Warfare and Limits: A Losing Battle?

The collapse of the Cold War deterrence system has made nuclear warfare more likely; however, there is little outcry against nuclear weapons today [GALLO/GETTY]


Nationalism, The Dehumanisation Of Killing, and The Frustration Of Asymmetrical War Erode Traditional Limits On Warfare.

By Richard Falk
Last Modified: 01 Aug 2011 12:17
Courtesy Of "Al-Jazeera"


Dangerous pressures are pushing international warfare in the direction of the absolute, imperiling the future of mankind. Undoubtedly, the foremost of these pressures is the emergence, use, retention, and proliferation of nuclear weapons, as well as the development of biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction.

Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki there have been several close calls involving heightened dangers of nuclear war, especially during the 45 years of Cold War rivalry. None of these was more frightening than the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, when it took Soviet willingness to reverse their decision to deploy missiles in Cuba to avert a slide into catastrophic nuclear war.

To entrust such weaponry to the vagaries of political leadership and the whims of governmental institutions seems like a Mount Everest of human folly. Yet there is little outcry against nuclear weapons today, despite the collapse of the deterrence rationale that seemed to make reliance on the weaponry somewhat plausible during the decades of confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States. Even under Cold War conditions, deterrence was seen by peace activists as a form of geopolitical insanity widely known by the descriptive acronym "MAD", short for "Mutually Assured Destruction".

Underneath the tendency of powerful governments to develop whatever weapons and tactics technology can provide are the fragmented political identities of a world divided into sovereign political actors. The inhabitants of these states of greatly varying size, capabilities, vulnerabilities, cultural and political traditions have long been indoctrinated to approve blindly of the actions of their own state. The idolatrous eyes of nationalism treat the extermination of an enemy as an acceptable goal if necessary for national security, and even desirable, if it is seen as furthering national ambitions.

Beyond this, defending the security of one's own state is viewed as an unconditional prerogative, vindicating even a suicidal reliance on nuclear weaponry. The ideology of nationalism, nurturing the values of unquestioning patriotism and militarism in the modern West, have led to an orientation that can be described as secular fundamentalism, embodying imperial worldviews, however dysfunctional, given the risks and limits associated with continuing to seek desired political ends by relying on military superiority. The crime of treason reinforces these absolutist claims of the secular state by disallowing citizens of democratic states any right to claim conscience, law, and belief in support of their deviant behaviour.

'Militarist Frustration' Since WWII
Any objective study of international history will show that the militarily superior side has rarely prevailed in an armed conflict since the end of World War II unless it has also been able to command moral and legal legitimacy. The political failure of the colonial powers despite their military dominance provide many bloody illustrations of this recent trend toward militarist frustration, starting in the middle of the 20th century.

Because of entrenched bureaucratic and economic interests (the "military-industrial-media complex"), the evidence of the decline of hard-power geopolitics has been ignored. As a result, dysfunctional military solutions for conflicts continue to be relied upon in the West, especially by the United States, and costly and futile recourses to war are repeated over and over without lessons of restraint being learned. Experience, which might provide a rational limit on militarism, has been neglected; instead, old habits persist.

Another check on the excesses of warfare is supposedly provided by the inhibiting role of conscience, the ethical component of the human sensibility, that is supposed to be a hallmark of citizenship in liberal democracies. This sentiment was vividly expressed in a Bertolt Brecht poem, "A German War Primer":

General, your bomber is powerful   It smashes down forests and crushes a hundred men   But it has one defect:   It needs a driver.

A driver is both a human cost, and maybe a brake on excess, as Brecht suggests a few lines later:

General, man is very useful   He can fly and he can kill   But he has one defect:   He can think.

Of course, military training and discipline are dedicated to overcoming this defect, especially when complemented with nationalist ideologies. International humanitarian law has vainly been trying to impose limits on combat behaviour in wars, but almost always yields in practice to considerations of "military necessity".

The Nuremberg Trials decided that "superior orders" were no excuse if war crimes were committed, a breakthrough in establishing responsibility for adhering to law in relation to war, but flawed by its character as "victors' justice". Although beset by double standards, this Nuremberg tradition of imposing individual accountability for political and military leaders has persisted, and has recently been revived through the establishment of the International Criminal Court in 2002.

In the nuclear age, this process of dehumanising the military machine went further because the stakes were so high. I recall visiting the headquarters of the Strategic Air Command (SAC) at the height of the Cold War. SAC was responsible for the missile force that then targeted many cities in the Soviet Union. What struck me at the time was the seeming technocratic sensibility exhibited by those entrusted with operating the computers that would fire the missiles.

This amoral posture contrasted with the ideological zeal of the commanding generals who would give the orders to annihilate millions of civilians at distant locations. I was told at the time that the lower-ranked technical personnel had been tested to ensure that moral scruples would not interfere with their readiness to follow orders.

