PEP Talk

There has been much in the media lately about the increased use of drone warfare under the Administration of President Barack Obama. Until recently, the U.S. use of drone strikes was almost absent from mainstream media. Therefore, nationwide focus on the issue is long overdue, needed, and welcomed.

These public conversations, however, restricted to the paradigms of partisan politics deflect attention from important issues, such as the collapse of the United States peace movement around the globe and the challenge of effectively informing the public about drone warfare in an election year.

In the Sunday June 3 edition of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Charles Krauthammer’s op/ed does a good job of addressing the hypocrisy of Obama whom he refers to as “Our Drone Warrior President.” In the conflicting roles of both peacemaker and avenger, Obama has seen the drone-targeted killing program flourish under his administration. This does in fact seem to contradict Obama’s so-called commitment to nuclear disarmament and his criticism of harsh counter-terrorism investigative tactics like those practiced at Guantanamo.

Escalating from 53 strikes in 2009 to 118 strikes in 2010, drone warfare seems to be the new favorite choice of combat in this “war on terror.” Much of Krauthammer’s clearly partisan commentary diminishes Obama’s military leadership, focusing on the inefficiency of drones due to the inability to extract what he calls “life-saving intelligence” from dead enemies. Yet, he defends the use of drones, basically because they are more effective and cheaper than conventional warfare.

I dissent from Krauthammer here, though questionably more economical, drones are by no means more effective.  At its core, drone usage is a very counterproductive counter-terrorism tactic. Drones perpetuate an anti-American sentiment amongst our established enemies abroad and more dangerously, inspire the same sentiment amongst the people we are supposed to be protecting; creating new potential insurgents and enemies.

Krauthammer writes that drone attacks are “fully justified.” What he doesn’t address is the real cost of drone warfare. With all the casualties, mistakes and innocent lives loss as a result of drones, “fully justified” is a bit of an oxymoron. There’s no justification when the Obama administration has been creating kill lists and authorizing drone strikes, with both a lack of accountability and transparency.

Krauthammer also takes a swipe at our “delicate sensibilities,” which I assume means those of us who oppose war and promote peace. Supposedly, according Krauthammer, we suffer from “moral amnesia” because we harshly criticize Bush’s counterterrorism tactics more than we do Obama’s “assassination by remote control.”

The discussion of the escalating use of drones goes far beyond Obama and our “delicate sensibilities.” Obama definitely deserves to be called on his military hypocrisy but the conversation must go beyond the politics and policies of one Administration.

On Wednesday, St. Louis has the opportunity to engage in an expanded conversation on drone warfare. Medea Benjamin, another peace activist with “delicate sensibilities,” a commitment to challenge the Obama administration, and strategies for addressing the drone warfare in an election year will expand the conversation beyond the narrow paradigms of partisan politics.

Medea Benjamin is the co-founder of the anti-war group CODE PINK: Women for Peace and the author of “Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control” Benjamin’s in-depth discussion will address the dynamics, danger, and future of drone warfare. She will be speaking on Wednesday June 6^th, at the St. Louis Friends Meeting House, 1001 Park Avenue, 7PM. This event is free and open to the public

Tila Neguse

Medea Benjamin will speak at St. Louis Friends Meeting House, 1001 Park Ave, 7 PM, Free

The event is co-sponsored by the Peace Economy Project, St. Louis Instead of War Coalition, Catholic Action Network, and the Inter-faith Committee on Latin America

For more information, staff@insteadofwar.org

On May 25^th, 108 people were killed in the Houla Massacre in Syria. Another recent act of “senseless violence” (that phrase we often use to shield ourselves from the possible truth that all killing of humans is without sense). Events like these may increase our sense of despair, and make us wonder whether there’s really a point to the work we do. Do we ever make progress?

I’d like to offer some consolation. I recently visited New Harmony, Indiana. This small town on the Wabash River advertises itself as a place for spiritual seekers and seekers of social justice. In the early 19^th century, New Harmony was created as utopian community by Robert Owen (1771-1858), industrialist and social reformer. It was intended as a radically egalitarian, socialist community. By all accounts, the experiment failed after only a few years.

Wait. Where’s the consolation?

Bear with me. While in New Harmony, I walked a labyrinth. To be precise, this labyrinth (based on the pattern found in the Cathedral of Chartres):

As I entered the labyrinth, the question on my mind was, “Why make the effort?” For instance, why fight for social justice? Why attempt to learn to love? Why not simply give up, and delight in and embrace one’s privileges?

And the labyrinth seemed to agree with my doubts—note the path’s outline: oh yes, initially your steps seems to lead to the center; you come so very close to, well, making sense of it all, finding the center (the place of certainty, of value, of “Yes, my life and my work make sense and there’s a point in striving for a better world.”) But then the path moves away from the center. So close, but unattainable. The labyrinth leads you, or so it seems, further and further away from the center.

What? Where’s the consolation you promised? This is getting worse and worse with every step.

Again, bear with me. Keep in mind, a labyrinth is not a maze. You see, a maze is filled with dead ends, designed to lead you astray, lead you to despair. But you can trust a labyrinth. It appears the path is leading away from the goal, but follow it patiently, and you will eventually reach the center.

How is this a consolation for our work?

I think the leap of faith consists in trusting we’re indeed walking a labyrinth, instead of being lost in a maze. That is, we can trust there is a center (a place of hope, a place of peace), no matter how lost we feel. And indeed, every little step forward brings us closer to the center.

This is your consolation?

Yes. To know the path (the path of peace) you’re on is not in vain. What greater consolation could there be? Let’s continue our walk.

Johannes Wich-Schwarz, PEP Board Member and Assistant Professor of English, Maryville University