Nonviolence is the “greatest and activist force in the world.” Gandhi

Dear Mr. Bush, The reason that violence is often our first choice for political problem solving is that it seems like the most attractive of our options. First of all, it is a course of action that we can apply right away. We don't need to wait. It's fast, it yields immediate results and it is satisfying on many levels. Violence makes us feel like we are doing something about our problems, we are in control, we are strong and yes, manly. Our enemies will cower before us, they will shiver in "shock and awe; they will learn not to mess with us again. It feels good on both the emotional and rational levels. It seems so right, so logical. Unfortunately, what our heads and our hearts tell us is totally wrong. It may go against our most profoundly cherished intuitions, our deepest common sense, but violence is almost invariably the wrong choice. The argument for non-violence is not, as many believe, simply a moral or ethical construct. I believe violence is wrong, evil but this is not my argument for opposing it. I oppose violence as a solution to our political problems fundamentally because "it does not work". It suppresses freedom and provokes counter violence. Thus it poses more threats to our security. In the long run, non-violence is the better choice for dealing with political and social conflict. It is slow, frustrating, passive, indirect, profoundly unmacho, but, in the long term, it will work far better and it reconciles the ends with the means. I would like to apply my argument to the world of the 21st century. Throughout history, most nations have employed force as the first response when they feel threatened. The United States, post 9/11 is not alone in resorting to violence as the tool of choice. You, Mr. Bush, have been a prime mover in developing the response of our government to these new threats. Your administration has resorted almost exclusively to violent responses to the challenges facing this nation. The record of the Bush administration has been one of applying military force as the solution and/or threats as its main weapon. Let's look at that record and try to judge just how successful the use of violence has been. 1) War on Terror The US has attacked Al Qaeda vigorously all over the globe. It has eliminated its main base (Afghanistan) and move on the offensive in the Middle East and other regions. How effective has the campaign been? Sadly our enemies seem more determined than ever. The military defeats they have suffered seem to have made them more determined, more resilient. The terrorists “defense” has taken the initiative, according to Clausewitz, they decided “when, where and how to strike back and in doing so determine how the conflict is conducted.” The Madrid attack of last year is only one manifestation of that. The violent response has only made our country more hated and has seemed to have increased the recruitment base of the terrorists. According to the deterrence theory, the response of the terrorists resulted in “unacceptable damage that would outweigh any likely benefit.” 2) Iraq Iraq is the centerpiece of our global response to 9/11. At some point in 2001, the administration made up its mind to strike Iraq, with or without a legal justification, with or without thought to the ultimate consequences. It was an unadulterated example of how human beings can be seduced into believing that violence is the logical. It was quick, satisfying and it permitted us to act. What have been the results? A chaotic gangland failed state where not even history's most advance military machine can guarantee security more than 10 meters outside its base perimeter. Our violence has bred an even more violent response within Iraq that we are helpless to control. The country is breeding ground for terrorists, political revanchists and religious fanatics of all stripes. Our own soldiers have paid a horrific price of 3000 dead and over 22,000 grievously wounded. The Iraqi people have suffered an even greater toll of tens of thousands killed; 655,000 according to the Lancet survey of mortality. Worse, they are living a daily nightmare that has no end in sight. Saddam Hussein may have been a nasty problem before he was illegally executed; but violence, as logical as it may have seemed to you at the time, was not the only (or best) solution to the problem. 3) Afghanistan Again, it felt good to watch the Taliban, the so-called center of gravity of al-Qaeda, rooted out and I am not arguing that they did not deserve what they got. But, again, the violence we unleashed has had unintended and unfortunate consequences. The country is unsafe, ruled by warlords, drug trafficking is on the increase and the Taliban is making a comeback in some areas. We continue to suffer casualties among our troops. 4) Lebanon and Syria Here again, the use of the threat of violence has helped to destabilize this region. With the rapid withdrawal of Syria, a vacuum has been created which will only encourage more violence as local power brokers scurry to gain advantage and push forward their own agendas. There is a real risk of sliding back into a state of civil war. This is sad, because, given time and peaceful conditions; Lebanon has the potential to develop into a form of home-grown democracy. James Baker has urged, in his report on future US strategy in Iraq to open direct, high-level talks with Iran and Syria. His call for dialogue and engagement are not different from the policy Syria has been preaching to re-launch the peace negotiations with Israel, "talk to your enemy".5) Iran Threats against Iran have only made that country more determined than ever to develop nuclear power and perhaps, eventually, nuclear weapons. The use of violence against Saddam Hussein, ironically, only served to convince the Iranians that nuclear weapons are a necessity. Had Saddam really had a nuclear option (as North Koreas possesses) The US would never have attacked. In all these cases, a non-violent option, as counterintuitive as it may seem, would have produced better results. It would have satisfied the needs of individuals in those countries for self-esteem, security and justice. If we look at countries or regions where there has been a successful resolution to their problems, non-violent means were opted for. The list is long: In Europe following WWII, instead of applying punitive measures against its enemies (as had been done following WWI). The US used its power and resources to rebuild its former enemies. In India, the Indian people forced the British to leave through mainly peaceful means and the Gandhi’s campaign of nonviolence is exemplary. In South Africa, after many decades of a particularly virulent and degrading racist regime, the people were able to remove it without the civil war that had been widely predicted. Our greatest enemy of the last 50 years, the communist USSR, was defeated without a shot ever being fired in anger. In areas where violence and wars have taken place: Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, there has been deterioration and none of the problems have been solved, even if the actual fighting has stopped. Violence perpetuates violence and the cycle is very vicious. However, in other places where non-violence was employed, there has been immense progress. It is the “greatest and activist force in the world.” Sincerely Huda Orfali, Arlington, VA © 2005