Rantle

by Eric Anschutz, March, 2007

Bearing witness against the war, a sea of crosses has for some months now swept over three acres of sloping land in nearby Lafayette. Crudely constructed from remnants of scrap lumber nailed together and painted white, the crosses stand some three feet high and are driven lovingly into the soft grassy hillside. This beautiful, visually compelling and spiritually powerful memorial to the thousands of American soldiers killed in Iraq has attracted national attention. At the same time, it has become a source of local controversy. Because the display sits alongside both a major highway and the Lafayette BART (rapid transit) station, it is clearly visible every day to many thousands of people who pass it by car or rail.

On the evening of March 14, the fourth anniversary of the Iraq War, the Mt. Diablo Peace and Justice Center and other peace groups sponsored a “Candlelight Vigil” at the site to honor the troops and witness against the war. Some 400 of us anti-war protesters assembled, expecting to sing peace songs and hear speeches from people of like mind. Though songs were sung and speeches were made, and 400 candles flickered in the soft evening light, this turned out to be anything but a peaceful gathering. We were met by a group of thirty or so people who felt as strongly about their support of the war as we did about the urgency of bringing it to a close. Even so, our encounter might have led to a demonstration of American democracy in action: two groups respectfully expressing opposing opinions about a vital issue of national importance. Instead, it served only to heighten tensions and increase the levels of animosity felt by each side toward the other.

On our arrival for the event, notes had been handed by organizers to each of the 400 attendees, calling on us to “Remember that this is a vigil, not a political rally.” Other admonishments included in the note were: “Do not display political signs.” “Be open, friendly, and respectful toward all people.” “Avoid violent situations.” And the like. A few of us held up signs: “Support Our Troops by Bringing Them Home.” “Stop the Carnage.” “End the War.” “Stop Funding the War.” And “Peace Now.” Our speakers noted with sorrow the number of lives lost in the war and referred to its enormous dollar cost (some $10 billion each month, almost $400 billion total so far, and a projected final figure in excess of $1 trillion). They also reminded us that no weapons of mass destruction had been found and that Iraq had nothing to do with the tragedy of 9/11. Gentle songs were sung, along the lines of “Where Have All the Flowers Gone?” and “America the Beautiful.” The haunting words of John Lennon’s classic rang out with special feeling “All we are saying is give peace a chance.”

By contrast, the shouts and signs of those who came to support the war expressed vitriol and hatred. Not just anger, not just differences, but contempt and derision. For much of an hour, their thirty voices, often in unison, shouted relentlessly: “Take the crosses down!” “Communist!” “Coward!” “Traitor!” The scorn of their shouts was matched by their signs, which read: “Victory is Patriotic.” “This Hillside is Osama’s Victory Garden.” “Let Them Win.” “Leaving is for Losers.” Why Do Liberals Hate the US?” And “Honor our Heroes, Not the Enemy.” When the mother of a badly wounded soldier spoke against the war, telling us with dignity and pride that her son, after serving in Iraq with valor, had been invited to the White House for a medal-award ceremony with the president, she was challenged by ridicule and loud shouts of: “Then support him by taking down these crosses.”

We who are against the war believe it to be counterproductive to America’s security interests. In saying this, I don’t mean to be judgmental about those on the pro-war side. In many cases, their concerns are heartfelt reactions to the loss of a son or husband, whose sacrifice they are understandably reluctant to regard as without purpose. Both opponents and supporters of the war owe it to those on the other side to be considerate and understanding of their deeply held positions. Our experience at the peace vigil demonstrates clearly that we need to talk across the great divide, not simply hurl abuse.

.

by Eric E. Anschutz, Walnut Creek. CA

A primary goal of our foreign policy is to influence the outcome of world events in ways that serve American interests. Generally speaking, there are three levers available to us to bring that about: military power, economic power, and moral power. In my view, America’s strength internationally would be better served by less emphasis on guns, more on “butter,” and far more on moral suasion. Let’s consider the options.

Guns

America’s foreign policy is shaped to a large extent by the fact that we are the world’s supreme military power. Our interventions into the affairs of nations with whom we have disagreements, even when diplomatic in nature, are generally linked to implicit and often explicit threats of military action (“the military option remains on the table”). While it is indisputably true that our country has more military might than all other nations combined, our massive military arsenal is not only meaningless in terms of policy options (especially today, almost two decades after the demise of the Soviet Union), but is in fact an albatross that drags on us, both geopolitically and economically.

Our military dominance is meaningless in the sense that all those guns do not translate into influence. Here’s the reason. The problems that we face today cannot successfully be dealt with militarily. Battleships, aircraft carriers, intercontinental missiles and our ten thousand or so nuclear bombs have not brought victory in Iraq, because they are grossly disproportionate for use in urban warfare and of no utility against pajama-clad insurgents who wield AK-47’s and pipe bombs and live among (and blend into) the populace. Nor does our unmatched military power serve to bend North Korea or Iran to our will. Their missile and nuclear development programs have continued with impunity despite our threats; indeed, their weapons programs are almost certainly given added impetus because of our threats. Sub-national groups such as al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah are also beyond the reach of our mighty arsenal. Indeed, for all the “evil doers,” it seems, defiance of Superpower America seems to have become a critical source of pride and motivation.

Our superpower status is an albatross that weighs on this country. The many billions of dollars devoted to piling more weapons atop our already bloated military arsenal, and the vast sums wasted in the prosecution of counterproductive wars, are dollars that could be used for many things that would elevate our national security in ways that guns and war do not.

