On September 11, 2001, I was teaching a class in which two college students experienced the nightmare of the loss of their brothers, one at the Pentagon and the other in Pennsylvania. What a day for all of us who looked on fearfully, hopelessly, and mournfully. Nothing I write here diminishes the magnitude of the horror, nor does it dishonor the lives lost.
I worked on Capitol Hill for a few years before returning to graduate school in philosophy. Compromise, sometimes of principle and often against an elected official's better judgment, appeared to me then as now to be part of our political system. I admire President Obama for many reasons and saw and still see his election as a momentous victory for this country. The job he has undertaken is difficult beyond imagination and the good he has accomplished against tall odds bodes well.
But today, the day of the announcement of bin Laden's burial at sea, I feel some of the very emotions that I felt on that day almost ten years ago. I have no answers but plenty of troubling questions. Why does President Obama proclaim that "this is a good day for America?" What, exactly, are the huge crowds gathered around the country celebrating? What have we proven to ourselves and shown the world? Have fresh seeds of terror been sown?
From exultation to error-driven conspiracy theory, reactions to Bin Laden's death reveal our thirst for revenge, distrust of official channels, and more.
President and Mrs. Obama paid homage to Gandhi's legacy of non-violence on their November, 2010, trip to India. It was to Gandhi's concept of "satyagraha" that Dr. King turned for inspiration in his peaceful struggle for civil rights. King believed that his Hindu predecessor's tactic of active non-cooperation to combat injustice perfectly complemented Jesus' unconditional command to love thy neighbor as thyself, "agape." Active resistance is a different kind of fight, one waged without resort to violence, a rugged battle characterized by restraint and humility. What if Dr. King had opened fire on those who bombed his house? Instead, he insisted on unarmed bodyguards, claiming that "I was much more afraid in Montgomery when I had a gun in the house." King continued: "It is no longer a choice between violence and non-violence in this world; it's non-violence or nonexistence."
Here are a few excerpts taken from Gandhi's "The Practice of Satyagraha," words that seem appropriate to repeat today: "A non-cooperationist strives to compel attention and to set an example not by his violence.... I make bold to say that violence is the creed of no religion.... Non-violence I read in the Hindu scriptures, in the Bible, in the Koran.... We pretend to believe that retaliation is the law of our being...but war is bad in essence. I would like you ( he refers here to the British in their fight against Nazi Germany) to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity.... I have been practicing with scientific precision non-violence and its possibilities for an unbroken period of over fifty years. I know of no single case in which it has failed."
I'm trying hard to think of an instance in which war or violence won a true peace that stood the test of time. I can't think of one. How can we celebrate Gandhi's legacy, King's accomplishments, and also "rejoice" in the killing of bin Laden? What if we had chosen not to play by his hideous rules? Perhaps his murder was, indeed, the only viable option as time went on. Was there absolutley no other way? I don't know. But if that is the case, then the inevitabilty of violence as a "solution" is bone-chilling to the marrow.
