Two essays on Syria drew my attention on the same day. The first, by Nicholas Kristof, is a heartfelt argument in favor of military intervention, and specifically airstrikes. The second, equally heartfelt, from Jim Wallis, argues for immediate massive humanitarian aid to the millions of refugees from this conflict and against the use of military force in response to Syria's passion.
A few days earlier, a friend who is a leader in the peace and justice community where I live asked why there are no mass demonstrations against military intervention. Reading the Kristof and Wallis essays, I saw why: most of us cannot imagine an effective non-military solution. Kristof writes, for example:
I received a mass e-mail from a women’s group I admire, V-Day, calling on people to oppose military intervention because 'such an action would simply bring about more violence and suffering. ... Experience shows us that military interventions harm innocent women, men and children.'
Really? Sure, sometimes they do, as in Iraq. But in both Bosnia and Kosovo, military intervention saved lives. The same was true in Mali and Sierra Leone. The truth is that there’s no glib or simple lesson from the past. We need to struggle, case by case, for an approach that fits each situation.
Never mind that the United States was not directly involved in Sierra Leone or Mali, never mind that it is debatable that military intervention saved lives in Kosovo. What Kristof is arguing here is that military situations are sometimes the right way to address moral problems. In contrast, here is what Wallis wrote:
I believe the just cause being laid out against Assad is indeed a moral case, and I trust both President Barack Obama and Secretary John Kerry’s intentions around that cause. But I believe that the military strikes now being proposed are not the best moral response to this moral crisis — and they could ultimately undermine both our moral case and the moral intentions.
The jump we often make from just causes and moral cases to military actions reveals our dependence on old habits of war as our only response to conflict and injustice. It also reveals our lack of imagination for finding better responses.
Non-military, indeed, non-violent means might be more appropriate and more effective than the use of weapons in Syria. Ironically, some fifteen years ago I first heard a colonel in the U.S. army cite this famous statement by Abraham Maslow: “When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.” We repeatedly ignore the successes of non-military solutions, whether diplomatic initiatives or non-violent strategies. Organizations like Peace Brigades International, Nonviolent Peaceforce and many more have proven time and again that nonviolent action works. It is cheaper than military intervention but requires greater courage, greater discipline and creativity.
One response, in addition to the immediate humanitarian assistance Wallis calls for, ought to be expanding international cooperation and mobilizing world public opinion to end the conflict. After all, Russia's leadership has stated it will back UN action if there is proof Assad used chemical weapons; that statement is an opening for concerted action with China and Russia and Syria's neighbors. If you can envision a non-violent way to prevent further moral outrages by the Assad regime and bring those who chose to use chemical weapons against their own people to justice, don't just let me know about it, let the world know.
Comments