On November 3, David Swanson, the Executive Director of World Beyond War and the Campaign Coordinator for RootsAction.org, gave us an extensive argument for the elimination of war and preparation for war. He started by asserting that most (if not all) wars are unnecessary and that it is possible to avoid all wars. Negotiate, don’t invade! One of his central points is that we need to confront the health threat of militarism: that war is a health issue is agreed to by a wide range of health care providers and organizations.
Since the end of World War II, there have been some 248 armed conflicts in some 153 locations around the globe. In that time, the US military has been involved in 201 overseas military operations. In the 20th century, there have been some 190 million deaths directly attributable to warfare worldwide. Even if things used to be worse, there is no way in which those facts can be called “good”. And these facts represent a dramatic challenge to human health as well as a significant diversion of resources that could have been devoted to human well-being.
It can be argued that there have been significant efforts toward “reforming” war. There are now widely accepted “laws of war” that, among other things, attempt to limit the impact on health and mortality of non-combatants. Many weapons systems are now more precise than their antecedents. The increasing use of drones is leading to less risk to actual combatants – “no one gets hurt”. The increased precision presumably results in more effective realization of “intention” hitting only the intended target. Never the less, there is ongoing impact on health and mortality of the surrounding non-combatant population. War cannot, in any way, be considered like a game in which there is no attacking of or damage to the fans.
Mr. Swanson suggests that, in the global sense, war is simply one-sided slaughter. Some 85% - 90% of the deaths are civilians or non-combatants, so that is not a minor part of war. Since 1960, some 110 million land mines have been deployed in some 70 countries, leading to perpetual, low-level maiming and killing of the surrounding population.
The ongoing depredations result not only from the warfare itself but also from weapons testing and even just the existence of a large military establishment. Damage to infrastructure is extensive, the increase in poverty is widespread, the volume of refugees created is staggering, and the damage to ecosystems, water supplies, and soil is incalculable. Although nuclear research and development is thought of as being two different things, nuclear energy thought of as benign (although the waste will be virulent for thousands of years and the risk of nuclear reactor failure, while low, can produce devastating results), nuclear weapons, if used, are clearly an existential threat (low probability of happening but extremely damaging if used). Military operations, even in peacetime, contribute extensively to pollution and seriously and successfully compete for limited resources. Just the existence of widespread military presence encourages lawlessness: bases are typically above the local law (even laws about murder); pandemic protocols may be flouted; military establishments may be considered outside any climate agreements and may be resistant to any human-rights treaties in local effect; their presence may be the cause of or the means of avoiding sanctions; and the widespread availability of the means of conducting war leads to the more common attempted or successful coups. Finally, our government/army is commonly involved in funding and training some 96% of the brutal governments around the world. Mr. Swanson suggests that diverting only 3% of the huge US defense budget to more productive uses would do immense good.
His organization asks the overarching questions: is war inevitable; is war justified; is war necessary; is war beneficial? He suggests that the glorification and “mythification” of our success in World War II lead us to answer those questions in counterproductive ways. His organization suggests that we need to end war because it is immoral, it endangers us, it erodes liberties, it promotes bigotry, and it uses some $2 trillion that could be used for more beneficial ends. Further, he points out that the US is at the center of the militarization: the US is behind some 95% of foreign military operations; that some 50% of the discretionary budget of the US is spending for our own military; that the US is the top provider of weapons to other countries, since most countries have no weapons manufacturing capabilities; and, even though the US has the most extensive military establishment in the world, threats of war against “bad” actors have demonstrated little positive effect.
In closing, he requested that we look at and potentially sign a petition for a Declaration of Peace as found at the web sites worldbeyondwar.org/individual or worldbeyondwar.org/organization.
Questions: What about “surgical” operations – e.g., the death of Bin Laden? He suggests that, within the broader context of the 20-year war in Afghanistan, that operation was anything but surgical. Not only did we initially turn down the Afghan offer to turn him over to us before we attacked, but then we expended immense lives and capital before arriving at that “surgical” operation.
What about reacting to egregious attacks – e.g., Pearl Harbor or 9/11? He had a three-part answer to that. First, crimes should be prosecuted (no disagreement), but one crime should not be used as justification for a bigger crime. Second, with regard to Pearl Harbor, the Japanese attack was only a small (although damaging) part of a much bigger picture that included long-standing friction and disagreements between the countries around the Pacific accompanied by the widespread knowledge that war with Japan was coming. Third, and tangentially, he pointed out that the average defense budget for the countries of the world is nearer the military budget for Costa Rica (which has no military) than to that of the US.
What is a “just peace” and is that possible? First, a “just peace” is not the absence of war. A just peace cannot impose or ignore horrible injustices or the actions of irrational actors – and there are too many irrational actors. One of the problems is the prevalence and effectiveness of war propaganda.
Is there such a thing as an acceptable “defensive” war? Not really: there are too many loopholes and every participant always says that his actions were “defensive”. He suggests that non-violent resistance is more likely to succeed, violent less likely.
There is a rational basis for not going to war (in fact, in most places, the people have a “no war” attitude), but we go to war anyway – why? The voters typically chose their representatives at least partially on the basis of their stance against war but those representatives ultimately demonstrate that they are actually pro-war – and there is a political basis for that. For example, President Bush’s approval ratings went dramatically up in conjunction with the attacks by the US on Afghanistan and Iraq. There have been attempts to initiate a public referendum on going to war, but that has never made it out to the public. This is at least partly due to the fact that there is a difference between “the government” and “the people”.