January-February 2002:
Nonviolent Resistance & Islam
A Journey to Pacifism
Reflections at Ground Zero
WRL Message Board
Dr. King’s Legacy
Letters
Activist News
Activist Reviews

Homepages:
War Resisters League
The Nonviolent Activist

True Confessions of a Message Board Junkie

by Tommy Ross

s the Fall (post-September 11) Freeman Intern at the War Resisters League, I took on the task of responding to questions or comments from individuals who disagree with the League’s absolute commitment to nonviolence. I responded to several e-mails of this sort, and later began to engage individuals on the War Resisters League message board.

In the face of the tragedies of September 11, the pacifist commitment to nonviolence seems as alien to many people as a surrender to the Taliban. Nevertheless, nearly every single individual whom I engaged—from those who respectfully and politely disagreed to those who profanely and insultingly degraded pacifists—were surprisingly open to dialogue once I offered serious, non-polemical responses to their comments. And while I never succeeded in changing a single mind, the dialogue proved to be fruitful, I think, for both sides.

I can offer a few observations that speak to the heart of the chasm between pacifists and the pro-war majority. A perusal of the message board will clearly demonstrate the most common arguments against pacifism.

What’s Wrong with You?
• Pacifism is cowardly. As the appropriately named “John Rambo” (most of the posts are signed with pseudonyms) put it November 21, “these peace lovers are just afraid they may bring back the draft.” Pacifists are perceived as cowardly because they are removed from the conflict: “Of course, you’re satisfied with your decision to support the ‘antiwar’ movement. … You’re 10,000 miles away from the conflict and relatively safe in the United States ….” (“Mark,” November 15.) Moreover, this alleged cowardice is only possible because of the security provided by the military: “Brave men and women fought, bled, and died in defense of your freedom, the very freedom that allows you to publish this kind of seditious crap.” (“Geomedic,” November 21.)

• Pacifism has a naive understanding of conflict and a utopic vision of solution. One comment asserted that, “the leftists and pacifists seem to equate understanding with appeasement. They think that just knowing our enemy and understanding their culture will lead to some big ol’ group hugs and a group sing-along of ‘Kumbaya.’ It just doesn’t work that way. Appeasement doesn’t work. Only a show of strength works.” (Response to “Genji,” December 8.)

• There is no viable antiwar movement, and those who speak out against the war are simply perpetual malcontents. As one person said, “There’s always going to be a very, very small fringe element that is opposed to whatever the United States does simply because it’s the U.S. doing it. You know that and I know that.” (“Mark,” December 7.)

• The United States is only defending itself against the fanatic, irrational—and completely groundless—hatred of Islamic fundamentalists. “The United States is defending itself. We didn’t ask for the war. But we will deal with these criminals.” (“Good,” November 24.) This argument is often followed quickly by glorification of the United States: “You are an idiot, like most lefties. Do you know that in most countries you can’t even own land if you are not a citizen? But in America, everyone can own land, even non-citizens. America is the most loved, most free, most tolerant of any country on earth. The line forms to get into the country, not to get out. You wimpy, whiny lefties truly are disgusting.” (Response to “Dead Mexican,” December 6.)

• Pacifism is ineffective in the face of horrors such as terrorism or Nazism. One comment argued, “If you peaceniks and other cowards were in charge during WWII then we would all be living within Hitler’s Third Reich—except the Jews, of course, because the Nazis would have killed them.” (Response to “no better man,” December 5.)

Those postings do not simply reveal a mass misunderstanding of pacifism. They suggest two important needs. First is the need to address these misunderstandings at a public level. Clearly pacifists do not conceive of ourselves as cowardly, but as willing to suffer ourselves so that others will not have to. Likewise, pacifism claims a sophisticated understanding of conflict mediated through cycles of violence and hate, and not solvable by unilateral acts of military violence. But as long as these self-understandings are not made clear to the public, few are likely to join an antiwar movement. So the comments underscore what is essentially a marketing problem.

Second, they illustrate the need for an ongoing self-critique, in order to ensure that pacifism does not become what these individuals reject. We must discard any nonviolent strategy or commitment that expresses a naive understanding of conflict, that shies from civic engagement or self-sacrifice, that becomes simply a voice of general discontent and so forth. Those comments are a call for clarification and critique of our self-definition.

What They Hate to Hear
Equally informative is the list of comments made by pacifists that seem to be most troublesome to the pro-war respondents. These are the top things that pro-war people hate to hear:

• Pacifism is patriotism/I love my country. In response to the criticism that pacifists just hate the United States, I wrote to one person, “I love this country precisely because I have the freedom to say the things I have said on this message board, because I have the opportunity to work constructively for peace, because I can dissent without fear of my life, because I feel great possibilities for improvement, because the United States has its problems but also has thousands of citizens committed to solving them, and, yes, because there are people like you (and me) who are passionate enough and engaged enough to have these discussions about important issues.” Another person responded, “You want to completely trash the United States, destroy her from within and at the same time say you love her. That’s bull crap, and most people know it—only the leftists have convinced themselves that it is not crap. You only love the country that you want her to be, that is, a left-wing, socialist-controlled, Third World country, with you in charge. That is part of the hypocrisy of the leftists—they themselves will not be a member of the working ‘masses,’ they will be a part of the ruling elite!” (“Michelle,” December 7.)

