A sandbagged stupa in Medavachiya, checkpoint to the north. My favorite temple
I think war is sometimes OK. This shocks many of my friends. War is pretty uniformly shit, but also glorious. It is viewed as a sacrifice people make so that others may live better. However, war is fundamentally putting hot shards of metal through other human bodies. It’s a lot of bleeding and crying and the smell of burning flesh. It’s hard to see how this makes sense. In his Nobel speech Barack Obama tried to explain.
We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified… For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason. (via Andrew Sullivan)
The issue is that violence is still one of the core realities that binds this illusion to the earth. It is, for better or worse, the main contact we have with objective reality and each other. Many things are debatable, but death and pain are quite real.
Many issues, big and small, will come down to violence. We’ll stab someone who steps on our shoes or we’ll bayonet ten thousand men for a hundred yards of trench. The solution as to how to manage this has not been non-violence, but rather monopoly of violence by the state.
Monopoly Of Violence
In this situation there are people with guns that do have the power to inflict violence, usually under civilian control. They have a monopoly of violence and all other violence is (excepting self-defense) illegal, and punished. This is not as ideal as everyone being non-violent, but non-violence is not a trait which is likely to survive in a tough world without protection. The state ostensibly gives us that protection.
States, of course, fight each other. However, the rising lethality of industrial war machinery has made this outright ‘war’ less and less likely. Instead most conflicts we see are not inter-state, but more internal breakdowns in the monopoly of violence. Insurgents or proxy armies taking up cheap, powerful weapons and using mass media as a force multiplier.
There are of course monopolies of violence which are basically tyranny not a benevolent ‘let us hold the guns for you’. On the whole, however, I think having controlled violence is better for human quality life and I think that weak states are the biggest threat to international security.
Sri Lankan Case
In the Sri Lankan case, I have rarely agreed with the conduct of the war, but I’ve always supported the Sri Lankan state. At the end of the day they did end the war and I am grateful. I think a negotiated settlement could have been possible, but I may have been wrong. Whatever’s said and done, they did it.
Now, really for the first time in independent history, there is a monopoly of violence throughout the entire island. There is also a split within that monopoly of violent men, worked out in the democratic process (the Army Commander running against the Commander In Chief). This is good, I think, and much better than military coups or terrorist insurrections.
I have seen children without limbs and know people whose lives will never be made whole. It’s hard and I think morally weak to sit here and say that’s OK because now I can live in relative stability. In a concrete sense, there is nothing you can say to a toddler who cannot toddle, or to children who continue to draw birds raining fire and metal upon their homes. In an abstract, cruel sense, however. This can be justified. I think there is just war.
Cruel Calculus
In the face of evil men trying to tear a state or a nation apart, I think simply wicked men may be justified in putting the thing back together. In this case as in the case of the American Civil War, World War II, etc, I think that the blood was not shed in vain. I come to that conclusion late in the day and it’s not what I always thought, but it’s where I am.
In the cruel calculus of the world. I think war is sometimes OK. I think it is often just, and necessary. When bad people would use violence, the good must defend themselves by force of arms. However, I do not believe that we should ever glory in war. To come anywhere near it is to see nothing but shit.
The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached — their fundamental faith in human progress — that must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey. (full Nobel speech)
I don’t think war is OK because I think it’s the way things should be, I think it’s just the way things are. But I don’t think that’s the way things should be. It’s a tragedy every time, but it’s sometimes better than the alternatives. I don’t think we should ever stop trying to change this reality in our world, but I don’t think we can immediately wish it away. War is here and good people should try to make it disappear. To do that, however, the good must often fight to survive.
For some hideous reason as it may seem to sound I love the sound of gun shots. I know am a liitttle retarded as it sounds.
However I agree with your conclusion. War is tragedy in relations to gunshots.
Pretty speech by Obama. As usual failed to acknowledge the role the US has played in infringing human rights and promoting war through its clandestine wars (not to mention Iraq) and the role they have had in preventing developing countries from developing on a level playing field. More to the point on your post, I have to agree wtih you wholeheartedly. We live in the real world and in the real world non-violence isn’t feasible as a blanket option.
I am not sure I would agree with N about this being just a pretty speech. Instead it illustrates the huge contrast between responsible leaders like Obama and our own aspirants, like Sarath Fonseka today.