I found this mix of politically and morally driven commanders and amoral subordinates a most disturbing mix at the time, and still do, although I have not been invited back to SAC to see whether similar conditions now prevail. I suspect that they do, considering the differing requirements of the two roles. This view seems confirmed by the enthusiasm expressed for carrying on the "war on terror" in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Although my remarks here are confined to the United States, I would suppose they apply to other major governmental bureaucracies dealing with national security and war/peace issues.

Use Of Drones Dehumanises War

Now, new technological innovations in warfare are underlining these concerns. American reliance on drone attacks in Afghanistan (and elsewhere) removes the human altogether from the war theater, except in the geographically remote roles of programmer and strategic planner. And even then, reliance on algorithms for targeting removes any shred of personal responsibility. When mistakes are made, and innocent civilians are killed, it is treated as an unfortunate anomaly.

The tragic event is deprived of its human quality by being labeled "collateral damage", and a formal apology is usually made. But nevertheless, the practice goes on: the US is investing heavily in more and better drones for future wars. Eliminating the presence of human soldiers from the battlefield is a chilling development: historically, the fact that war put soldiers' lives at risk forced citizens to think about whether a war was morally right, or worth fighting. The anti-war sentiments of American soldiers in Vietnam exerted a powerful influence that helped over time finally to bring the war to an end.

Ultimately, what is at stake is the human spirit, which at the moment is being squeezed to near-death by technological momentum, corporate greed, militarism, and secular fundamentalism. The ultra-sophistication of the new weaponry and the accompanying military tactics create a new divide in the military sphere, giving rise to an era of virtually "casualty-free" and one-sided wars where the devastation and victimisation are shifted almost totally to the technologically inferior side. Examples include The Gulf War of 1991, the Kosovo War of 1999, and the Gaza Attacks of 2008-09. In the background, however, is the persisting threat of a use of nuclear weapons either by a state or an extremist non-state actor that could in a flash change this ratio of comparative vulnerability.

This web of historical forces continues to entrap major political actors in the world, and dims hopes for a sustainable future, even without taking into account the growing threat of climate change. Scenarios of future cyber warfare are also part of this evolving capacity to destroy distant societies without any human interaction. The cumulative effect of these developments threatens to make irrelevant the moral compass that alone provides acceptable guidance for a sustainable political future. Because international institutions remain too weak to provide global governance, reason and prudence remain the best hope to guide human destiny.

Richard Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Research Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He has authored and edited numerous publications spanning a period of five decades, most recently editing the volume International Law and the Third World: Reshaping Justice (Routledge, 2008) and Achieving Human Rights (Routledge 2009).


He is Chair of the Board, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and Director, Global Climate Change Project, UCSB. He is currently serving the fourth year of a six year term as a United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. 

Overcoming Injustice Together

The October 2011 Movement pledges that if any US troops remain in Afghanistan on October 6, 2011, a huge rally will be held in Freedom Plaza in Washington, DC [GALLO/GETTY]


A New US Movement Seeks To Unite Citizens In Overcoming Corruption, War, and Social Injustice.

By Kevin Zeese
Last Modified: 25 Jun 2011 08:34
Courtesy Of "Al-Jazeera"

Inspired by the courageous, nonviolent uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Greece, Spain and elsewhere, people in the United States have come together to form the October 2011 Movement. This fusion of peace, social justice, environmental, student, and immigrant rights organisations is in solidarity with all who seek a peaceful, just, and sustainable future and stands ready to engage in its own campaign of nonviolent resistance - beginning in Washington, DC, this October. We recognise that your revolution is our revolution, that the US empire prevents you from achieving self-determination and economic justice, and that only together can we achieve our shared goals. 

October marks the beginning of the 11th year of the US invasion and destruction of Afghanistan. It marks the beginning of yet another federal budget that delivers unlimited funds for war and corporate interests while putting in place an austerity budget for services that meet human and environmental needs. But this October will mark the beginning of something else in the United States - a moment when we will unite to demand an end to a system that puts profits and warfare over the welfare of people and the environment.

The response to our call, which just a few weeks old, has been tremendous. Already, more than one thousand people have pledged to join this resistance action in Freedom Square and that number is growing rapidly. Leading figures from a wide range of communities have stepped up to join the call. Among them are noted African-American scholar and activist Cornel West; Farm Labor Organising Committee (FLOC ) President Baldemar Velasquez; Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent and author Chris Hedges; single-payer health-care advocates Drs David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler; noted environmentalists Derrick Jensen and Harvey Wasserman; and anti-war leader, Colonel Ann Wright (retired), along with numerous other prominent peace activists. You can see more of the people who signed up by visiting our website.

History is knocking on the door of the United States and its people are ready. As the crises in our communities and around the world grow, so must our response. We can no longer abide the outrageous and growing wealth inequality in this country. We cannot accept a government "of, by and for" the corporations. We cannot remain silent while our leaders continue to exploit and slaughter people in distant lands or while millions of us have no access to health care. A majority of Americans want the wars to end. We want investment in jobs, education, and environmental protection. We want banks to invest for our future, not for their executives' pocketbooks. We want laws that are just, lawmakers who obey them, and the power to hold them accountable when they do not. For that, we need a judiciary biased toward justice, not the partisan powers and big business interests they serve.

