Peace in War?

"Peace in war" is a hypothetical question: Can peace come of war? It would appear self evident that victory leads to peace. But does it always? If we look at the first great World War, it was followed by a second great World War, so this did not work. The second World War did lead to a lasting peace between combatants, however it should be noted that with the founding of the United Nations, a new philosophy towards war took root, in that the world did not want another destructive force as experienced by the two World Wars. The Cold War which lasted over four decades never fired a shot, though there were close calls, such as the Cuban missile crisis, and the hostilities ceased through the force of history, the fall of Communism. Though Communism still exists in latent form in China, Cuba, North Korea, it no longer provides the world vision of a communistically unified planet. Some evidence of this failed vision is the Israeli kibbutz system, which is likewise disintegrating through newer generations wanting more than a Utopian communal existence. Each person desires more than to serve, and each reward should honor the intellectual effort and labor contributions more directly in relation to the sacrifice put into the work. We as a human species need to be recognized for the work done, same as we demand to be recognized for who we are individually. This is a basic force in human existence, that we are honored for our right to be freely who we are in all we do, for what we do, as well as for who is doing it. If we take this as a basic premise, that this recognition of each one of our individual contributions to society as a whole, no matter how insignificant, is to validate the individual as free, and protected in this freedom, then each human being will in turn validate the freedom of others. Then, perhaps, a lasting Peace is doable. But how does this translate into a peace from war?

The other self evident historic event is that both Afghanistan and Iraq are the new fronts of a new war, one which has pitted the forces of Western civilization against the fundamentalistic religious extremism of an Oriental civilization. Whether or not we wish to recognize it this way, we are at war. Can this war lead to peace in any other form than victory? Here again, the simple answer is that conquest will lead to victory and peace; but the more complex answer lies in the fact that we are faced with two opposed views of the world, and of humanity in it, that vies for historic control of the future: A free world of honored individual rights, where within the limits of legal activities human beings express who they are in their contributions to society; Or, a world founded on sacred writings of God, where individuals are called upon to obey this word of God exclusively, and their contributions to society are dictated intimately in all their activities, both public and private, right down to their personal thoughts. So these are fundamentally extreme opposed views of what is right behavior for human beings of the planet, and in both cases, the ideology deems it not only beneficial but mandatory, that all obey, whether to obey the sanctity of individual human rights, protected by laws that insure this; or to obey the word of God as it was written in holy texts, and thus interpreted for modern men and women by the authorities of these texts. Which will win? Which victory is desirable for the future of human kind? That is the war of today. And if either side wins, will it lead to a lasting greater world Peace?

To a great extent, this is not as much a war of military conquest as a war of minds, much as the Cold War was a war of two diverse philosophies. The so called Capitalistic model won, but Communism is not dead, merely dormant, and might be expected to raise its head again at some future where technology will allow for a more equitable distribution of material goods. This latent desire for equity will always find appeal, but it does not work where the rights of the individual are violated. Hence, Communism failed under the Soviet model. Today, the war of minds is largely between a Judeo-Christian western civilization, represented by European, including Australo-Asian, and American interests, and the world of Islam, represented largely by the Middle East, North Africa, and South East Asia. The rights of the individual took root in the Judeo-Christian model, but it did so only after the yoke of total obedience to holy Scripture was removed. In that world, religious belief, whether fundamental within its certainty, or tolerant within its reformed relativism, it nevertheless remains a very personal and non politicized belief. In the Western model, one which can be called largely secularized, religion and a belief in God is a personal matter, one protected by the laws of society in that each individual is free to believe, but not at the expense of forcing this belief on another. On the other hand, in the Oriental Islamic model, the individual is subordinated to the holy Scriptures in that his or her belief is dictated, and thus as a common goal is politicized, into a structure that demands total allegiance. Under such a system, the rights of the individual exist only as the fundamental authority of the Qu'ran explicitly defines for him or her, and the privacy issue of belief in God never comes up, because it does not exist. I.e., Your belief is public, not private, and if you fail to obey all the dictates of this public belief, then you are punished. By this criterion, the two world views are diametrically opposed, and yet both have their appeal. Some individuals are more content living within a fully prescribed public existence, while others chafe at it, and want a fully private existence, from which they then interact with the rest of society by personal agreement, and not be coerced into it. This is a clear war of the minds, a war not of decades but of centuries. The greater Peace envisioned by Islam, whether in fundamental or tolerant moderate forms, is one where everyone on the planet obeys publicly the word of God to do His Will; the greater Peace of the more secular world, where religion is private, is that everyone is due to obey the right to the other to be who they are, and thus interact not through coercive means but within acceptable legal agreements between individuals, as defined by public participation in the social contract, i.e., democracy, and thus protected from coercion and trespass by law. In the latter, the role of the military becomes secondary to the role of government and police, who ensure the sanctity of human rights and right to contract, to property, to the right of one's personal beliefs; while in the prior, the role of the military, or subversive 'terrorist' paramilitaries, is to enforce the code of conduct representing the Will of God, and then to spread this code throughout the world, as Jihad. Both are imperialistic in nature, but where one defends the individual from trespass, the other defines the individual through trespass; and when total definition is accomplished imperialistically, so the whole world is this way, does it then lead to a world Peace? Can this war of the minds lead to peace?

