Stay true to the dreams of thy youth

Over the last week I have had a chance to meet with some significant people in the reconciliation and peace movement around the world. I had dinner with Nobel Peace laureate Mairead Maguire who started Peace People in Northern Ireland, as well as David Krieger of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. I also had dinner with Steve Stockman, a professor and Presbyterian priest of Queen’s college. All of these people are highly active in the process of reconciliation in their respective communities, with staggering successes, and of course, tragic failures.

The issue of what to work for in the world continually impedes upon my thoughts and desires for the future. On one end of the spectrum, I truly see the need for further reconciliation work, humanitarian relief, intergovernmental organization expansion, and other multilateral and beneficial pursuits. From this end of the spectrum, violence begets violence, and only a break from the banal pursuits of life can free individuals, communities, and countries from the atrocities of war, bigotry, and violence. I have examined the writings of Walter Wink, Henry Nouwen, and Miroslav Volf, and their theses and outcomes make perfect sense to me. The lives of activists such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi portray the same sense of clarity. However, despite this analysis, something falls short for me, something feels weak, ineffective, and overly idealistic.

On the other hand, I have flirted with elements of the military-industrial complex. The approach to the world that the United States, as global hegemon should seek to extend its interests abroad. While I am not necessarily a realist concerning international relations, I do see the value in a strong military to take proper action when need be. The Holocaust of World War II, the Rwandan Genocide, the Bosnian War, and Kosovo all seem like worthy causes to me, deserving of swift and powerful military action simply to prevent the loss of human lives. From this perspective, I disagree with the actions of the United States in invading Afghanistan and Iraq, both for motivations, as well as outcomes. Thoughts of joining the CIA and State Department have definitely crossed through my future musings. The fact that they would pay for my grad school somewhere of course sweetens that perspective. Nonetheless, I could see significant benefits stemming from the work of the CIA in various fields, as well as severe detriments, depending on the actions undertaken. Similarly, working for the State Department would be fantastic in many respects, however representing the policies and actions of the Bush Administration, to me, would be morally reprehensible at times. Military action in many respects simply works. It is the most effective manner to accomplish things quickly. It’s often the aftermath however that creates the problems, often times greater than the original issue (ie. Iraq). In addition, “collateral damage’ to speak in military terms is horrific and embarrassing.

So the continuum of peace activism and military action stretches into the horizons of the past and the future. Each with their respective strong points and weaknesses. When used with innocent and humanitarian agendas, the results can be inspiring, however when used with mixed motives, the results can inspire greater violence. I’m at a lost as to the path I will choose.