In the United States, the people have little voice in the process of governance, as elected officials and institutions have been corrupted by concentrated corporate interests that have bought and paid for them. The people have no control over their own lives and the direction of their own communities. The brave who speak out for justice are often ignored, harassed, or imprisoned. Unified resistance has become the essential avenue for change.

Our time has come. We pledge to stand together in nonviolent resistance to corporate greed, government corruption, violence and injustice. We must follow our brave brothers and sisters of the Arab Spring and developing European Summer into an Autumn of an American awakening. With our bodies united in resistance and our voices coalesced into one sustained cry for justice, we can and must stop the machine and create a new world. 

It is very difficult for us to get honest information about democracy movements around the world from the US corporate-controlled media. Please visit our website at www.october2011.org and keep us informed of your actions. We have called our action "Stop the Machine! Create a New World!" Together we will end concentrated corporatism and create a peaceful, just, and sustainable future that respects all of humanity and the planet.

Environmental campaigner and political activist Kevin Zeese wrote this piece on behalf of the October2011.org movement, a coalition of individuals and organisations seeking to end corporatism and militarism in the United States.

Congressional Representation Or Repression?

By Dallas Darling
Courtesy Of "World News Network"

When Congressman Allen West, Republican from Florida, reacted strongly against a bipartisan amendment to end the trillion dollar war in Afghanistan by declaring anti-war colleagues should "get shot" to understand the true threat of the Taliban, it showed how representation can sometimes turn into repression. Sadly, it also revealed a tyrannical past of how other anti-war members of Congress, starting with Jeanette Rankin, have been repeatedly bullied and even threatened.

Elected to the House of Representatives in 1916, Rankin was the first woman to serve in Congress. She believed in true representation, in that, she wanted to characterize to the best of her ability the men, women and children from the state of Montana. She also thought it was of vital importance to express clearly that the women in America were now going to hold Congress accountable in dealing with the nation's important issues like child labor, education, illegal monopolist practices, sexism, racism, and pacifism.

Initially, and when she took her oath of office, Rankin was greeted with cheers and loud applause from both parties. Congresses' euphoria over the first female representative was short lived, though, due to her pacifist views. Her pacifist views towards war would be severely tested when on April 4, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson appeared before Congress asking for a declaration of war against Germany. After a House debate over the war resolution, Rankin was called upon to vote.

Subsequent to having been pressured by other members of Congress to vote for "yes" for a declaration of war, Rankin recounts how "it was a different roll call from any I had ever seen from the gallery, and that "every vote was watched with intensity and scrutiny." Rankin finally stood and said, "I want to stand by my country. But I cannot vote for war. I vote no."(1) Immediately, some Congressional members booed and hissed. Others rushed over and tried bullying and threatening her to change her mind.

In Montana's "Helena Independent," Rankin was labeled a "dagger in the hands of the German propagandist, a dupe of the Kaiser, a member of the Hun army in the United States."(2) Rumors spread that she was crying while casting her vote and therefore, she was timid, weak, feeble-minded, and not fit to lead Montana or to be a Congresswoman. At the same time, verbal death threats abounded while hate mail poured in. This occurred despite many in the nation wanting to stay out of war too.

The war to end all wars and to make the world safe for democracy, just like the preemptive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, was questionable at best. Not only did U.S. entrance into World War One prolong the conflict, but it allowed the Allies to punish Germany, taking territories away and forcing Germany to admit to the guilt of the war. It also led to political and economic upheavals in both Europe and the U.S. Meanwhile, Wall Street investments and American armaments industries grew dependent on Europe.

Over the years, Congress became a mascot for corporate warmongers and imprisoned by executive war powers. By saying that he would like to take his anti-war colleagues over to Afghanistan and let them get shot at a few times by the Taliban, so as to change their minds, West is merely mirroring years of repressing dissent and freedom in Congress. He also made disparaging remarks about Islam, claiming the Quran commands Muslims to carry out attacks against innocent people. He has yet to prove the existence a passage.

West, a Tea Party favorite and a retired Army officer who was discharged after beating an unarmed Iraqi and shooting at his head, finally won a seat in Congress by raising millions of dollars and by outspending his opponent nearly two to one. He initially appointed Joyce Kaufman as chief of staff. Kaufman had to resign, though, after she said immigrants who commit crimes should be hanged and that bullets sometimes work better than ballots. West has shared similar sentiments in Town Hall Meetings.

As West accuses Congressional members of "not fighting a smart war" for wanting to end the enormous military expenditures in Afghanistan, he might want to know that a majority of Americans believe the war in Afghanistan has been too costly. In truth, it is bankrupting the nation. With millions of people unemployed and without food and medicines, and with millions more, including children, slipping into poverty and homelessness, it appears West is the one not fighting a smart war.

