Letters to my niece series- Ethics and the Use of Force

Dear Sarah,

As I struggle to understand various reasons for war, conflict, and peace and to understand my fellow human, I cannot rid myself of my eternal optimism. I've been accused more times than I can count in my adult life of being "unrealistic", as though only a pessimist sees the down side of life and that a pessimistic view is a "realistic" view. No doubt, you, too, will face this same opposition. You will be told that you have your head in the clouds. People will tell you that you are at best a dreamer, at worst an eccentric, that somehow you are disconnected from reality. But in this letter, I will argue that transcendence of the human spirit is the greatest hope for our future and for future generations; that transcendence is our greatest connection to what it means to be human. Perhaps together, we will awaken the dreamers of the world to call them to manifest a new vision of "reality".

Last week, we talked about the war on terror. This week, I’ve been reading an interesting article by Bryan Hehir about ethics and the use of force. Hehir points out that there are differing views about war and the use of military force. The top three arguments about war are 1) non-violence: war should never be used, 2) realism: rules don’t apply to war, and 3) just war theory: sometimes war is acceptable, but only as a last resort.

Hehir believes that the United States was justified in responding with force to the terrorist attacks of September 11^th, but only so we could prevent future attacks. The problem which I see and which Hehir also points out is that terrorist groups often are made up of people from several countries. As such, we can’t just pick a country and say, “you have bad people in your country, so we are going to come in and kill them.” The United Nations Charter says we have the right to defend ourselves against attack. On the other hand, if we invade another country where terrorists live, that country’s government may decide that they need to protect themselves from us!

These issues are way too complex to discuss here in detail. At times, one is relegated to the use of oversimplification for sake of brevity in argument. I'm afraid these letters are often given to oversimplification for that very reason. In reality, war, violence, fear, love, and the use of force are decisions which are mired in a multitude of reasonings and rationalizations; way more than I can elaborate upon in these brief notes. And that is what we always come back to, isn't it? Everything is interconnected. The universe is complicated, complex; an intricate fabric woven in time and space and in its infinite relationships which we, as humans, often try to define in finite terms with precise solutions and prescriptive answers.

Though it may seem that I argue only for non-violence (and this is, indeed, my hope for the next generation), I recognize the complexity of the issues which led to the decisions to engage in the use of force to try to combat terrorism. I also see the futility of such actions in the long-term. When will we recognize the power of love as a force which cannot be subordinated or oppressed? When will this generation grasp the infinite, eternal, transcendent power of love and forgiveness, not as a passive-run-over-me-if-you-like type of power, but an active, beyond-reasoning, overwhelming type of power which leads the offender and offended to redemption, renewal, and life? Frankl (2006), who endured the deathcamps of both Auschwitz and Dauchau, argued for the transcendence of the human spirit in the midst of grief and suffering. He spent the rest of his life trying to convince the world that we must face violence with grace, death with hope, hatred with kindness, and force with the infinitely greater force of love.

In peace,

Your Aunt Gigi