Evolving the War on Terror

The motives and methods driving the war on terror are little different than the motives and methods of the terrorists themselves. Until the absolute value system used by countries engaged in the war on terror is replaced by an internally referenced, subjective honor system that demands the allies meet their own highest standards of moral behavior, the war against terrorism cannot be won.

(PRWEB) March 21, 2004 --Here we go again. Another two hundred dead; a ruling party toppled; al-Qaeda can mark up a victory. The questions repeated over and over are "why" and "how do we stop it?"

When dealing with fundamentalists the two questions are, from the fundamentalist's perspective, intrinsically linked. Al-Qaeda's "why" is to stop "us", the "evil ones." And since in al-Qaeda's world there is only "good" and "evil" and nothing in between, the second question, "how do we stop them?" is easily answered: Any way we can.

This much is already widely known and accepted by the experts in the war on terror. What's frightening is to realize that so far, the response by America and her "allies" has been equally fundamentalist. George Bush and Tony Blair both have referred to terrorists as "evil people." George Bush likes to frame their battle as one against "free societies and free peoples" -- fundamentalist language that isn't much better than the fanatical religious phraseology of al-Qaeda. And it serves to do little more than fan the flames of hatred, fueling the need for more violence and more killing on both sides.

The result? The horrible train bombing in Spain.

So how should we respond? Do we take the next step up the evolutionary ladder and assume that this has all been caused because of our capitalistic, imperialistic impositions on the world? If we would simply pause to understand these terrorists and meet their needs and honor their values, they'll leave us alone. (This is what Nietzsche used to call a "transvaluation of values." We're all bad and the other guy is all good and is only acting bad because we've mistreated him.)

In point of fact we did leave al-Qaeda alone in Afghanistan, and sat idly by while their buddies, the Taliban, raped, murdered, and maimed their citizens, and destroyed unrecoverable works of art, history, and culture. It did nothing to prevent them from slamming airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Even the Prophet Muhammad, who preached non-violence, realized that there were times when war and violence were the only reasonable answers when dealing with violent and warlike people. Muhammad understood that what separates the evolved human being from the unevolved human being isn't an unwillingness to engage in violence, but the way in which the violence is engaged. As Ken Wilber paraphrased the ancient code of the Samurai warrior: "The best fight is not to fight; the real sword is no sword -- but if you think that means a Samurai warrior never used his sword, you are [a tad naive, I fear."

And that's what can, or should, separate us from al-Qaeda. It is, in fact, the only way to win this war and win it quickly. The best fight is not to fight. But if we must, we will do so with the skill and honor of the Samurai, not with the brutality and cruelty of the thug. Unfortunately, in many respects, a thug is exactly how the "allies" have been acting -- and especially America under George Bush's leadership. He led the country to war against a soverign nation without global sanction, and is holding hundreds captive because they are "enemies," ignoring the hue and cry of other freedom loving countries against such violations of their human rights.

This kind of fundamentalism cannot win a war against another fundamentalist because both live in an objective world of absolute values, rather than in the subjective world of internal honor.

There is an old story about a Samurai who went out to avenge his father's murder. He searches and searches, finally comes face to face with his father's killer, and is about to reach for his sword when the murderer spits on his face. Shocked, the Samurai turns and walks away.

A nearby villager, who'd seen the whole thing, asked the Samurai "why didn't you kill him?" The Samurai answered: "Because he made me angry."

The Samurai understood that justice carried out in anger is not justice but vengence -- an action taken in judgment. And what you judge, you one day become.

When the application of force is applied without anger, then will we begin to win this war on terror. When we fight not because we hate, and not because we judge the terrorists to be part of some "axis of evil," but because they leave us no choice but to fight, then will we begin to win this war on terror. When we treat our enemies as human beings, afford them a level of courtesy and access to justice in keeping with our own honor code as freedom and peace loving people, then will we begin to win this war on terror.

Until then we can't win, we won't win. But we will see a good many more innocent people on both sides die.

Rev. Matson has a Doctorate of Divinity in mystical studies, and is an
author and mystic who teaches and counsels extensively on our modern
orthodoxies and the process of recovering from fundamentalism. His
forthcoming book, "Recovering From Fundamentalism: The Journey From
Belief To Experience" is due out summer 2004. Rev. Matson's sechedule
is available at www.metaphorsforlife.com.