Representative government is supposed to be a government authorized by the people to act on their behalf. Representation should always improve the public debate by causing ideas to be refined through a select body of citizens. It is obvious West is only serving his own narrow militant-like ideologies and interests, ones that have been bought with millions of dollars. He is also trying to demean and silence others, including the ability to think and question freely and to debate openly.

In a representative democracy, people are theoretically sovereign. But once they elect representatives, the people retain their sovereignty only in a passive sense until the next election. They remain passive, that is, only if they wait for the next election. In the face of West's austere repression and attempted purge of pro-peace Congressional colleagues, Floridians cannot remain idle until the next election. They should either petition West for his irresponsible comments or remove him from office.

If Floridians do not recall West, then, they are really only free at the time of the election. (Unfortunately, the same could also be said of most Americans wanting to end the war in Afghanistan.) Remember too, and like Rankin said, there are other ways to stand by one's nation other than being a soldier for needless wars and an imperial army. In this crucial juncture of American history, the true citizen warrior might be the one who rejects congressional repression and a police state and its wars.

Dallas Darling (darling@wn.com)

(*Note: At this moment, the U.S.-Afghan War is costing Americans $10 billion each month. Having lasted more than ten years and with no end in sight, the price tag of the war is, and will continue to be, exorbitant, even unaffordable.)

(Dallas Darling is the author of Politics 501: An A-Z Reading on Conscientious Political Thought and Action, Some Nations Above God: 52 Weekly Reflections On Modern-Day Imperialism, Militarism, And Consumerism in the Context of John's Apocalyptic Vision, and The Other Side Of Christianity: Reflections on Faith, Politics, Spirituality, History, and Peace. He is a correspondent for www.worldnews.com. You can read more of Dallas' writings at www.beverlydarling.com and wn.com//dallasdarling.)

(1) Boller, Paul F. Congressional Anecdotes. New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 1991, p.207.

(2) Ibid., p. 207.

Occupy Washington To End The Wars

By Nicholas Kramer,
March 16, 2011
Courtesy Of "Anti-War"

As I wrote previously, I am a former congressional aide. I worked for a United States senator from 2006 to 2008. During that time, as an employee of the legislative branch of the U.S. empire, I directly contributed to the oppression, torture, and murder of people I never met. While I can never atone for the past and present horrors committed in my name, I believe that we have the power to stop the empire here and now; moreover, we have the duty to exercise that power. As our troops invade and occupy foreign lands—contrary to our true national security interests, economic well-being, and morality—I see no other option but for the American antiwar community to invade and occupy the United States Congress.

During my time in Washington, D.C., I observed the effects of several antiwar protests. The largest of these protests were the typical Iraq war “anniversary” marches held around March 19 every year. I attended one of these marches, which was held on a Saturday. The march began at the National Mall with a variety of speakers espousing antiwar messages, after which the protesters peaceably made their way through the pre-approved parade route around the Capitol building and White House. Although I had a good time, as an antiwar activist I could not help but thinking that all we accomplished that day was to gather a bunch of people who already agreed with each other and talk about how much we all agreed. This may be great for morale and networking, but it does nothing to stop war.

As a congressional aide, however, observing the tens of thousands of people who had traveled across the country to protest in Washington, I had another thought: if a sizable percentage of the “American people” really cared enough about ending the wars or the entire U.S. empire, it would happen. As much as the entire system is broken and corrupted by money and special interests, a republic at its heart still requires the consent of the governed to function.

No matter how many protesters come to Washington, if you march on a weekend and don’t cause any trouble, no one in power will care and nothing will change. If I hadn’t attended the protest that day, I wouldn’t have had any idea that it had even taken place. Official Washington effectively shuts down over the weekend as legislators return to their home districts to raise money while staffers from all branches of government spend time with their families. If you want to be noticed, you need to make serious disruptions in the normal flow of the rulers’ lives, and you need to do it while senators, representatives, and their staffs are busy performing the work of empire. These disruptions must be targeted directly at those who have the constitutional authority to end the wars and, ultimately, the empire. As we approach yet another anniversary of the start of the U.S. war in Iraq, please consider the following thoughts and advice from a former collaborator within the legislative branch on how you can make your protests more effective, and why it is time to engage in civil disobedience on a massive scale.