Iraq and Guantanomo illustrate this quite well. Obama said consistently from the beginning that these were bad – not just bad strategy, but bad from a moral point of view. Right at the start of his run for the Democratic nomination the one thing that marked him out was in fact his position on Iraq. As he said then, he wasn’t against all wars (he understood and accepted the need for just wars), but he was against bad wars and in his view Iraq was both immoral and stupid. He was also consistently against Guantanomo and all the associated crimes such as CIA torture and locking up unknown numbers of people in black prisons – not only as being bad strategy – but also as an affront to America’s morality.
That’s what he said, and when he eventually became President, it’s clear that those views have guided his actions. He took the decisions early to start a withdrawal from Iraq, to close down Guantanomo, and to stop CIA torture. Those are more than pretty speeches. Now is the fact all this hasn’t happened overnight a failure or a deception? I don’t think so. It just reflects the need to do things in a responsible manner, which inevitably takes time. In addition on the torture issue, even though he has banned it, he has quite explicitly ruled out doing anything to punish those who did these things under Bush. He understands that responsible leaders have to deal with real world realities, including looking after the larger interests of the country, since his staff have indicated that doing a witch hunt in the CIA for those who did torture doesn’t make sense as it would damage the ability of the CIA to carry out its proper functions. Obama can’t change the past, and there are real limits to what he can do – either because the American people or their political elite won’t back him,or because it would create other problems. Instead what he can do and what he does appear to be doing sincerely is changing the direction of US policy in a really substantive way. I think this is why the Nobel people gave him his prize so early in his presidency.
The contrast with our Sri Lankans is that any responsible leader would realise at this point that however the LTTE was defeated, it is hardly in the national interest to start witch hunts against the security forces. And where would it stop? May 2009 is only the start, and we could certainly could go back to 1988-89 and all that was done to crush the JVP. There are certain things that even in Western democracies it is understood that are best left to lie undisturbed for the sake of the future. Sarath Fonseka apparently doesn’t get this – which should be rather worrying for all of us about his readiness for high political office.
I wasn’t comparing the Sri Lankan leadership to Obama (for all the latter’s faults there really is no comparison). I was merely commenting on the glossing over of the US’ historical role in contributing to the very global instability that Obama is saying he is fighting.
war doesn’t come gift-wrapped with in the garish paper that your muddled moral compass would produce. Either you’re okay with the inevitable death of innocents or you’re not. Given how unlikely a low-resource, high-tech utopia is, you’ve apparently chosen to be ok with the death of innocents. That’s a weak philosophical position to take but needing only 3-4 sentences to expound.
You sound like Roberto Gonzalez justifying the acceptance of torture within the justice and intelligence establishment in the US: sometimes you have to crush a child’s testicles to get his terrorist father to give up that crucial bit of information. In fact it’s that willingness to crush the testicles of a child in front of their father which distinguishes the US from all other countries in their preparedness and ultimate ability for dealing with terrorists.
you may think that your ‘realism’ is an investment in an SL with all the institutions and civic culture necessary for long-term peace and prosperity but you’re simply pouring hope into a hole-filled bucket. A contest between Nero and his suddenly rebellious horse will not produce the political leadership or will necessary to achieve that aim.
1. Indi, you call the stupa in Medawachi your favourite temple, why? Because it is pretty from the outside?
2. This is the whole problem with people, say one thing stand for another
3. This country would be a better place if Buddhists practiced their faith rather than praise its outward decor
4. It’s vanity, my friend, vanity!
This world (and Sri Lanka) would be a better place if the 3 million odd Sri Lankan Tamil Hindus practiced their religion and didn’t provide most of the world’s suicide bombers.
Indi you disgraceful comment:
” but I’ve always supported the Sri Lankan state. At the end of the day they did end the war and I am grateful. ……….. Whatever’s said and done, they did it.”
My reply:
1. So, do you support sinhala terrorists and sinhala terrorism?
2. They ended the war because it was in their favour. If GoSL did not attack there would be no war!
3. There was a war because Sinhala chauvinists did not want to give an inch to the Tamils!
truly whimsical
I humbly ask the sinhala-buddhist chauvinists to stop pushing people into suicide
Sri Lanka has one of the world’s highest suicide rates
Looks like I touched a nerve :)
Nevertheless it’s pretty sad that the 3 million odd Tamil Hindus of Sri Lanka have given more suicide bombers to the world than the more than 1 billion Muslims, including pioneering bra bombs and the use of pregnant women as bombers. Tamil pride worldwide!
