Christmas
is traditionally thought of as a season of peace. Warring nations sometimes
declare a Christmas ceasefire, the Pope's Christmas message is ordinarily a
call for peace, and around the world churchgoers will hear sermons and offer prayers
for an end to violence. Even as we watch the continuing struggles in
Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Colombia, Somalia, and elsewhere, and even as the
world's nations continue to devote more than one-and-a-half trillion dollars
each year to preparations for war, billions of people remain united in the hope
that such tragic waste will one day end.
This
will be my last post before Christmas Day, and though I'm not a believer, today
I'm thinking about peace. Realists are often portrayed as grim and gloomy hawks
who believe that human beings can never fully overcome the insecurities of the
state of nature, but that's a misleading caricature at best. True, realists are
mindful of human frailties, convinced that the lack of a central authority in
world affairs creates powerful incentives for states to compete, and aware that
sometimes this competition leads to the use of force. But realists take no joy
in this situation -- as John Mearsheimer emphasizes, this feature of power
politics is a tragedy -- and realists are
therefore deeply concerned with finding ways to keep these dangerous and destructive
tendencies in check. Because realists appreciate the evils that war
brings, it is hardly surprising that they have been at the forefront of
opposition to foolish wars such as Vietnam
or Iraq.
Given
all we know about the costs and risks of war -- a lesson that the past decade
should have seared into our collective consciousness -- what I find both
striking and depressing is the enthusiasm that so many commentators still have
for more of the same. We still have a chorus of pundits eager for war with
Iran, for example, and there's another well-populated choir convinced that the
answers to contemporary global problems are more drone strikes, more energetic
use of special forces and covert action, and greater secrecy here at home.
And
what is equally striking is that the goal of peace plays a miniscule role in
contemporary political discourse. As my colleague Nicholas Burns points out in
a must-read
column in today's Boston Globe, with
the exception of libertarian Ron Paul,none
of the current presidential contenders have made peace a central theme in their
campaign. It was not always this way: our first president, George Washington,
once said that "My
first wish is to see this plague of mankind, war, banished from the earth,"
and Abraham Lincoln understood that "war at the best is terrible." Woodrow
Wilson may have lent his name to the sometimes overweening U.S. effort to
spread democratic ideals around the globe, but he also warned his countrymen to
exercise the "self-restraint of a truly great nation, which realizes its
own power and scorns to misuse it." And let us not forget that
Dwight D. Eisenhower, who knew as much about war as any American, once remarked
that "America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our
unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use
our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment."
Yet
such sentiments seem notably absent in the hearts of those who now seek to be
commander-in-chief, including the present incumbent. As Burns observes, even
Obama's speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize
was mostly a defense of the necessity of force. And today, most of the presidential
aspirants seem more interested in convincing voters that they know how to
channel their inner Rambo and that they will not hesitate to use force wherever
and whenever they deem it necessary. Frankly, I'd be happier thinking that they
would hesitate, and think twice -- or
even thrice -- before sending the nation to another war.
Part
of the problem, as the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations,
Leslie Gelb, admitted a
couple of years ago, is that a reputation for tough-minded hawkishness has
become a prerequisite for advancement and credibility in the foreign-policy
establishment. Think about it: even though the United States is probably
the most secure great power in history, an ambitious up-and-coming policy wonk
in D.C. is more likely to advance rapidly if he or she is a vocal proponent of
using American power than if he or she is seen as skeptical or even somewhat
averse to flexing U.S. military might at every occasion. And God forbid
that someone who aspires to rise in Washington gets a reputation for being
seriously interested in peace. That
might get you a job at AID or at some left-wing think tank, but you aren't
going to make a lot of short lists for State, Defense, or the NSC.
This
tendency to reward bellicosity pervades our politics, and not in a good
way. Look at the venom that pollutes talk radio, and the scorched-earth
partisanship (mostly flowing from the GOP) that has paralyzed the legislative
branch on a host of vital issues. Read the talk-backs on virtually any
political website -- including this one -- and observe how brave commenters,
safely cloaked in internet anonymity, devote hours to flinging vile insults at
each other. Or consider the ease with which prominent figures here and abroad
will condemn whole categories of people -- gays, Muslims, Jews, foreigners -- without
having met a single one or taking any time to consider how the world might look
from someone else's perspective. When one looks at political discourse --
even in America, this most secure and fortunate of countries -- it requires no
great imagination to see why it is so hard to keep humans from fighting.
It
is a discouraging picture, to be sure, but this is not the season for
despair. For this week, at least, I choose to see the glass as
half-full. This Christmas, I will reflect on the possibility that Steve
Pinker, John
Mueller, and others are right, and that humankind, for all its continued
woes, is nonetheless moving away from its very violent past. I shall look
for hopeful signs amid the tumult. I shall bask in the comforting embrace
of family and friends, and think hard about what I can do better in the months
and years ahead. I hope all of you do too. And whether you're someone
who tends to nod in agreement when you read this blog, or someone who thinks
I've yet to get anything right, may this season and the year to come bring you
love, hope ... and peace.
And
here, for your enjoyment, are two musical bonuses to accompany the title of
this post:
Thank you for all that you have done to open up discussions of taboo subjects. This is the surest way to world peace when we can all openly discuss and debate our imperial tendencies and those who manipulate us.
Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year to you and yours!
Yeah I second CLOAK AND DAGGER's finely perceived sentiments here: As hard as it was for people outside the formal IR community to really appreciate Walt's bravery in opening up the discussion of ME issues, it's even easier to forget.
... and second the Happy Holidays' and New Years' sentiments to everyone too of course.
Nice piece professor Walt, thank you.
