War: What is it good for?

This paragraph nicely encapsulates what initially brought me to The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). It highlights a unique process for coming to decisions, as well as Quaker peace testimony. From the book Friends For 350 Years by Howard Brinton:

If nonviolent methods, based on goodwill and an appeal to the inner sense of rightness in every man, are frequently successful in dealing with abnormal persons, they are more frequently successful in dealing with normal persons. No pacifist claims that his method is always successful. Every method fails sometimes, including the method based on violence. If two persons or two nations resort to fighting, one is bound to lose, so the method of fighting cannot at the most be more than 50 per cent successful. The nonviolent method may, however, operate in such a way that both sides win. Together they may arrive at a decision which is better than that which either one of the parties desired in the first place.

Many thinking, liberal people tend to dismiss pacifism out of hand as some wild-eyed, pie-in- the-sky notion. Some will condemn the current war (whatever war it happens to be) but insist that war in general is a necessary evil or part of the human condition.

I have to ask, when has war ever worked? WWI -- the war to end all wars? Nope. WWII, sometimes referred to as "the GOOD war"? Debatable. We were mucking about in Korea just a few years later. Vietnam? Oh, I forgot -- that wasn't a war, but it sure didn't do anybody any good. Has violence led to any kind of peace between a divided Korea, Israel and Palestine? Fast forward to the present, set Iraq aside for a moment, and let's just take a look at Afghanistan -- an intervention that many thinking, liberal people defended shortly after 9/11/01. Did it solve any problems? And Iraq? More American people are speaking out against it, but is that because they've had an awakening about the futility of war, or they believe "we" are "losing" this one? Is anybody better off because of war?

Well a small few, perhaps -- the members of the Carlisle Group, executives at Halliburton, Bechtel, Blackwater -- those who profit from the business of war. And that is what going to war is ultimately all about -- profiteering.

But why is it so difficult to convince the common people -- those who suffer, rather than profit from war -- that there is nothing unrealistic about finding nonviolent solutions. No more unrealistic than to think that fighting will lead to peace. (In the words of a 3-year old I know, "How silly is that?")

And one cannot simultaneously look for nonviolent solutions and continue to escalate the fight. (In other words, NO SURGE.)

Peaceful solutions aren't quick or easy. The official diplomatic solution, arrived at in a summit with heads of state may not produce a solution. Sometimes it has to be individuals like me or you who take the first steps toward peace, and we may not see the fruits for a long time. The alternative is a perpetual state of war, and we the people, our children, the planet ... cannot sustain or afford that anymore (as if we ever could.)