Home | About | Donate

Military Intervention Is the Problem, Not the Solution


#1

Military Intervention Is the Problem, Not the Solution

Peter Certo

A café. A stadium. A concert hall. One of the most horrifying things about the murderous attacks in Paris was the terrorists’ choice of targets.

They chose gathering places where people’s minds wander furthest from unhappy thoughts like war. And they struck on a Friday night, when many westerners take psychic refuge from the troubles of the working week.

The message was simple: Wherever you are, this war will find you.


#2

"Hillary Clinton declared that ISIS “must be destroyed” with “all of the tools at our disposal.” Ted Cruz called for “overwhelming air power” and condemned the Obama administration for having insufficient “tolerance for civilian casualties.” Ben Carson called for “boots on the ground,” while Donald Trump swore he’d “bomb the s— out of” ISIS-controlled oil fields and hand them over to ExxonMobil."

What's propped up as viable leadership is always a call to war, violence, and aggression.

Gandhi wisely reminded that the call of vengeance in the form of "an eye for an eye" would only succeed in making the world blind.

This is accurate:

"When your government answers every problem in the world with military force, war begets war. And eventually there’s nowhere left to hide from it."

Dictionaries are alive as organic extensions of changes in language. For instance, when a new phrase becomes adopted, it will typically find itself in a modern dictionary.

I think it's time for some new definitions.

For instance, the paradigm that holds the warrior responsible for "national security" must be revisited. What--at essence--is National Security? If it's which nation has the biggest bombs, then clearly the definition is flawed.

Another word that needs to be reassessed is the idea of leadership. For if leaders ONLY traffic in war fervor (and fever), how could the peace that most citizens want be attained?

After 911, few to no pundits for peaceful diplomacy were given any air time. Instead, the media outlets were packed with generals.... then as now.

But those who see the world primarily through the frame of attack and response, are not equipped to envision any solutions outside of this insidious box. It is the box of HIS-tory, the sins of the FATHERS visited upon the sons as so much in the way of life is presented as battle, as the need mostly for males to prove their manhood through a show of arms.

It's no accident that very few governing boards and bodies have more than a token woman or two, if that. And the few let in are on-board with the militarists... or else they would not be there.

Deconstructing the paradigm that Mars rules built comes from not seeing the world through simplistic bifurcated frames, or lending one's name--and thus consent--to unending calamitous inanities like war.

Another word to revisit is Terrorist. After all, if those enacting wars of aggression are not fitted with that title, and rather it's reserved for those who respond--on their own home turf--to brutal invasions, then how accurate can such a terminology be?


#3

When you pay proxies, mercenaries, to fight your wars you never know their loyalty or when they will turn on you.


#5

Excellent post. You are right: we need some major paradigm shifts if we are going to get out of Hell


#6

"None of this bravado makes me feel safer here in Washington, where ISIS threatened more Paris-style bloodshed
in a recent video. When I imagine those cold-blooded killers running roughshod through the bars, restaurants, and concert halls my neighbors and I frequent, my stomach drops."

If I lived in the USA, I would be more scared of a normal school-kid carrying his mother's AK-47. Or a USAian cop. 12000 murders per year and how many rapes, woundings and muggings?


#7

Excellent points. Thank-you.

We also need a new definition of peace. The concept that peace is merely the absence of war or intermission or lull between wars is a warrior's viewpoint, as is the notion of "peace though strength". This concept of peace is so widely accepted as to be seldom challenged. It treats peace as a passive thing, something that happens by chance or coincidence, when, in fact, peace must always be viewed as viable, living and co-operative agreement inclusive of all peoples and cultures, a Life Force to be nurtured and honored. It should never be entrusted to the warrior class.


#21

More wisdom from siouxrose!