1. Many of the government staffers and perhaps even some elected representatives already agree with you, at least in premise. Believe it or not, most of these staffers started out their careers as idealists hoping to change things for the better, and many of them came to Washington with a specific interest in foreign policy. Because of the near-universal appeal of the antiwar message (I challenge anyone to read Ivan Eland’s brilliant The Empire Has No Clothes and still support war afterward), all that these staffers are lacking is a bit of education and a strong incentive to act. I hold the same views now as I did when I worked in Congress, but because the constituents from my senator’s state were not demanding an end to the wars, I did not have the backup (or the backbone) to advocate my true views. Give these people the cover (and the push) they need, and they will support you. I personally witnessed the fear with which my senator’s chief of staff reacted to a group of five antiwar activists visiting our office; imagine if those five had been followed by 500 more, and if that pattern held in every office in the Congress. Now imagine each congressmember’s own staffers joining the protesters as history begins to change. In the face of the moral support provided by your numbers and dedication, I promise you that many congressional staffers will remember their ideals and convictions and yearn to live up to them.
2. If you give your elected representatives no other choice but to listen to you, they will. If a politician, no matter how corrupt, believes that his or her support for war will prevent his or her reelection, he or she will act and vote accordingly. It is as simple as that. When I worked in Congress, my senator generally received fewer than 10 letters and calls per week from constituents on war; these tended to be split fairly evenly between pro-war and antiwar views and were generally from the same people every week (the “regulars,” as we knew them). This did not provide my senator with any reason to believe he should work to end the wars. Now imagine how that opinion might change if our office had been flooded with thousands of antiwar calls on anything resembling a regular basis. Now consider what would happen if those thousands of calls were not calls, but people—more specifically, voting members of the elected representative’s constituency. Finally, envision those people refusing to leave until the wars are over.
3. Ending the wars and dismantling the empire will require real sacrifices. In December 2010, 131 veterans and other activists chose to be arrested in a symbolic act of protest in front of the White House. That is not nearly enough. Are there not 1,000 people in America who are willing to risk something as minor as arrest to stop the murder of people around the world in our names? Are there not 10,000 Americans who care enough for the security of our great nation to endure a few hours in jail? If hundreds of thousands of Egyptians and Tunisians and Libyans can face down tanks and machine-gun fire, surely there are more than a handful of Americans who have the courage and dedication to do more than march in compliance with government permits. I submit to you that the U.S. Capitol and its House and Senate office buildings have a relatively limited number of entrances and exits, and most of these are accessible to the public—in fact, there is nothing to prevent as many people as wish to from peacefully entering these buildings. If you thousands upon thousands of antiwar activists are going to visit Washington in any case, why not plan a visit to the workplaces of your elected representatives as well—all at once? It took the people of Egypt 18 days to begin a process of drastic change against what seemed to be insurmountable odds. How long do you think it would take us if only we acted as bravely?

It is not enough to march on the weekend along pre-approved parade routes. It is not enough to write a letter to your elected representative every week if you are the only one doing it. It is not enough to sit down in front of the White House to be arrested. Given that the wars still go on, none of what we have done to this point is enough. Thousands of antiwar Americans will be gathering as usual in Washington on March 19; we must do more. It is time to remind our representatives exactly who it is that they represent and how we feel about what is being done in our names.

Sincerely,
Nicholas Kramer
Former associate investigator, U.S. Senate

War (No More Trouble)

Performed By "Playing For Change"



Artist: Bob Marley
Album: Babylon By Bus (1978)
Song: War (No More Trouble)
Country: Jamaica

Until the philosophy which holds one race
Superior and another inferior
Is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned
Everywhere is war, me say war


That until there is no longer first class
And second class citizens of any nation
Until the colour of a man's skin
Is of no more significance than the colour of his eyes
Me say war


That until the basic human rights are equally
Guaranteed to all, without regard to race
Dis a war


That until that day
The dream of lasting peace, world citizenship
Rule of international morality
Will remain in but a fleeting illusion
To be pursued, but never attained
Now everywhere is war, war


And until the ignoble and unhappy regimes
That hold our brothers in Angola, in Mozambique,
South Africa sub-human bondage
Have been toppled, utterly destroyed
Well, everywhere is war, me say war


War in the east, war in the west
War up north, war down south
War, war, rumours of war


And until that day, the African continent
Will not know peace, we Africans will fight
We find it necessary and we know we shall win
As we are confident in the victory


Of good over evil, good over evil, good over evil
Good over evil, good over evil, good over evil

http://playingforchange.com - As we made our way around the world we encountered love, hate, rich and poor, black and white, and many different religious groups and ideologies. It became very clear that as a human race we need to transcend from the darkness to the light and music is our weapon of the future. This song around the world features musicians who have seen and overcome conflict and hatred with love and perseverance. We dont need more trouble, what we need is love. The spirit of Bob Marley always lives on.

This is the fourth Song Around The World video released from the CD/DVD Playing For Change: Songs Around The World and the follow up to the classics "Stand By Me," "One Love" and "Don't Worry." This unforgetable track was performed by musicians around the world adding their part to the song as it traveled the globe.

Order the CD/DVD Playing For Change Songs Around The World" now at amazon.com!
http://tinyurl.com/c6mhgd

The Playing For Change "Songs Around The World" CD/DVD is also available at your neighborhood Starbucks and everywhere music is sold.

Order the "War/No More Trouble," "Stand By Me," "Don't Worry," and "One Love" videos and the new Songs Around The World album now at itunes!
http://tinyurl.com/pfcitunes

Sign up at http://playingforchange.com for updates and exclusive content. You can also buy cool stuff in our new online store!

Join the Playing for Change Online Street Team at:
http://ufanz.com/teams/playingforchange

Join the movement to help inspire people from around the world to come together through music.

