I can redefine pacifism for myself and work out the flaws that pacifism currently holds. The column below will give you a better sense of what I am talking about.

Why Pacifism Doesn't Sell
by Melissa Ray Davis

I feel like an intruder, commenting on these terrifying events that I did not witness with my own eyes, having the audacity to form my own opinions about a situation that has instantly obliterated thousands of lives. All my love, compassion, and prayers go out to the victims, their families, and their friends.

But the headlines and the people are calling out for "REVENGE!!" in angry capital letters with an arsenal of exclamation points. "Blood for our blood!" "An eye for an eye!" In the midst of all this anger and pain, I am part of a very small group of voices whispering "peace" into this hurricane. But what good are whispers to an angry nation wanting justice for a horrific tragedy?

I could go to "solidarity" meetings and talk about why war is wrong. I could go to Washington, protest the war effort, and carry a sign that says "No War!" I could put carnations into gun barrels and sit on the White House lawn with my sign. Merely voicing my opposition to war, however, will not stop war. Public opinion is far too strong in the other direction for that. Saying that war is wrong, and why, does not give any alternatives, any better options.

I could point out that waging war against a concept rather than a nation has little chance of success. Killing a thousand terrorists won't necessarily bring about an end to terrorism; doing so could, in fact, make terrorism worse. The "war on terrorism" is like the "war on drugs"; many, many innocent people have died, and the drug problem hasn't gotten any better. It has been United States military actions in the Middle East and other regions that brought such violent anti-American sentiments to life in the first place. More U.S. military action may very well breed yet another generation of terrorists. The act of pointing out that a war on terrorism will not stop terrorism, however, does not stop terrorism either.

I am a pacifist to my core; I do not believe that violence will ever solve anything. In the past, it has only caused more and more violence—revenge of the revenge of the revenge. Pacifism works well on a personal level. I will do no violence to others. On such a small scale, it is a practical ideology. In the face of large tragedies such as this recent one, however, I feel as if my pacifist ideals and my non-violent mantra are rather impotent and vague. I am saying that war is bad and peace is good, but there is no accomplishment in those statements, no real alternative to war, no action that will actually do something towards making the world a better place.

The main problem with most modern pacifism is in the very name. Pacifism is... well, passive. It is a non-action. "We will not commit violence." The obvious difficulty with a movement that centers on not doing something is that, oftentimes, that movement offers nothing to do instead.

Instead of calls for peace and anti-war protests, I would like to see active peace. President Bush is calling for a "new kind of war," but really it's the same old thing, fought with guns and bombs and military. We have tried that before. So far, it hasn't worked. I would like to see a truly new kind of war, one that doesn't involve killing for "peace." I would like to see pacifism and non-violence in action, in going out and making peace, rather than shouting for it.

I don't know what is going to happen in the next few weeks. From the looks of the headlines, we may already be at "war" by the time this goes to print. However, the problem of pacifist action will always be an issue, at least for myself. What frustrates me, though, is that I see a problem here, but I have no answers. All that comes up is questions upon questions. I believe very strongly in the cause of pacifism, but I do not have the experience or the scope of vision to understand how it can work on a large scale against such a long-standing tradition of violent confrontation.

For instance, I read one pacifist's suggestion that instead of going into Afghanistan with our military—as we always do in our wars—we should go in with farming equipment, seed, solar arrays, plumbing supplies, and medical and building supplies and show those poverty-stricken, war-torn people some compassion on a huge scale, rather than more bloodshed. It would probably cost about the same amount as a war effort. This pacifist claimed that it would be such a radical, unheard of tactic that it just might work. After all, we haven’t tried it yet, and we know that bombing these Middle Eastern countries hasn’t brought peace in the past. What better way to plant some seeds of a little less anti-American sentiment?

This struck me as a beautiful vision. Unfortunately, a string of buts cropped up. But how would we ever convince the majority of Americans to be crazy enough to try it? But, when faced with an enemy such as these terrorists, who hate Americans so completely, how can we expect even the most peaceful of our actions to be interpreted as anything but some form of coercion? But how would we make our way into Afghanistan to deliver the supplies without using force? Once we got there, how would we prevent the Taliban from taking those supplies away from the people? Couldn't such an action backfire and be viewed as Americans trying to Westernize Afghanistan? Do we even have the right to interfere with their culture in the first place? What about the cultural barriers, such as language and religion?

These—and many others—are the questions that must be answered before pacifists can even dream of winning over mainstream America to our cause. How can pacifism be applied to wars where the enemy does not speak the same language and does not necessarily even value the preservation of his own life, where the culture is based in a vastly different belief system, and where personal, face-to-face contact may never be made? How do we bridge these gaps and tackle the logistical problems? Pacifism cannot work on a large scale until people can see the practical implications of it.

Do you have any answers to my questions?