You must get your facts from the malwatte&asgiriya chapter
sinhala pride(only) srilankawide! with U.S. citizenship and greencard
hoping not to touch any nerves
Lame comeback.
Don’t let that big stone Shiva lingam hit you on the way out.
“2. They ended the war because it was in their favour. If GoSL did not attack there would be no war!” – eh? Perhaps you should check out the conflict timeline right after Mahinda came into power wtih the number of bombings that the LTTE carried out without any response from the GOSL. This is of course not to mention the number of killings carried out by the LTTE during the height of the ceasefire itself including Lakshman and the suicide bomb in Bamba(?) police station in 2004.
“3. There was a war because Sinhala chauvinists did not want to give an inch to the Tamils!” – actually the last phase of the war occured because the LTTE did not take any chances offered to them during the ceasefire and instead chose the path of war. The Diaspora who funded them also chose to close their eyes and ignore the fact that their chosen leader was not interested in the good of the Tamil people and was only interested in his own fiefdom.
You have some valid points in your various arguments about the unacceptable level of civilian casualties, etc but then most of us accept that. Your points are however lost in you myopic diatribes such as the above.
My comment earlier didn’t seem to get picked up. Thank you for your positive engagement.
What I was refering to is, this whole war started because the GoSL responded with terror to Tamils reasonable demands, making terror the only language GoSL understands, thereby creating groups such as the LTTE.
A vast majority of Sinhalese use the LTTE excesses, such as torture, child & adult conscription, to talk about sufferings of Tamils or Tamil children, as if though they really cared.
If sinhalese were genuinely interested in Tamils’ welfare they could have urged their GoSL to stop fighting and give Tamils a separate state as Tamils voted for in 1977. Then there would be no need for war! But the sinhalese were really interested in the LAND. And make excuses about Tamil people’s suffering as if they are genuinely interested. This is what I was talking about.
Blaming the LTTE is not going to solve much, using the LTTE as an excuse for GoSL terrorism and facism is not going to bring long term ethnic harmony.
There must be genuine equality and a genuine desire to negotiate in good faith!
Dear N,
1. The MR government was backing Karuna’s clandestine activities against the LTTE, this caused the first tremors.
2. MR knew the LTTE wanted him to be President? Why? Because he was backed by extremist forces.
3. Why did the LTTE want someone backed by extremists? Because he would more likely go to war.
4. All chatter about MR wanting to give peace a chance is a total fabrication. MR became president to go to war, of course, initially he pretends to play the peacenik by showing restraint, (sort of, the calm before the storm scenario) then unleashes terror in a fit of fury.
5. Mavil Aru, which the GoSL considers as the commencement of its operations is a perfect example of MR’s duplicity. The SLMM had negotiated the opening of the anicut with the LTTE and were headed to the site to re-open the sluice gates when the Airforce bombed it. Palitha Kohona claimed, when tried to be contacted by SLMM, that he went to Matale and his phone did not have connection. All other GoSL official’s were also mysteriously unabled to be reached. This shows the utter hypocrisy and duplicity of the GoSL.
6. Ask yourself what was this war really about? Peace and Harmony or Sinhala Hegemony??
Myl, you really really need to get your facts straight. Karuna split from the LTTE in March 2004, MR wasn’t even prime minster until April of that year and president over a year later. Your points 2 & 3 basically indicate that the LTTE wanted the war (which I already know but you seem convinced that the GOSL wanted the war). About showing restraint, Mavil Aru was in July 2006, fom Mahinda’s election in November 2005 until July, almost 8 months (just in case u can’t calculate) Sarath Fonseka was almost assassinated, 64 navy soldiers were killed in Kabithigollawa and Major Kalutunge was killed. This list is hardly exhaustive.
Yet your central premise is that “If GoSL did not attack there would be no war”. To say that is laughable is the understatement of the century. The war was brought on by the LTTE and the Diaspora that funded them, take a look in the mirror if you want to see who is responsible for the last segment of the war.
I would love to have a part of Canada and make a separate country there. But somehow I doubt those peaceloving (hah) Canadians would just hand us over a part of it’s huge land. See the thing is, nobody just gives away a part of their country.
Not ‘nobody’. It has been known to happen. Sweden gave Norway away to the Norwegians. The UK gave southern Ireland away to the Irish. Malaysia gave away Singapore.