Observation: With your half full glass metaphor you suggest you do believe, or wish to believe, that the tragedy will be averted. That's Godly!
Merry Christmas
I appreciate, and agree with, this piece. I frequently ask - and receive no clear responses - "Who are the enemies against which we must station forces all over the world? Against whom are we defending ourselves with a military the size of all others combined? Why are there members of our military in 177 countries and on ships all over the globe?"
I do not feel safer each time we/the U.S. launches a new ship, invents a new weapon. Why, exactly, are we doing this? Why can't we discuss these questions in our politics? Cannot the proponents of endless war and constantly growing military capability hear the warnings of Washington and Eisenhower?
Noting for example, the barrage of foul polemics dumped last week on Thomas Friedman by the likes of Jennifer Rubin at WaPo for saying much the same, we who are Professor Walt's regular readers should all thank him and his colleague Professor Mearsheimer for their courage and wisdom.
Unending war is not an answer. It is disaster. No justice, no peace.
Season's greeting to most (excluding the Marine diaper and his ilk).
Your columns have truly enlightened me. You never talk down to folks and very seldom engage in polemics. You truly are capable of thinking "outside the box." Knowing that you and others like you are fellow Americans helps me to sustain my hope for our country!
Since becoming a member of the family of nations, the US government, which has not, perhaps, been representative of the people who have some say in placing people in power. The narrative of US history has been aggression against its indigenous nationals, Native Americans; the Spanish in Florida to force cession; the shameful 'El Robo' war on Mexico to take the continent; the 500+ breached treaties with American Indians; the invasion and, continuing, occupation of Hawaii; the ginned up war on Spain for the Philippines; the theft of Panama from Columbia; the unnecessary ginned up involvement in WWI; the occupation of Haiti and systematic suborning of democracy in the rest of the Americas via military intervention; and on and on. I sometimes lose track of how long the list of U.S. wars is. Now that the national media is owned by the munitions makers perpetual war is the plan. The Vulcanian-Plutonian perpetual war talk is as much evidence of what interests own public discourse setting institutions as it is cause. Other than complaining about the tax code; cheering one's favorite pro sports franchise and marveling at the technical virtuosity of how the most recent war is being waged, what keeps the country together? Paul, with all the warts you want to put on him, is still the only candidate for peace and thus, by default, the only morally supportable candidate.
MY COMMENT: Perhaps it has something to do with our "original sin(s)!"
SEE: How the Power of Myth Keeps Us Mired in War, by Ira Chernus, TomDispatch.com, 01/20/11
(excerpt) "...White Americans, going back to early colonial times, generally assigned the role of 'bad guys' to 'savages' lurking in the wilderness beyond the borders of our civilized land. Whether they were redskins, commies, terrorists, or the Taliban, the plot has always remained the same. Call it the myth of national security -- or, more accurately, national insecurity, since it always tells us who and what to fear.
It’s been a mighty (and mighty effective) myth..."
thank you for this column. even johnson at the height of the vietnam war talked about acheiving peace-certainly on terms that were probably not realistic but at least it was a goal. there is another factor which contributes to this bellicosity-the current tendency of wealthy, powerful and influential groups to view themselves as powerless and aggrieved. iran is a military pipsqueak, with far less global influence than the US and its allies, yet from listening to the republican candidates you would think it was the wehrmacht ready to march across the middle east and take over every country in its path. domestically-the billionaires that spend millions on think tanks, lobbying and buying political influence somehow think they are oppressed and weak, as though lenin, castro and mao were ready to take over the govt and sieze all their property. conservative christians think the muslim brotherhood has taken over the country, closing all the churches and banning christianity. last i looked there were churches on every corner. i feel like we are living in a cartoon-not a real country
The narrative of US history has been aggression against its indigenous nationals, Native Americans; the Spanish in Florida to force cession; the shameful 'El Robo' war on Mexico to take the continent; the 500+ breached treaties with American Indians; the invasion and, continuing, occupation of Hawaii; mkv converterMKV ConverterYouTube Converter for MacYouTube To MP4 ConverterPdf Converter for MacPDF Editor for MacPDF Editor for MacPdf Converter for Mac
the ginned up war on Spain for the Philippines; the theft of Panama from Columbia; the unnecessary ginned up involvement in WWI; the occupation of Haiti and systematic suborning of democracy in the rest of the Americas via military intervention; and on and on. I sometimes lose track of how long the list of U.S.
The only thing exceptional about the US is the phraseology of the rationalization for the essentially primitive, tribal, even prehuman violence and paranoia. Not that far off, really, from prior versions promulgated in Germany, France, Russia, England, the Crusades-era Middle Ages, et cetera ad nauseam et infinitum.
The demonization of the rather smelly and inferior whoevers on the other side of the hill, which justifies us raping and killing them in order to get their fig tree, is endemic on a level beneath reason, belief, culture, religion, ideology, or anything else. What we do about these things is exactly what chimpanzees do. And they do it without religion, without political parties or nations, without violent video games, without history, without chickenhawk polemicists writing for newspapers on behalf of foreign interests.
There is a brutal beast within us, and it survived by behaving like this. Unfortunately there are not enough figs to go around now, no matter what, and our weapons have evolved to the point where no one actually wins a war, the victory simply usually loses less. It appears that it will take time, perhaps too much time, for this simple equation to be processed, and for us to realize that the only sane path forward is to control our numbers and divide our resources fairly, and to pursue methods of conflict resolution that do not destroy both sides. Let us hope that it does not take too much time, but let us realize that this is a limbic, gut issue, and that very fact needs to be addressed and in a profound and effective way, somehow...
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
(12)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE