What if some foreign country attacked someone in your neighborhood, city, state, or nation with deadly rockets or bombs? What if they killed acquaintances, family members, or friends, and blew up your house, business, school, or other important local infrastructure? Whether you agreed with that country's motives or ideals or not, would you willingly support that country, help it achieve its goals, or do as its leaders asked? Would you see the foreign country as your friend - - or would you see that country’s citizens as an enemy? Would you defend yourself, seek revenge, or welcome them into your shattered community?

It is difficult to argue that more than a decade of “war” on terrorists in the Middle East has made the world a safer place. In contrast, it appears that using the most high-tech weapons the industrialized world can provide in desperately poor Third World nations not only fails to create international security - - such actions may actually encourage terrorism. In addition to this record, reliance upon such violence as a means to achieve political ends has unfortunate parallels with rather infamous political movements of the not so distant past, especially in the absence of Due Process of Law. A devastated economy fomented fascism in Germany in the 1930s. In the Middle East today, not only have local economies been destroyed, but also water, food, medical, power, and sewer infrastructures - - pretty much every aspect of civilized life imaginable. Despite modern travel technologies, many people seem to think that violence overseas somehow protects them from violence at home.

The people overseas who we are told “hate the United States” (as well as those who see us in a more positive light) often appear to be trying to survive without safe food, water, medicine, sewers, or power - - virtually everything we take for granted - - because they have already been bombed “into the Stone Age.” Although so-called hawk pundits and the military industrial complex support military action, history suggests military action appears likely to create numerous people with dead families: desperate people with nothing left to lose who may want nothing more than to get revenge, no matter what it takes. Therefore, it seems unlikely that yet another application of “boots on the ground” will achieve goals associated with improving international security.

One potentially viable way to end this destructive cycle is to shower the civilian survivors of all these years of war with food, water, and medicine. What if we deployed architects, engineers, doctors, nurses, and rescuers to help those who have experienced - - through no fault of their own - - the brunt of the oxymoronic “war on terror?” What if American international might was renowned for saving lives and helping those in need?

Instead of attempting to create security through violence, perhaps rebuilding communities, infrastructures, economies, and the lives of innocent civilians might be more effective. If we spent as much money rescuing the survivors of war as we spend on apparently counterproductive policies, we could save a lot of lives - - and perhaps stop the seemingly endless feedback loop of escalating violence, hatred, and revenge that has enthralled the world since at least September 11, 2001.

As long as we are willing to unleash violence upon others, it is hard to imagine a response that does not include others’ willingness to unleash violence upon us.

By Groff Schroeder

Published March 25, 2015 with the quotation below:

“Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?”

                 - - - Abraham Lincoln