What are the motives for war?

Many motives have been given for the present buildup to war in Iraq, the one most often repeated being the need for regime change in Iraq. But this does not seem motive enough to commit vast resources to an invasion of such a small country. So perhaps it is worth looking beyond the obvious. Is it that there is a need to secure future supplies of oil? Or is it the control of water from the Tigris and Euphrates? Or is it to support Israel and prevent future attacks from Iraq? Or is it about having a commanding American presence to secure world hegemony? Or is it, as Thomas Friedman and others maintain, an extension of George Bush’s ideology that “democratic change” in the Middle East is imperative even if brought about by force?

Perhaps it is, as the novelist, Norman Mailer contends, that an invasion is meant to prevent future empire builders such as China from competing with America for world dominance. Perhaps it is, as others say, that neo-conservatives are trying to redirect the country’s attention away from corporate and religious scandals and that war will return America to core values once more. Perhaps though, after some reflection on the matter, we could say that all these motives are simultaneously true but that each motive speaks to a different faction within America.

The curiously surreal nature of the present debacle is that the majority of Americans are opposed to American unilateral action in Iraq and no matter how polls pose the question there is a consistent attitude being reflected against such action. Besides this, many senior retired officers and mainstream religious leaders as well as leading historians express strong opposition to pre-emptive strikes and unilateral action.

A quick look at history may give us some perspective on the present passions for or against war. Geneticists point out that modern humans are descendants of those who migrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and are 250 generations removed from Mesopotamia (present day Iraq). Mesopotamia, the land between the Tigris and Euphrates was our earliest civilization and produced the first metallurgists, the first written literature and the first sustained agriculture. Mesopotamia is a living museum of human history. As a result of our modern knowledge from archeological insights and astronomical studies we not only know a great deal about our ancient past but also about our relative size in the scheme of space and time.

Our Earth is traveling at thousands of miles per hour and every year we are becoming more aware of the ecological fragility of our planet. This awareness is contributing to a deepening spirit of cooperation and nonviolent behavior around the world. But there are countervailing motives caused by past wrongs suffered by so many. It is extremely important that such impotent anger and resentment be wisely guided toward peaceful resolutions. Violence provokes violence is an aphorism we all know but are too often unable to prevent. In Romans 12 it is written that we should “… be not overcome [by] evil but overcome evil with good.” A modern aphorism states that the force of law creates cooperation but the law of force creates hatred.

War is meant to kill people and modern war kills mostly civilians (estimated to be up to 90 percent of casualties). This is a terrifying statistic which should make us pause to reflect. Should this country be adding to the slaughter? It is important to remind ourselves that ten million Iraqis are children under 15. Many will die if missiles and bombs assault Baghdad, a city of 4 million people the size of Boston or Atlanta.

It seems to me that a silent majority is allowing an impatient minority to radically change the humanitarian aims that best represented America in the past. I believe that the majority of Americans are tired of violence. I believe that the majority of people on our planet are tired of violence. I believe that Americans can be at the forefront in efforts to maintain peace among nations. I believe that a silent majority is allowing a neo-conservative administration to discard a 57-year policy of avoiding pre-emptive strikes which sets a dangerous new course for America.

American democracy is based on more than 200 years of Enlightenment thinking. Luminaries from Locke to Newton to Voltaire provided the basis for democratic institutions. Jefferson incorporated Enlightenment principles into the American constitution. These thinkers encouraged each person “to dare to think for themselves, to search for the clearest general principles, to admit nothing except on the testimony of experience and reason and to reject those prejudices that enslave most minds.” These democratic principles have motivated America and because of this America has been admired and emulated. But most of the world does not admire America’s military might nor the corporate structure that supports it. They do admire America’s free institutions but the more these are compromised the less freedom there is and the more America comes to resemble an autocratic regime.

David Hirsh, writing from the Middle East, warns that this war will be a disaster for not only Iraq but also for the United States. It could, in fact, end up provoking the catastrophe we seem so determined to avoid. “America’s policies”, he said, “will generate an ever-growing hostility which the United States will have to commit ever-growing material and human resources to combating.” Joseph Wilson, the former ambassador to Kuwait and Iraq, fears that the aftermath of an invasion of Iraq could very well be disastrous.

The poet Robinson Jeffers wrote many years ago concerning the American invasion of the Filipino nation that ” The war that we have carefully/ for years provoked/ catches us unawares/ amazed and indignant.” The war on terrorism is a war that cannot be stopped unless the causes are addressed. Encouraging countries to take on democratic forms of government by diplomatic and humanitarian efforts will bring far better results than trying to bring democracy by force.

It is by nonviolent diplomatic efforts that America could leave a great legacy. By prosecuting a pre-emptive war America will bring only disappointment and disillusionment. The sins of the father are always visited upon the sons. At the beginning of World War I the poet William Butler Yeats wrote that “the best lack all conviction, the worst are full of passionate intensity.” Those who are so passionate for war will leave a legacy that they themselves may call victory but will most likely result in a ruined peace in ruined countries and ruined hopes for peaceful resolutions in the future.

Hugh Curran teaches in the Peace Studies Program at the University of Maine.