The Missing Story Of Muslim Peacemaking

By Kimber J. Heinz
November 5th, 2010
Courtesy Of "Dissident Voice"

Today, November 5, 2010, marks the one-year anniversary of the Fort Hood shooting, in which former Army psychiatrist Major Nadal Halik Hasan shot and killed 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, wounding 42 others. As U.S. servicemembers and the families of the victims of this shooting grieved for those who were killed and Americans mourned the loss of life, reports on these crimes riveted the mainstream media. The shootings were certainly newsworthy. The problem is that almost the only time Muslims are featured in the U.S. news media is when a Muslim engages in an act of violence. A one-sided focus on violence committed by some Muslims fuels the racist narrative that “Islam is a religion of violence—which underwrites the so-called “Global War on Terror.”

In spite of ongoing efforts by many in the Muslim religious community and Muslim-American organizations, the long and vital history of Muslim peacemaking has been lost in the avalanche of reports on Muslims where the mainstream media connects them only with violent extremism. The lack of acknowledgement and recognition in the U.S. of Muslim peacemakers continues to have grave effects on Muslims all over the world as well as those at home in the U.S. In addition, the ongoing hyper-focus by the U.S. state and mainstream media on Islamic militants to the exclusion of those Muslims whose peacemaking efforts oppose militarism of all kinds continues to prop up and justify ongoing U.S.-backed military occupations, including those of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine.

Private First Class Naser Abdo, a 20-year-old Muslim servicemember currently serving in the U.S. Army and seeking Conscientious Objector (C.O.) status on the grounds of Islam, is a Muslim peacemaker. He states, “As I studied Islam and Islam’s commitment to peace, I developed an entirely new perspective on war and conscience… That’s when I realized my conscience would not allow me to deploy.” Pfc. Abdo’s C.O. case still awaits an Army recommendation of discharge from the military based on moral, ethical, and religious objection to all wars. Abdo is facing possible deployment to Afghanistan in spite of his C.O. claim, though Army commanders decided to delay his deployment after he went public with his case. Speaking out as a Muslim, Abdo is against war and has been working with nonviolent antiwar organizations including the War Resisters League and Quaker House in Fayetteville, NC on building public support for his objection to war on the grounds of Islam.

Several Muslim-American organizations in the U.S., such as the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, have been key supporters of Pfc. Abdo’s claim for Conscientious Objector status based on the principles of Islam. In a statement released by this organization in support of Pfc. Abdo, long-time Muslim peacemaker and anti-militarist Ibrahim Ramey states, “We believe that his position is not a product of personal cowardice or disloyalty to his nation, but rather, a coherent expression of his faith and his personal belief in the tenets and laws of the religion of Islam.” In a separate statement, Ramey further underscores the U.S. government and mainstream media blackout of Muslim opposition to militarism: “Major Muslim efforts for peace-making in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, and other conflict spots are virtually unknown to U.S. news consumers, and even to policy makers. In my opinion, this phenomenon plays into the hands of institutions that seek to permanently militarize the U.S. economy by creating the illusion that Muslims are ‘the enemy’ and must therefore be controlled or eliminated for the sake of ‘democracy.’”

Many other Muslim organizations also attest to the importance of U.S. recognition of Muslim peacemaking efforts. In “An Open Letter to President Obama” sent on the eve of his visit to Egypt to address the Muslim World in May 2009, 1,600 American-Muslim and non-Muslim scholars on the Middle East called on the U.S. government to recognize nonviolent Muslim leaders: “For too long, American policy in the Middle East has been paralyzed by fear of Islamist parties coming to power…However, most mainstream Islamist groups in the region are nonviolent and respect the democratic process.” This letter further urges the U.S. to discontinue its support for violent political regimes in Central Asia and support democracy through peaceful policies: “The United States, for half a century, has frequently supported repressive regimes that routinely violate human rights, and that torture and imprison those who dare criticize them and prevent their citizens from participation in peaceful civic and political activities…There is no doubt that the people of the Middle East long for greater freedom and democracy…What they need from your administration is a commitment to encourage political reform not through wars, threats, or imposition, but through peaceful policies that reward governments that take active and measurable steps towards genuine democratic reforms.”

Despite the ongoing work of Muslim peacemakers and antimilitarists, Muslims living both inside and outside of the U.S. continue to feel the deeply negative effects of the dominant culture’s association of Muslims with terrorism and violence, often referred to as “Islamophobia.” In the U.S. military, Pfc. Abdo experienced a great deal of harassment and discrimination from his fellow servicemembers: “Early in basic training… one soldier repeatedly insulted me and Islam saying, ‘Go pray to your god that doesn’t exist or your pedophile prophet.’…During the training cycle I persistently reassured my comrades that my religion did not make me an enemy of theirs or an enemy of the state. The climax of this harassment occurred when my comrades all made a concerted effort to get me an unwanted discharge because I was not welcome in their ranks.”