• The United States is complicit in the cycles of violence and hate that breed terrorism. Most often, responses to that argument evince a misunderstanding of the cycle-of-violence concept. For example, one pro-war contributor wrote, “So, in other words, we shouldn’t have retaliated against the Japanese after Pearl Harbor for fear that that would just encourage more attacks from the Japanese? …So although they bombed the embassies three years ago and bombed the USS Cole last year and destroyed the World Trade Center two months ago, we should do nothing because Bin Laden will just get us back? … How about if he gets his hands on a small thermonuclear device and detonates it in downtown Paris or London [or] New York and kills 600,000 people the next time, perhaps we should do nothing then, too, because that might get him angrier and then he’ll try and kill 1,000,000 people the next time.” (“Mark,” November 7.)

• The United States has a history of genocide, slavery and support for puppet dictatorships, bloody coups, inhumane interventions, economic exploitation, cultural imperialism, etc. While antiwar respondents often use this argument to counter excessive glorification of the United States, it is often countered in turn with the claim that the left is excessively critical of this country: “While there is no shortage of anti-American rhetoric, there is a conspicuous absence of opinion that is critical of the Saddam Husseins, the Milosevics, the Talibans, the Osama Bin Ladens of this world. It’s as if the left wing supports the actions of these individuals. There’s reams of material about U.S. foreign policy mistakes in the past, but nothing, for example, about the incredibly oppressive regime of the Taliban, a government that feels threatened by little boys and girls flying kites, for God’s sake.” (“Mark,” November 11.)

• Military action cannot provide a viable peace and is utopic in its own belief of intervention as a final solution. Contributors persist adamantly with calls for military response. They reply, for example, “You cannot negotiate or talk with these people.” (“Mark,” November 8.) Moreover, many argue that, even if the military action does not bring peace, it brings fear of further terrorism—which is, in their view, just as good. One person wrote, “[I]n view of the mass defection of Taliban troops over to the other side and this morning’s request by those trapped Al Qaida fighters in Tora Bora, I would say they [are] probably crapping their pants with fear. Even Mullah Omar, who was exhorting his troops to fight to the death, was trying to cut a deal for himself. …[L]et’s not forget the number of terrorists trying to flee to Pakistan. You think they’re doing so because they feel like a Pakistani vacation?” (“Peter,” December 11.)

• The primary victims of war are civilians. Most often, the response to this argument is to minimize it with comparisons between U.S. military and terrorist motivations: “Here is the difference—the United States is not trying to bomb civilians. It is an unfortunate side effect of war, one that the United States has tried to minimize, but never will because it cannot be done. Terrorists specifically target civilians because they know they cannot defend themselves. That is the difference, my friend.” (“The Man,” November 23.) Often, one can just sense ears turning red at the sight of these comments. Just as the pro-war respondents’ comments can demonstrate the needs of contemporary pacifism, these comments represent its strengths and resources. They provide a clearer understanding of the problem and can lead to more fruitful discussions about potential solutions.

Macho Militarism
Yet despite the generally intelligent conversation and fruitful debate that often takes place, there are those who revel in personal attacks and belligerence. What has surprised me in reading these attacks is that certain patterns emerge. Even more often than belittling someone’s intelligence, the attackers focus on other respondents’ sexuality. The attacks involve questioning an individual’s heterosexuality, sexual prowess or sexual activity. And while both sides (i.e., pacifist and pro-war) resort to these tactics, it is most often people who identify themselves as belonging to the military who instigate or make unprovoked attacks on someone’s sexuality. To them, apparently, military might means maleness, heterosexuality, prowess and dominance, while pacifism represents femininity, homosexuality, impotence and subservience.

Despite the belligerence, there is one strategy crucial to pacifism that makes constructive conversations possible: dialogue. The power of dialogue has proven to be amazingly transformative in these conversations. I have seen the most belligerent bashers of the War Resisters League apologize for their rudeness and surrender certain points after receiving a level-headed, non-attacking response. One correspondent replied, “I will not [offer a] rebuttal, as you and I will never see eye to eye.  Regardless of our ideological differences though, it is nice to know that there are some in the pacifist movement who are actually aware of what it is they are protesting.” (“Steven,” December 10)

Likewise, I have had to admit the inadequacies or assumptions in my own passionate arguments after viewing a well-thought-out response from a dissenting voice. The most constructive dialogues have defused irrational passions, challenged unfounded assumptions and brought together different-minded individuals for a quality conversation about issues critically relevant to this time.

In closing, I would encourage readers to participate in this dialogue. Beyond the WRL message board, there are opportunities for fruitful dialogue all around us. The only way to build an antiwar, antiviolence voice is to persuade others that peace is the way. The beginnings can be as simple as a conversation at a bar or a bus-stop.

Tommy Ross, a student at the Union Theological Seminary in New York City, was the Fall 2001 Freeman Intern at WRL.