Why Waging War Is So Much More Dramatically Attractive Than Waging Peace
- © Michele Toomey, PhD • January 23, 2003

President Bush has set the tone of hostility, bullying and war. He calls nations the "Axis of Evil" and declares with ultimatums and threats that we will destroy them. He is at a 54% approval rating. We are on the verge of causing a war and justifying it as a prevention of a war. And that is supposed to make sense. Why are we allowing this macho attitude of "might makes right" to go forward? Because of 9/11? Does brutal terrorism that cost thousands of lives give us this right? Because "we can" is our legitimization for this intimidating posture. Is this the American way?

Jimmy Carter receives the Nobel Peace Prize and is ridiculed in the media as a wimpy president who failed and whose peace efforts also fail. So George W Bush is a a preferred symbol of America power and leadership than Jimmy Carter. Why?

It escapes me, except to look at the posturing as our sexist belief that strength is proven by force. That hostility and bullying protect us from others thinking we are weak and therefore making us vulnerable to terrorists and the other bullies. To protect ourselves we must declare war on the bullies of the world. Seems to have worked real well in the Middle East between Israel and the Palestinians. They are killing each other almost daily trying to prove they are the stronger and will not be terrorized and bullied. And so far all it has done is continue more terrorism and death. Great example of bullying and war working? Yet we follow that example on a grander scale and up the ante. Why?

There is not one good reason for using war to prevent war, yet it is touted every day as the only way to stop the violence in the world. Terrorists have never shown that they respond to being bullied or killed with any other response than bullying and killing. It is a no brainer. It isn't the solution. It doesn't stop anything in the final analysis except life for those who pay the price of war. Why are we stuck in the age old cycle of waging war to get our way? Because we are a macho nation with a macho president currently in office.

Interesting that the JFK Library just released tapes of JFK talking about the Vietnam War and showing that JFK was not about to escalate the war, and if he had lived, probably wouldn't have gone down the path that LBJ got caught in. Kennedy had charisma, had oratorical skill that could inspire, had a great sense of history, was a war hero, and dealt with the Cuban missile crisis without firing a single shot. And you, George W Bush, are no John Kennedy. You are instead, a strutting Texan with a puffed up chest who feels powerful talking in the rhetoric of war. "We are going to get you" has become your motto and you don't seem to have a clue as to what price is currently being paid and most certainly what will be paid for this posturing.

Waging peace may look like a woman's role, not loud and boisterous, not mean and intimidating, not violent and about to kill, but what does that mean? That creative thinking, fair attention to human suffering and human needs, offering a helping hand to change the climate of fear and poverty and hatred and resentment are all women's domain? I think not. We must change our attitude toward strength and weakness if we are to live in a global world without destroying each other. It is not weak to be non-violent .

It is not weak to be caring and offer a helping hand to those who need it and who without it may die or grow up with hate in their heart for those who have more than they do. Waging peace is more complex than war and it requires creative assessment of human needs and more long range planning for the future. It uses as a measuring stick what people need in order to have the necessities of life that allow them to have love and joy in their hearts.

The soil for terrorism's brand of hatred for groups they have decided deserve to die is rich and fertile when aggression is in the air. We are filling the airwaves with aggressive rhetoric daily. We are indeed fostering the climate for terrorists to gain momentum and followers. What a disgrace. Yet, who is saying that? The media regurgitates the party line and war is on everyone's mind. Is that any way to resolve differences and come up with creative alternatives? According to the American leadership and the voice of America ringing through out the world, war is inevitable, it's just a matter of when.

I decry this bullying approach and I am appalled that it is only now getting a small ground swell of resistance. Thank you peace marchers. Thank you France and Germany. Shame on you Tony Blair. I pray a voice may emerge from America to counter the hawks. We need a JFK. The only voice even remotely possible might be Mario Cuomo. Where is he when we desperately need him? The current list of presidential hopefuls don't have the inspirational qualities needed for the times. Where is the leadership for peace. It is surely not lacking for war.

Again I ask, "Why is waging war more dramatically attractive than waging peace?"