These acts mirror the broader U.S. climate of discrimination against Muslims, as evidenced in the media craze surrounding the “Ground Zero Mosque,” otherwise known as the proposed construction of the Park 51 Muslim Community Center in Lower Manhattan. The association of Islam with terror also served to spark the “International Burn-a-Quran Day” controversy out of Gainesville, Florida, which made national headlines on the ninth anniversary of the September 11th attacks. Just a few short weeks ago, a white New York City passenger named Michael Enright shouted, “Asalamualaykum, consider this a checkpoint!” prior to slashing the throat of Ahmad Sharif, the Muslim cab driver.

Furthermore, U.S.-backed war and occupation has been disastrous for Muslims living all over the world. The Iraq War Logs, which include close to 400,000 classified U.S. Army intelligence documents, were recently released by Wikileaks and include accounts of the violent deaths of 66,081 Iraqi civilians, along with reports by the military that confirm widespread killing and abuse of Iraqi civilians by U.S. military forces and U.S. contractors. The documents also reveal U.S. military instructions from high up the chain of command to ignore detainee abuse by Iraqi authorities. In the U.S.-led counter-insurgency war in Afghanistan, there has been 31% increase in Afghan civilian deaths and a staggering 55% increase in child casualties so far this year as a result of the war, according to the latest statistics from the United Nations. The U.S. is also conducting air strikes and Special Forces operations in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia and is slated to send $3 billion in military aid to Israel for FY2011 in support of its military occupation of Palestine.

The abuse and killing of Muslims isn’t an accidental byproduct of the U.S. military pursuit of a select group of Muslim extremists. It is the direct result and the intended effect of the U.S. government decision to go to war in pursuit of military-backed power in Central and South Asia. When the mainstream media in the US focuses solely on Muslims as violent extremists, it acts to provide a justification for these wars. The direct link made between Islam and terror also provides cover for waging war against a people, not simply targeting a few individuals, because according to this narrative, any Muslim could be a terrorist.

It is for this reason that we as people living in the U.S. must work to undo the deeply harmful effects of this narrative on the lives of Muslims living both in the U.S. and abroad and construct new narratives not premised on the logic of war and imperialism. We must lift up the stories and ongoing work of Muslim peacemakers like Naser Abdo. We must continue to make the connections between the over-amplification of violent acts committed by small groups of Islamic militants and the ongoing need for the U.S. government to attempt to justify unjust war and occupation. In a statement in a press conference earlier last month, Pfc. Abdo was clear in making this connection:

“In reference to ‘Islamaphobia’ as it pertains to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan there is much that I have come to understand as a Muslim Conscientious Objector. As a Conscientious Objector, I am morally disinclined to associate terror with Islam as is often the case during routine training exercises…To a soldier, the association of terror and Islam serves the purpose of falsely justifying ones actions in combat by stripping Muslims of their humanity. The association of terror and Islam is what we now refer to as ‘Islamaphobia.’…It is as if the U.S. public is just recently following a trend that has been rampant in the military for years. Only when the military and America can disassociate Muslims from terror can we move onto a brighter future of religious collaboration and dialogue that defines America and makes me proud to be an American.”

For more information on Naser Abdo’s case.

Kimber J. Heinz is the Organizing Coordinator of the War Resisters League. Read other articles by Kimber, or visit Kimber's website.

Avatar: A Humanist Call From Mt. Hollywood

James Cameron's Anti-War Film

By GILAD ATZMON
Weekend Edition
January 1 - 3, 2010
Courtesy Of CounterPunch

Avatar may well be the biggest anti War film of all time. It stands against everything the West is identified with. It is against greed and capitalism, it is against interventionism, it is against colonialism and imperialism, it is against technological orientation, it is against America and Britain. It puts Wolfowitz, Blair and Bush on trial without even mentioning their names. It enlightens the true meaning of ethics as a dynamic judgmental process rather than fixed moral guidelines (such as the Ten Commandments or the 1948 Human Right Declaration).

It throws a very dark light on our murderous tendencies towards other people, their belief and rituals. But it doesn’t just stop there. In the same breath, very much like German Leben philosophers, it praises the power of nature and the attempt to bond in harmony with soil, the forest and the wildlife. It advises us all to integrate with our surrounding reality rather than impose ourselves on it. Very much like German Idealists and early Romanticists, it raises questions to do with essence, existence and the absolute. It celebrates the true meaning of life and livelihood. (Lebensphilosophie- German, life philosophy, or philosophy of life. A term for the general emphasis on ‘life’ as an important philosophical vocabulary. Generally speaking the Leben Philosophers stood for paying philosophical attention to life as it is lived ‘from the inside’, as opposed to Kantian abstractions, scientific reductions, positivism and naturalism.)

It is pretty astonishing and cheering to discover Hollywood paving the way to the victorious return of German philosophical thought.

The year is 2154 and the RDA corporation is mining planet Pandora digging for Unobtanium, a unique mineral that defies gravity and sells for top cash. Pandora is a remote planet inhabited by the Na’vi, a species that shares some human features. Like humans the Na’vi have their own developed language and high culture. Yet unlike westerners they integrate with their surrounding reality searching for harmony in nature rather than looking for a means to exploit it. The Na’vi are a few feet taller than humans, they are extremely strong, they also possess a long impressive tail and a long plait with a unique bond at its end that operate as an organic USB connection.