Butter

One of the first investments that America should make, if we could end, or significantly reduce, military waste, is development of alternative energy sources. There is no question at all about the feasibility of alternatives to Mid-East oil. We lack only policy direction and application of resources. Solar power, wind power, ethanol, hydrogen fuel cells and hybrid car engines are proven technologies; they need only refinement, greater efficiency and lower cost – all of which could be achieved with aggressive research and widespread application. If we were to actually create and give policy-emphasis to the much-discussed and long-promised 21st century Manhattan Energy Project, allocating something on the order of $20-30 billion annually (the cost of two to three months of the war in Iraq), our laboratories, hi-tech community, universities and industries would doubtless achieve stunning breakthroughs in short order. All of this would enrich the US economy by making us more productive. We could also sell our “green” technologies abroad, thereby reducing our balance of payments. And, perhaps most importantly, such technologies would contribute to the amelioration of Global Warming.

Our country now spends $3 billion annually on energy research, and only $416 million of that sum is spent on renewable non-carbon technologies. In stark contrast, we spend $75 billion each year on military research. Is it any wonder that we have made no progress in weaning ourselves from oil-dependency, and that “guns” remain more important to us than “butter?”

Let me be clear about why energy-independence results in economic power of the kind that enhances our national security. Consider the cases of Iran and North Korea, both of which remain impervious to our military posturing and to our repeated threats of regime change. Iran holds a trump card in its relationship with the West because it is a foremost supplier of oil to the world, and they could (and almost certainly would) turn off their oil spigots in response to pressures from the West. The value of Irans oil-leverage would be greatly lessened if the US were in a position of reduced dependence on oil, and if we were able to offer to other countries the “green” energy technologies in which we could become world leaders. North Korea, on the other hand, is an economic basket case that fears regime change, fears military action against it, and needs economic aid to survive. So far, our diplomatic efforts with North Korea seem to have recently borne fruit, in large measure because we of our guarantees of fuel aid, financial relief, non-aggression assurances, and suggestions of diplomatic recognition in the near future. But, here too, achieving pre-eminence in green technologies might be helpful, giving us further economic and aid options that could help tip the balance in persuading the North Koreans to renounce their nuclear and other military aspirations.

On the home front, too, there are of course many places to spend the resources now wasted on excessive military power and wars of choice. For example, healthcare should be made available to all Americans, and its costs reduced by moving to a single-payer system. We need to create a new National Institute of Education that finds ways to bring world-class “best practices” to our public schools. We need to bring our federal budget back into surplus (as it was under President Clinton), thereby gradually reducing our national debt, and we should take steps to restore our balance of payments to equity. The cumulative effects of these investments in our economy would be to greatly strengthen our competitive position. A smarter, healthier and wealthier America would import less, export more, be admired for its standard of living and for its scientific and industrial achievements, and thereby wield more influence on world events. Our greater ability to confer or to deny economic largess would translate directly into an important source of influence on the world stage.

Moral Suasion

Another, and perhaps the most effective source of influence in the world, is moral suasion. Some have called this “soft power,” a good name, I believe. Power of this kind stems from respect; it derives from a record of honesty and integrity and kindness and generosity, just the virtues that most Americans think define our country. But the truth is that most of the world sees us otherwise.

While we have historically (albeit with ups and downs along the way) been the trusted moral center of the world, America today seems to have lost its way, bringing disorientation to others. Once respected and loved, America is now disliked and feared. Once the beacon of hope to the world, America has caused the spread of despair. Once seen as a friend and protector, America is now seen as a bully and a threat. A recent poll (November, 2006) showed that 69% of British citizens view America as a greater danger to world peace than either North Korea or Iran. That same poll conducted in Mexico came in at 70%. Other polls taken in places like Germany and France have turned up similar bad opinions about our country. And, not surprisingly, polls taken in Moslem countries are even worse.

These negative attitudes about America cause others to smirk when we call for a curtailment of arms buildups, and when we demand curtailment of arms transfers. Because our military budget exceeds the combined total of the military budgets of every other nation in the world; because we maintain an arsenal of more than 10,000 nuclear weapons; because we sell more arms abroad than anyone else; because we have more military bases abroad; and because we conduct continual muscle-flexing military “exercises” in foreign waters and even on foreign territory, any call from America for non-proliferation and military moderation by others has little if any moral basis.

We have the same problem with respect to environmental issues. As the world’s greatest polluter, as the world’s foremost consumer of oil and water, and as the only major Western nation to have rejected the Kyoto Treaty, we have no moral right to call for world action on Global Warming, arguably the greatest threat to the well-being of the planet in our time.

But America does have a way off this moral black list. By establishing our country as the world leader in “green” and fuel-efficient technologies, in clean air and clean water, and in world-class health and education; by becoming once more the world leaders in industrial innovation and productivity; and by placing America at the forefront of those that seek world stability through cooperation and negotiation rather than through policies of preemptive military action, I can picture a future in which we are once again seen as the “shining city on the hill.” America can be at the forefront of actions to save the world from the dire consequences of Global Warming and endless conflict, and the world will again look to American industry and ingenuity and goodwill to create the rising economic tide that lifts all boats. Our renewed and re-energized moral authority would provide the basis for a new and richer world, one in which cooperation and discussion and negotiation will displace threat and strife and war as the way to reconcile differences, and one in which hope and trust will overcome despair and apprehension as the forces that guide and motivate people in all parts of the world.

The issue left unaddressed in this essay is how we can move US policy from its current emphasis on guns to one of greater reliance on economic and moral influence. In an effort to begin a dialogue, I would welcome reader’s thoughts, and would include the best ones in subsequent articles on this and related issues.