<?xml:namespace prefix = o />
Messrs. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are so right in their recent complaints that pervasive modern media has made their war-making job a lot harder, because what media does best is disseminate information and instigate dialogue. And the more one knows and understands, the less one is likely to fear, hate, and make war on other humans.
 
Happily, we can watch, on one channel, various national and international leaders patiently strive to work through peaceful diplomatic channels in search of just, compassionate solutions to deadly conflicts, or flip over to another channel and watch Rumsfeld lambaste these same statesmen as unpatriotic pacifiers, appeasers and sympathizers.
 
Thank goodness for our networked globe, where millions of ordinary citizens daily exchange email with friends in every nation, sharing their hopes and plans for peaceful alternatives to war, even when our leaders haven’t the heart or common sense to do so.
 
The only reason these three cut off communications and run away from dialogue is to silence opposing voices and logic—whether partisan competitors' or foreign foes'–all of whom are trying to inject some sanity into the drumbeat toward never-ending war, whether in Iraq, Iran, or a slew of other places. I wish George Bush would learn that global clashes of ideologies are not won by guns, but by goodness.
 
Since our present administration's anti-war “foes” are easily capable of poking gaping holes in their justifications for war, unsurprisingly, they are all simultaneously (and disingenuously) being painted with the broad brush of fascism/Nazism in what appears to be a pre-emptive attack designed to ward off an anticipated similar, if more legitimate, accusation. Fascism as defined is authoritarian, corporatist, demagogic, anti-liberal, jingoist, militarist, expansionist…. Does anything sound familiar?
 
How could it be in our best interests for our leaders to refuse to talk with the very enemies we've been told (by those same leaders) to hate, because (as our leaders have also told us) they hate us. Why have expert diplomats if only to talk with our friends? If hate and fear are so dangerous—and they certainly are—why wouldn’t we try to improve such relationships by listening to our “adversaries'” grievances and hearing their suggestions for peaceful solutions? As Abraham Lincoln said, “Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?”
 
We could at least choose to be generous enough to listen to our enemies, even if we can‘t manage Jesus’ admonition to love them. Despite our leaders’ continual propaganda marginalizing and demonizing them (so we won’t listen to what they have to say) we shouldn’t forget that they are still human beings with perspectives that at least deserve a respectful hearing before we blow them away.
 
No doubt our leaders have already made their own peace with the damage they intend to inflict upon enemy populations, but they haven’t yet described to us even a small portion of the grisly and manifold inevitable injustices that will be visited upon us.
 
Only war resisters venture to estimate the possible extent of war’s predictable losses, for both sides, or ever dare to question its final outcome. By silencing such opposition, our leaders muddy constiuents' views of the potential calamity they’re getting us into. Historically, these particular three have proved themselves incapable of assessing what they passionately jump into; they anticipate quick easy victories and warm welcomes from cheering victims, blithely dismiss vague unspecified future losses as “necessary,” and assure us that “winning” the war will be “worth it.”
 
Participants in every 20th century war, both “winners” and “losers,” have consistently admitted to researchers that, had they known in advance the costs of those wars, they would have, in retrospect, settled their grievances peaceably, making the compromises and concessions necessary to avoid war’s costs to human lives and infrastructure.
 
Wars are never initiated by popular pressure, never fought from the bottom-up, but always from the top-down, at the whims of leaders who work hard to maintain their intricate ideological justifications. The task of selling war is indeed more difficult in what the Dalai Lama calls “the century of dialogue,” because dialogue is exactly what is fostered and nurtured by today’s free press—our beloved televisions, movies, radio, newspapers, magazines, books, and internet.
 
The Defense Department is currently attempting to manipulate our freedom of the press by demanding equal time for its pro-war propaganda. Happily, our free press neither answers to nor agrees with such self-serving ideas about what the job of the press should be.
 
And while we’re on the subject of freedom of the press, if you want to see exemplary presidential press access in action, check out any of the frequent, unscripted, free-wheeling, no-topics-barred press conferences held by President Ahmadinejad of Iran. Considering the number of public words he utters both at home and in his busy international speaking rounds, it’s not surprising that extremists have managed to extract a few to twist, spin, and mistranslate.
  

One would think the Defense Department would find our state of constant war sufficient public distraction from the embarrassing truth that we may have as much to fear from an administration capable of embracing its foes with nuclear arms, as we have from their confusingly shape-shifting “enemies”. Perhaps they hope that once we finally have a clear “enemy” to hate and fear, maybe we won’t notice that a significant contributor to our state of national insecurity is our unrepresentative, repressive, empire-building government. 1984 has indeed arrived, but apparently too late to completely manipulate a media-gorged nation which is so finally past buying into 20th century war insanities.
 
No one can avoid suffering some injustice in this well-armed and very frightened post-9/11 world, but the risk of injustice should not rush us into pre-emptive wars which always only add to the sum of the world’s injustices, while creating ever more global enmity and danger.
 
A far better and safer way to defend ourselves is through increased communication and dialogue among all peoples and nations.
 
Peace and justice can only be attained through dialogue, mutual understanding, compromise and compassion. No violent path ever leads to peace and justice. “Peace” treaties at war’s ends merely divide up losers’ spoils among still-squabbling “winners,” and inevitably sow seeds of bitterness our children will harvest.
 
Tragically, it is still possible in America for a small group of arrogant militants to act out their darkest fears and limited understandings by sending other people’s grandchildren off to unnecessary wars, whether or not their constituency agrees with them. In such a democracy, we could wake up tomorrow in the middle of World War III, whether arbitrarily initiated in Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Korea, Syria….
 
And if that happens, all our lives, and life itself on this fragile blue planet, will change irrevocably.
 
Our best hope is to work together to establish a cabinet-level United States Department of Peace, as beautifully specified in H.R. 3760 and S. 1756, which can support proven and effect strategies for diminishing violence in our country and in our world.
 
Please send comments to epharmon@adelphia.net