Martial Plan or Marshall Plan?

by Andreas Wittenstein

Hate only stirs up strife, while love covers all faults. --Proverbs 10:12

During the month of 'Èlul and the High Holy Days, we recognize our shortcomings in the preceding year, ask forgiveness from those we have wronged (and forgive those who ask us), make amends, and resolve to do better in the coming year. But our process of (teshuvàh) atonement is not complete until, in the days following Yom Kipur, we start to translate these righteous resolutions into action. By setting out on our new path immediately, we avoid falling back into the same rut.

Our primary role as Jews is tiqun 'olàm -- reparation of the world. We haven't been doing our job well enough. Although in some ways (chiefly in terms of awareness) we have made real progress, by many other measures the world is in its worst state of repair in history. Runaway processes of environmental destruction, reification of technology, corporate globalization, and militarization threaten to destroy the world before anyone figures out how to stop ourselves. This may be our last chance to learn from history.

One of the most important lessons we have failed to learn from history is how to resolve armed conflict. Unfortunately, history is written by victors, who tend to write mostly about their victories, perpetuating a message of war. Sages, in contrast, have always told us to make love and peace, not war and hate. But sages write parables, not histories. When faced with mortal fear, people cling to the examples of mortal stories, not immortal fables. Pacifists tell us to turn the other cheek. Sometimes this works. But throughout history, cultures of war have developed in which slaying the other cheek is considered gloriously heroic.

What does history tell us about resolution of armed conflict? A million times over, it tells us that oppression begets revolution. It tells us that punishment begets resentment. It tells us that vengeance begets vengeance. It tells us that when I respond tit for tat, you respond tat for tit, in cycles that can last centuries. Sometimes the cycle ends in annihilation of one or both sides. But dead people cannot be swayed to your point of view.

So what does work? History holds up one single shining example of a successful solution to armed conflict: the Marshall Plan. World War I punished the aggressors so thoroughly that they would surely never dream of striking again. Wrong. Instead they were so humiliated that in World War II they struck back with a hateful vengeance the like of which the world had never imagined in its worst nightmares. So in 1947, after the aggressors had been vanquished and disarmed again, U.S. Secretary of State George C. Marshall proposed the opposite solution in his European Recovery Plan: Rehabilitate the aggressors. Help them back on their feet. Build them back up. Befriend them. It worked. Germany and Japan are now our staunchest allies, and committed to nonmilitary solutions.

In a moment of fear following the worst attack on the U.S. in history, our untried leader made some understandably frightened and frightening noises about war, implying that we would indiscriminately punish the nations that harbor terrorists. Since then, he has twice corrected himself, first to "states" rather than "nations", then to "state-sponsored terrorists". It is critical that we permit him to correct himself, and not force him to paint himself into a corner!

War cries are euphoric for a weakly supported leader. In times of fear, people instinctively look up to an aggressive leader, and political leaders instinctively look up to the military. As the fear recedes, people's support for a vengeful leader rapidly wanes, and wise leaders back down from their war rhetoric. It is essential that we give our leader time to develop a more reasoned response.

Against which nations would we go to war? In the absence of the first shred of evidence connecting the terrorists to any harbor outside the U.S., Afghanistan and Iraq have been chosen as scapegoats. Before we consider punishing these nations, states, or governments for harboring terrorists, we should take a good long look in the mirror at who razed those countries and at who trained, armed, and financed the terrorists that stand accused. The Taliban and bin Laden were on our payroll.

We can't stop terrorists by killing them. The terrorists who attacked the U.S. proved that by killing themselves. We can stop them by showing them a better way to live and helping them live that way. The Marshall Plan worked. We need to give our leader the chance to learn from history and institute a recovery plan for the countries we have razed. Bush is surrounded by military people who are unlikely to suggest such a radical approach, so he needs to hear it from as many people as possible. Let's call it the Bush Plan and make it his idea! Now is the time for all good people to rally in front of their leader!

Whatever your personal opinion, whether you agree with mine wholly or not at all, please let our decision-makers know today what you think. Decisions made on the base of our collective wisdom are bound to be better than decisions made in haste on the advice of a coterie of interested parties.

—from our October 2001 Newsletter

Site design by BitJazz Inc.