What’s going on in Iran remains a source of amazement for me and one of the more impressive aspects of it are that the protests have been nonviolent; in fact, the entire opposition movement seems to have adopted nonviolent resistance as a strategy. That’s not passive in any way. Government computer systems are being hacked, I believe there’s probably some level of general strike with some obvious exceptions like hospitals, and the demonstrations are incredible. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen crowds that large. The use of new media is overriding the regime’s efforts to squash information, and in general the thing has been brilliant so far.
Now, to some extent, nonviolence is the only strategy available here since the opposition has no guns. Righteous indignation is great, but it has yet to stop a bullet. Should Mousavi’s supporters turn to violence, the movement would end within a couple of days. Violence would allow the regime to claim that they are restoring order, thus placing them on the side of justice regardless of whatever action is taken to restore that precious order. Like it or not, the strategy must remain nonviolent.
That doesn’t make it a lesser strategy. Nonviolence is always the greater avenue for one main reason: it is the path of the human. Animals fight it out. A pack of wolves does not stage a debate about who will be the alpha-male. They rip each other to shreds and the last one standing wins. This is not the way with humans. We are endowed with the gift of reason, whether one believes that it is God given or it has evolved in some way, humans are designed to exercise reason. Nonviolence will absolutely test that. Nonviolence requires a creativity that violence does not. Nonviolence requires a resolve; it requires faith in one’s self, one’s comrades, and one’s cause. As much as anything else, nonviolence requires a commitment; for it will not save the practitioner’s life; it will only preserve their humanity. That for me is key.
One always hears about how committing troops “was the hardest decision I ever had to make and…” Really? What if a country like the United States were to say, in the face of something like 9/11, “we choose to oppose the perpetrators of this act with every fiber of collective being, but we will not fire a shot, drop a bomb, launch a missile, or waterboard anybody because it debases us and we are simply above that, not just as Americans but as human beings. We choose not to act as animals.” How hard would it be to make that choice? Would we suffer more attacks? Most assuredly, animals will act as animals, but do we think that having taken the actions that we did that we have in some way forestalled future attacks? Anyone who thinks this is fooling themselves. Again, I’m not suggesting passive non-action, just a different action, a human action.
No doubt, should anybody ever read this, which is unlikely; I’ll be called an idealistic fool. Mea culpa. But let me ask you this first: How do you know that the road seldom traveled was not the right one? Did the cobwebs at its entrance dissuade you so easily? Or was that old saying, “to a man with only a hammer, everything looks like a nail?” (We’ll discuss our reliance on hammers some other time.)
I’m going to let this be the last word here though it may seem to hurt my argument, for me it strengthens it, but I want this clearly understood. I am a Marine. I left active duty nearly 14 years ago, but it is without question one the attributes that defines me. I am honored to have stood on line with those that I did and to have worn the uniform of so many incredible people that made the Corps and this country what it is both before and after my time including those who serve now. I don’t in anyway devalue their sacrifice.
Now, to some extent, nonviolence is the only strategy available here since the opposition has no guns. Righteous indignation is great, but it has yet to stop a bullet. Should Mousavi’s supporters turn to violence, the movement would end within a couple of days. Violence would allow the regime to claim that they are restoring order, thus placing them on the side of justice regardless of whatever action is taken to restore that precious order. Like it or not, the strategy must remain nonviolent.
That doesn’t make it a lesser strategy. Nonviolence is always the greater avenue for one main reason: it is the path of the human. Animals fight it out. A pack of wolves does not stage a debate about who will be the alpha-male. They rip each other to shreds and the last one standing wins. This is not the way with humans. We are endowed with the gift of reason, whether one believes that it is God given or it has evolved in some way, humans are designed to exercise reason. Nonviolence will absolutely test that. Nonviolence requires a creativity that violence does not. Nonviolence requires a resolve; it requires faith in one’s self, one’s comrades, and one’s cause. As much as anything else, nonviolence requires a commitment; for it will not save the practitioner’s life; it will only preserve their humanity. That for me is key.
One always hears about how committing troops “was the hardest decision I ever had to make and…” Really? What if a country like the United States were to say, in the face of something like 9/11, “we choose to oppose the perpetrators of this act with every fiber of collective being, but we will not fire a shot, drop a bomb, launch a missile, or waterboard anybody because it debases us and we are simply above that, not just as Americans but as human beings. We choose not to act as animals.” How hard would it be to make that choice? Would we suffer more attacks? Most assuredly, animals will act as animals, but do we think that having taken the actions that we did that we have in some way forestalled future attacks? Anyone who thinks this is fooling themselves. Again, I’m not suggesting passive non-action, just a different action, a human action.
No doubt, should anybody ever read this, which is unlikely; I’ll be called an idealistic fool. Mea culpa. But let me ask you this first: How do you know that the road seldom traveled was not the right one? Did the cobwebs at its entrance dissuade you so easily? Or was that old saying, “to a man with only a hammer, everything looks like a nail?” (We’ll discuss our reliance on hammers some other time.)
I’m going to let this be the last word here though it may seem to hurt my argument, for me it strengthens it, but I want this clearly understood. I am a Marine. I left active duty nearly 14 years ago, but it is without question one the attributes that defines me. I am honored to have stood on line with those that I did and to have worn the uniform of so many incredible people that made the Corps and this country what it is both before and after my time including those who serve now. I don’t in anyway devalue their sacrifice.
(c) Carl Mealie, 2009
0 comments:
Post a Comment