The bond allows the Na’vi to form a mental and spiritual union with their surrounding organic reality. The Na’vi cherish their planet, they look after it. They also worship a mother goddess called Eywa, who encompasses the integrated spiritual and physical centre of their universe and it’s past.

In order to penetrate into the Na’vi, human scientists genetically engineered human-na’vi hybrid bodies called Avatars. Like in all Western interventionalist and colonial wars, the foreign invader insists on convincing itself that it can create some false needs amongst the indigenous population. The RDA corporation takes pride in its attempt ‘to bring culture to Pandora’. The Avatars are there to communicate with the Na’vi. They are there to teach them English and Western values. They are there to maintain order so that the Na’vi fail to notice that their soil is raped and robbed by the Humans. But as we soon learn, such an attempt is in vein. The Humans have nothing to offer which the Na’vi are willing to take.

Jake Sully a paraplegic former marine is an Avatar. With the support of the appropriate advanced technology and machinery he operates a Na’vi/Avatar hybrid.

Pretty soon Jake, as an Avatar, manages to make contact with the Na’vi. He even manages to infiltrate into their civilization. Colonel Miles Quaritch, the fierce mercenary leader of the security forces, offers Jake to have his legs repaired in exchange for providing intelligence about the Na’vi.

Though Jake is initially happy to provide the goods, it is just a question of time before the ex- marine, changes his league. Through the eyes of the Avatar, Jake sees truthfulness in harmony. However, through his training and life experience he knows what Human genocidal brutality is all about. He prefers harmony over racial brotherhood.

As the plot unfolds, both Jake and the Avatar scientific team understand that the corporation and Colonel Quaritch are preparing for a total war against the Na’vi and their civilization. The scientific team unite together with Jake against the corporation and the mercenary force. They are committed to save the Na’vi. Augustine, the professor behind the Avatar project who is genuinely fascinated by the Pandora magic and motivated by true knowledge-seeking, makes up her mind; she says NO to technology. She betrays the company that finances her research and eventually gives her life to her subject of research instead.

As the movie reaches its dramatic peak, Jake, the Avatar, the ex-human spy is leading the Na’vi defensive war against the Humans. As the mercenary colonel is closing in on the sacred site, the Na’vi fight back fiercely against the superior technological might. The Na’vi suffer heavy casualties. When all hope seems lost, the Pandoran wildlife joins the Na’vi and attack the humans in great numbers, overwhelming them in the air and on the ground.

The film ends with Jake being successfully transplanted into his Na'vi Avatar. We also see the remnants of the human army marching to a sky shuttle that will transport them out of Pandora. The message of the 300 million cinematic spectacle is clear: NO to war, NO to greed, NO to intervention, No to throwing bombs, YES to nature, harmony and respecting the beliefs of others.

I recently learned that Avatar drew some criticism for its alleged ‘racist subtext’. “Na’vi might be blue aliens” says one British commentator “but they’re also blue aliens with Masai-style necklaces…acted by mostly black actors. They’re also rescued from destruction by a white character – played, of course, by a white actor – who becomes one of them”. The idea of a “white liberal man as the saviour of the so-called primitive natives” seems to deliver a ‘patronising’ message.

I find it hard to take these arguments seriously. The Sci-fi genre is creating an imaginary fantastic reality that thrives on familiarity. James Cameron, the man behind the Avatar spectacle, based the Na’vi on an amalgam of many non-white aspects: African tribal markings, Native American settings, Jamaican hair styles and so on. Yet, he manages to evoke empathy in us towards the so-called ‘alien’ rather than towards the Human. This alone should be enough to defy the politically correct accusation of ‘racist subtext’ behind the film.

However, the criticism against Cameron drew my attention to the role of the Avatar as a double agent. Towards the final scene Colonel Quaritch blames Jake for “betraying his race”. Jake indeed changes sides; he is doing it for a good cause. And as it seems, the Na’vi and Pandora couldn’t prevail without him, they needed his leadership. In order to win the battle they needed a leader that is deeply familiar with the enemy's tactics and mode of thought.

One of the reasons that America is defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan is the obvious fact that many Iraqis and Afghans had been educated in American universities and are familiar with the American way, yet, not many within the American elite or military command understand Islam. Not many amongst the American or British leadership are graduates of Kabul or Baghdad universities.

However, as in the case of Avatar, by the time America and Britain will start to train its forces to understand Islam, it may as well be ready for its new enlightened soldiers to change sides once they arrive on the battlefield.
I would maintain that to stand up against your own people for an ethical cause is the real meaning of humanism and liberty. Yet, it is pretty astonishing that such an inspiring message is delivered by Hollywood. We may have to admit, once again, that it is the artist and creative mind (rather than the politician) who is there to shape our reality and present a prospect of a better, amicable future by the means of aesthetics.

Gilad Aztmon is a writer and jazz musician living in London. His latest cd is In Loving Memory of America.