September 26, 2001

Why I Won't Sign
Michael H. Shuman

Like many progressives, I've been besieged with various anti-war petitions over the past week. I have two words of advice to my friends and colleagues on the left: Don't sign. The central arguments, however well intentioned, are astonishingly misguided:

* We might start a war. Excuse me? We are already in a war started by others. More than 6,000 Americans were killed in a surprise attack - twice the casualties at Pearl Harbor. If this isn't an act of war, what is?

* We're just reaping what we've sown Yes, America has angered many people worldwide - I'm one of them. Many of us have worked hard to change the nation's foreign policy, and I hope many more continue to do so. But our grievances do not permit us to firebomb the Pentagon, blow up the World Trade Center, or murder innocent civilians. We are a nation of law, and we should be trying to create a world of law. Terrorism, whether domestic or foreign, is the very antithesis. It must be condemned and stopped - immediately.

* Justice, not vengeance. This is a hollow slogan. Most Americans don't want vengeance - they want just punishment. I'm all for rehabilitation of terrorists through peaceful means, just as I am for domestic criminals, but the prerequisite is capture, and capture will require force. Force against those resisting arrest. And force against those offering terrorists comfort and hiding.

* Force never works. I accept that there's a strong moral argument against violence. I respect pacifism and its adherents. But let's get real. History is not always on the side of angels. Force was necessary to remove Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo. Force enabled Tanzania to topple the neighboring madman in Uganda, Idi Amin. Force was essential for Israeli commandos to liberate an airliner from terrorists at Entebbe.

* America's use of force cannot be trusted. Sorry, we're not always the bad guy. I can't excuse everything our nation has done. But I am proud of my dad's role in World War II, flying 50 missions against the Nazi oil refineries in Romania. And I applauded President's Clinton's interventions in Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo, because they helped remove atrocious human-rights violators from power (though I wished the Administration had done more, sooner).

* The British and Russians learned that force can't work in Afghanistan. History only teaches that conquest of Afghanistan cannot succeed. If our military objectives are limited, if they are prosecuted by a multinational force, if alliances are built with strong internal opposition to the Taliban, force can certainly weaken the terrorist networks thriving in that country.

* Let's focus on peaceful solutions. Fine. We should support the first steps President Bush took were to freeze financial assets and get Saudi Arabia to break diplomatic ties with the Taliban. Let's negotiate with Syria, Iran, Sudan, and other nations to remove terrorists from their soil. Let's start all kinds of dialogues and exchanges with the Afghani people. Let's form stronger global norms, laws, and institutions on terrorism. But let's not confuse these measures with the need to stop, capture, and prosecute those who committed this awful crime.

* This conflict will ruin our country. There's a long list of legitimate grievances progressives have about what's happening. We're depriving urgent priorities at home of $40 billion that instead will go to war. We're eviscerating our civil liberties. We're risking the reintroduction of the draft. These are all dangerous possibilities, they are all worth fighting, and I for one will help fight them. But none of them are related to the decision to use force, unless we let them be.

There is a serious debate in which progressives must now engage, and it's not in whether force should be used. It's what kind of force. We should press that force be limited (in time, space, and intensity), focused strictly on military targets, delivered through a multinational coalition, with careful attention to how this can build stronger U.N. peacekeeping and police capacities.My colleagues on the left who counsel against any use of force should realize that they stand totally isolated. Before the Persian Gulf War, nearly half the Senate voted against the use of force. Today not a single Senator - not even Paul Wellstone - is willing to take this position. And only one member of the House opposed a forceful response. Actually, Rep. Barbara Lee was not against the use of force - she was against giving the President a blank check, a totally defensible position. Those who have worked so hard to develop a broad coalition to reform globalization now risk blowing it apart. If they choose to write off people like me who offer qualified endorsement on the use of force, say good-bye to much of labor, to most liberals, even to major factions within the European Greens.

We should be deeply skeptical not only of those who argue "my country, right or wrong," but also those who believe "my country is always wrong."

Michael H. Shuman is Program Director for the Village Foundation, and served as Executive Director of the Institute for Policy Studies, 1992-98.

http://www.progressive.org/0901/shu1101.html


Use your browser's BACK button to return to your previous page.

Visit our other FIVE STAR PIECES.