Keuka College opinions & editorials

Alternatives to Violence in the War on Terror

by Jeffery Krans, professor of political science and economics

Published Nov 6, 2006

If someone asked you to name five military heroes, chances are your responses would flow easily. What if someone asked you to name five recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize? That would be a tougher assignment because we tend to celebrate military prowess. Could that have something to do with a preference for military "can do" responses to challenges society faces?  We need to think about alternatives to violence and apply them to the current War on Terror. We need to be peaceful if we want peace.

In Costa Rica, there is a socially articulated preference for peace.  President Arias created a peace plan that brought democracy and an end to war after a decade of violence in Central America. He didn't even have an army. For his efforts, he won the Nobel Peace Prize. 

Arias knew that peace could come about only when combatants realized that the use of force is futile. After years of fighting in Nicaragua and El Salvador, with conflict spilling over into Honduras and Costa Rica, Arias persuaded combatants on all sides that their long struggle could not be resolved militarily. He suggested U.N.-monitored free and democratic elections, economic cooperation, and other peaceful strategies. His diplomacy worked.

The United States has used overwhelming military power to bring about regime change in Iraq as part of its War on Terror. Have we created peace there? Arguably, we are fueling the fires of terrorism. Al Queda was not a problem in Iraq before the United States occupation of that country but it is now. The United States must learn that force in this situation is futile.

There are alternative strategies that those in power today have rejected, but that may produce more favorable outcomes. As citizens, we need to demand that our government examine those alternatives and not just "stay the course." We need to elect representatives who will thoughtfully consider those alternatives. It is time to send this administration a message.

The United States is not the only power capable of bringing an end to sectarian violence and lending a hand to nation building after the war in Iraq. Perhaps the United States is exactly the wrong power to do these things. The present administration wisely deferred to U.N. peacekeepers for southern Lebanon recently and is negotiating for U.N. sanctions against Korea now. Why not turn to the United Nations in the Iraqi situation? It can provide peacekeeping forces to separate the factions in Iraq.

Many in Europe and elsewhere have expressed a need to work within the global community to isolate Islamic extremists politically and use the legal system to

criminalize and punish terrorist behavior. We need to recognize and work to reverse the economic and social injustices fueling the hopelessness that sends so many otherwise peaceful people into the hands of the extremists. We should find peaceful means to persuade, rather than force our hand militarily.

Non-violence is about respecting, caring, understanding and supporting, while violence is about using force, hurting, and seeking revenge. Choosing the path of non-violence in the face of the 9/11 attacks or the escalating violence in Iraq is difficult. We need to understand the domestic political dynamic in those countries where terrorists are being recruited. Can we help provide hope to people on the edge of despair? They might not join terrorists if we help relieve their frustrations.

We tend to be gripped by fear when we are constantly reminded that the forces of evil exist and have the United States in their sights. Fear can freeze our thinking. Revenge, and the awesome use of power, energize us. Alternatively, if we take control of our fear, we can understand creative alternatives to the use of force. Let our fear inform us. Send a message to those who govern this great nation that we need not be frozen in fear; rather, we can be the beacon of hope that we have always been. We can work for economic and social justice through peaceful and non-violent means.

A mobile of origami peace cranes hangs over my desk. My daughter made it on Sept. 12, 2001.  She had gathered friends on the Middlebury (Vermont) Green that day to take action. Hundreds joined the effort to make peace the answer. The message did not get through in sufficient numbers to affect the administration then, but five years later, perhaps it is time to try again.

If more people saw the world through my daughter's eyes, there would be more love and understanding and less hatred and violence. It begins with recognizing that violence breeds violence, that force is futile. Jimmy Carter, Martin Luther King Jr., Anwar Sadat, Menachem Begin, and Nelson Mandela all received Nobel Peace Prizes for their efforts to see the world through more peaceful eyes. Let us create a preference for peace instead of celebrating military prowess.

Other recent opinions & editorials

Apr 27, 2007

Cultural Sensitivity and Safety Shouldn't be Mutually Exclusive by Vicki Smith, professor and chair of occupational therapy, Keuka College

Nov 22, 2006

It’s Still Armistice Day for the 14 Veterans of World War I by Sander Diamond, professor of history, Keuka College

Nov 9, 2006

Reflecting on Nov. 9 by Sander A. Diamond, professor of history, Keuka College

Print editoral/opinion | Return to previous page | Keuka.edu | Office of Communications

Office of Communications, Keuka College, Keuka Park, New York 14478