I suspect it will not lead to peace, since unlike the fall of Communism which was an internal collapse, the war of the minds will continue. And if this is proven true, what mechanisms can be found to bring an end to this war, not the military war, but the war of beliefs? This is the question of Peace in War. Is there some hypothetical strategy, by either side, that could prevent this war of minds from escalating into a war of vast physical conflict, and hundreds of millions of deaths? Remember, this is not a war of decades, but of centuries; and within two decades, Muslims may outnumber Christians. The war is between a personal belief in God, and a public belief in God; between the right of the individual to pursue his or her existence as they will within God, and the necessity of the individual to pursue existence as God dictated. Which will be our planet's future? Which will win the lasting Peace? Can a peace be found before it becomes a new and perhaps greatest of all World Wars? Remember, when both sides are so totally dedicated to their belief, that they have found God, and themselves, in either a secular or religious context, then both will fight to the death: one for their freedom, and the other for their obedience, to be in God. It is not a war of the Bible against the Qu'ran, but a war between beliefs of Who is the individual: Are we Obedient, or are we Free?

If we are evolving as a conscious planet, of conscious human beings who can communicate their ideas technologically worldwide, then how can Peace win over War? And if the war is between freedom and obedience, which will most likely win on a planet conscious of Who we are? This is more than just conquering tyranny, as was with Hitler's Nazism. This is a war of hearts, of unprecedented true beliefs. We are in uncharted waters. What makes these waters especially dangerous is that the Islamists believe that our freedom is their heresy; and thus in our belief in our freedoms, we are committing a punishable act, one for which they think they must punish us. Because we are, in effect, trespassing on their beliefs through our spread of a freedom based ideology worldwide, they imagine themselves acting in self defense, though we never meant to trespass on them. So they attacked us first, on September 11, 2001, because they thought themselves invaded, and thus declared war on us, self justifiably, in their idea of self defense. We are all in very deep and dangerous waters here. Can this conflict be resolved without another world war? Does the Muslim world have a secular world within it with which we can connect? I leave the question open here: Can there be a Peace in War?


Ivan

Former Canadian Minister Of Defence Asks Canadian Parliament Asked To Hold Hearings On Relations With Alien "Et" Civilizations

In the above Yahoo News article, given to me by my friend Wayne B.H., it says:

---

Quote:

(PRWEB) - OTTAWA, CANADA (PRWEB) November 24, 2005 -- A former Canadian Minister of Defence and Deputy Prime Minister under Pierre Trudeau has joined forces with three Non-governmental organizations to ask the Parliament of Canada to hold public hearings on Exopolitics -- relations with "ETs".

By "ETs," Mr. Hellyer and these organizations mean ethical, advanced extraterrestrial civilizations that may now be visiting Earth.
...
Mr. Hellyer went on to say, "I'm so concerned about what the consequences might be of starting an intergalactic war, that I just think I had to say something."

Hellyer revealed, "The secrecy involved in all matters pertaining to the Roswell incident was unparalled (sic). The classification was, from the outset, above top secret, so the vast majority of U.S. officials and politicians, let alone a mere allied minister of defence, were never in-the-loop."

---