If I had been born ten years earlier, I would have been eligible to be drafted during the Vietnam War. I'm so thankful I was born in '57, not '47! If the Vietnam conflict had lasted longer than it did, I still might have been draft eligible near the end.
If that had happened, I'm certain I would not have reported for duty. I would have gone to Canada or served time in prison as a contentious objector. I don't believe in violence and I certainly don't believe in war.
When I share this opinion with people, the gist of a common response goes like this, "Thank goodness, you're in the minority. We're lucky that other people are honored to serve. If everyone believed as you did, we'd be overrun."
Here's the interesting thing about this line of reasoning -- It's entirely incorrect! If the majority of the people in the world believed as I and other contentious objectors do, we would NOT have wars. There wouldn't be enough willing people to mount any acceptable level of a military.
There's no question that there will always be individuals willing to fight, some for very honorable reasons and others for not-so-honorable reasons. However, if the vast majority of the world's citizens refused to volunteer AND refused to serve, if drafted, political leaders would think twice before declaring war on anybody.
Instead of engaging in these massive armed conflicts, the few armed conflicts we did engage in would more closely resemble American Indian skirmishes. Most tribes did not engage in battles that involved large numbers of dead and wounded. One reason for this is that native people realized that, in our harsh physical world, today's enemy may be tomorrow's ally. It's mighty difficult to arrange a truce with a tribe you recently tried to annihilate.
If the vast majority was against the concept of war, the situation in Iraq today would be altogether different. Instead of sending in the armed forces to capture Saddam, the UN could have sent in an international police force to arrest him. Instead of a large occupying force of soldiers, the UN could have brought in a much smaller band of peacekeepers.
If there had been no invasion of Iraq (or Afghanistan), the rabid Muslim fundamentalists would find it next to impossible to draw on such a wide swath of anti-American sentiment. And, if the vast majority of Muslims were as much against violence as the rest of the world, there would be few people to recruit to become suicide bombers.
Look, before many of you get up in a dander, I KNOW the world doesn't come close to resembling the hypotheticals I've outlined above. I may be idealistic, but I'm not an idiot! We live in a world where war is an every day reality and violence is a common political AND personal tool to resolve differences.
That's not the point. No, the point is that, if more people believed as I do, the hypotheticals would be reality and talk of war would be the hypothetical.
Wouldn't each of us prefer that scenario more so than what we have now?
If that had happened, I'm certain I would not have reported for duty. I would have gone to Canada or served time in prison as a contentious objector. I don't believe in violence and I certainly don't believe in war.
When I share this opinion with people, the gist of a common response goes like this, "Thank goodness, you're in the minority. We're lucky that other people are honored to serve. If everyone believed as you did, we'd be overrun."
Here's the interesting thing about this line of reasoning -- It's entirely incorrect! If the majority of the people in the world believed as I and other contentious objectors do, we would NOT have wars. There wouldn't be enough willing people to mount any acceptable level of a military.
There's no question that there will always be individuals willing to fight, some for very honorable reasons and others for not-so-honorable reasons. However, if the vast majority of the world's citizens refused to volunteer AND refused to serve, if drafted, political leaders would think twice before declaring war on anybody.
Instead of engaging in these massive armed conflicts, the few armed conflicts we did engage in would more closely resemble American Indian skirmishes. Most tribes did not engage in battles that involved large numbers of dead and wounded. One reason for this is that native people realized that, in our harsh physical world, today's enemy may be tomorrow's ally. It's mighty difficult to arrange a truce with a tribe you recently tried to annihilate.
If the vast majority was against the concept of war, the situation in Iraq today would be altogether different. Instead of sending in the armed forces to capture Saddam, the UN could have sent in an international police force to arrest him. Instead of a large occupying force of soldiers, the UN could have brought in a much smaller band of peacekeepers.
If there had been no invasion of Iraq (or Afghanistan), the rabid Muslim fundamentalists would find it next to impossible to draw on such a wide swath of anti-American sentiment. And, if the vast majority of Muslims were as much against violence as the rest of the world, there would be few people to recruit to become suicide bombers.
Look, before many of you get up in a dander, I KNOW the world doesn't come close to resembling the hypotheticals I've outlined above. I may be idealistic, but I'm not an idiot! We live in a world where war is an every day reality and violence is a common political AND personal tool to resolve differences.
That's not the point. No, the point is that, if more people believed as I do, the hypotheticals would be reality and talk of war would be the hypothetical.
Wouldn't each of us prefer that scenario more so than what we have now?
The problem is, everyone would have to believe as you do for that to work. Not just "more people" or "the majority". There'd always be some group of nutcases to screw it up because they don't share your views. And who's to stop them?
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong, it's a noble thought. It is a shame the planet isn't filled with people who believe that conflict can be resolved without violence.
As for your assertion that had we not invaded Iraq or Afghanistan, "the rabid Muslim fundamentalists would find it next to impossible to draw on such a wide swathf of anti-American sentiment" - I call BS. Fundamentalist Muslims have always hated America. All I have to do to back that up is point to Israel on a map.
UN International Police to arrest Saddam? I'm not sure that would have worked even in your hypothetical situation. I bet you dollars to donuts that Saddam and his thugs wouldn't have been in that "vast majority" who were "against the concept of war".
The problem is, everyone would have to believe as you do for that to work. Not just "more people" or "the majority". There'd always be some group of nutcases to screw it up because they don't share your views. And who's to stop them?
ReplyDeleteI don't think that negates my point at all. I allowed that there would always folks who didn't agree, but if the majority was against war, each nation could only field an armed forces from the minority.
As for your assertion that had we not invaded Iraq or Afghanistan, "the rabid Muslim fundamentalists would find it next to impossible to draw on such a wide swathf of anti-American sentiment" - I call BS. Fundamentalist Muslims have always hated America. All I have to do to back that up is point to Israel on a map.
That's an excellent point! I should have included in my hypothetical an analysis of that whole situation. Unfortunately, I didn't so your point is well noted.