Fear
develops naturally, one might say instinctively, in the presence of
vulnerability and helplessness. Sometimes trust is also present, but
often not. Fear expands in the presence of anticipated threat, and
can vary in intensity from mild discomfort and edginess, to marked
anxiety, to outright terror. In any human life, fear is likely to be
experienced at some point, and whether trust will also be present
will depend, to a large extent, on an individual's spiritual
anchoring. This anchoring creates an antidote to the experience of
fear.
There is, however,
another way of dealing with fear that is not through spiritual
anchoring and trust. It is through the calling into expression,
resources of power and aggression. The origin of the trait we call
"being a bully," for example, is not based on real strength. It is
based on inner weakness and a sense of vulnerability, and the
determination to combat this vulnerability through outer
belligerence and
aggression.
These psychological
understandings are important in relation to the stance the U.S. has
taken with respect to post-9/11 domestic and foreign policy. The
events of Sept. 11, 2001 created fear, helplessness, anxiety,
depression, and a variety of other very intense feelings. And so the
choice was there from the very beginning to find a way of dealing
with shock, helplessness, and fear. The choice was there to combat
fear and despair through trust and hope, or to combat it through
aggression and the demonstration of power. The choice for the latter
was the one made by our government, the one ready at hand, built
into the attitudes of those who
govern.
In point of fact it was
not clear to the American public, other than through a turning
inward to our spiritual underpinnings, that there
was
anything else 'outer' to put our trust in other than power. On the
practical level, the ongoing current of U.S. foreign policy had
already veered away from collaboration with other nations within the
forum of a world body such as the United Nations - a world body
which might, had its history been different and its relationship
with us been different, have shared in the responsibility and
jurisdiction in the handling of such events. However, the United
Nations has not been empowered to do this, nor could it at the time
of America's need. We could not, all of a sudden, put our trust in
such a body to deal correctively with a cataclysmic event. We were
not spiritually ready, nor was the world spiritually ready.
Nor could we put our trust in
a non-violent, non-military response from within our own government,
not because it wasn't possible, but because:
1) Non-military
options had increasingly become not our way. We had already begun to
seek and to find military answers to all questions of threat and to
see such answers as 'natural' and 'inevitable'. The psychology of
the undisputed 'greatest military power on earth' had already begun
to crystallize within us as an attitude of superiority and
isolation.
2) Secondly, we could not put our trust in such a
non-violent response, because long before this, we had also veered
away from the kind of humility that would have allowed us to pursue
dialogue, to engage in self-scrutiny, to reexamine our policies in
the Middle East - policies which may have contributed to the root
causes of the action taken against us. Such self-scrutiny would not
have had to exist at the
expense of the pursuit of justice,
but rather in addition to it. For justice, certainly, was and is
required not only by law, but by human decency and by respect for
the vast number of lives that were affected by the unprecedented
tragedy of September 11th. Such re-evaluation would have required a
maturity that we were not ready for, and so we opted for the
response of aggression and power, rather than the response of
humility which bears pain in a whole different way. We launched our
"war on terrorism."
Trust is
both a psychological and a spiritual attitude. On the spiritual
level, it has to do with the power of love. On the psychological
level, the level of the ego, it is attained through putting in place
internal and external structures of defense that maintain security
and safety. This is how the ego experiences trust. It looks around
and sees what exists within itself and outside the self that can
provide a bulwark against harm. From this vantage point, the more
structures that guarantee security, the better. From this vantage
point, too, a 'pre-emptive war' on terrorism is the highest form of
defense - the highest form of establishing control of threat. It
wipes it out before it even begins. It wipes it out because it
could begin.
Trust of a
different kind could only have existed had there been another
visible alternative to unilateral action in pursuit of justice.
Spiritually speaking, such an alternative is always present, but its
value and priority must be steeped in our consciousness in order for
us to find a viable, outer application and expression of this value.
For many, if not most within both the administration and the public,
no such vision appeared. Nor is it apparent now, either. It does not
appear because we have, to a large degree, lost our way in terms of
how we relate to ourselves and to the rest of the world. Both among
our friends and among our enemies we have become a 'force of one'
and we rely upon this. We have become a nation of power that
exercises its power, that accumulates its power, that threatens with
its power. This is true of our policies regarding nuclear deterrent.
It is also true of the doctrine of 'pre-emptive war' that has become
known as the 'Bush
Doctrine'.
Such a doctrine
began to take shape merely three days following Sept. 11th when
President Bush, during his address at the Washington National
Cathedral, began to use the language of war, saying, that the enemy
had "declared war" upon us and that we are a nation of peace but
"fierce when angered." From that moment forward, the die was cast, a
die that had probably been cast long before then. This same die is
still being cast today, with the same issues and intentions in the
foreground.
Yet today, in
September of 2004, we need to be conscious of what this die-casting
is about. We need to believe that there is another antidote to fear
than aggression and military control. We need to find within our
national spirit, something that does not say that the only answer to
fear is war - the pulling out of all stops in relation to the use of
power. Yet even today, this perspective is hard to support, this
'antidote' hard to find. For it involves a cultivation of attitudes
that we have in many respects left behind regarding the purity of
our ideals, and the acquisition of other attitudes that we have yet
to learn - attitudes that emerge from the experience of our oneness
with others. This is why it seems likely that the 'Bush Doctrine'
will continue to prevail; why it seems likely, barring a change in
consciousness, that President Bush will be reelected. It is because
we have no obvious antidote to the fear that is being offered to us
in relation to the 'war on terror'. And because this fear is
perpetually renewed and strengthened by wartime rhetoric and
policy, we are continually inundated by threats of what could
happen, rather than what is happening. This fear is not only being
felt. It is being cultivated on a national level so that it is never
out of sight or out of
hearing.
To become conscious is
to know that there is a big difference between experiencing fear in
response to an actual event, and having fear be
engendered
about a possible event. What is based on a
real circumstance
can be modified by other real options - through a re-directed,
reconsidered Middle East policy, through a debate among nations and
a greater commitment to the United Nations, through greater
adherence to international law as the context for our response to
threat, and through determination to remain committed to world
peace, even in the face of threat. This is not what we have
done.
As a nation, we have
responded to threat through counter-threat, to danger, by
endangering others, to the desire for revenge upon us, with the
seeking of revenge upon all who threaten us. We have pursued war,
and we have cultivated fear. The cultivation of fear happens through
the repetition over and over again of the word 'war'; through the
repetition over and over again that 'they' have declared war on us;
through the repeatedly stated certainty that we are involved in a
'war on terrorism' and that 'we will prevail'. The intensity and
necessity for war is reiterated to the American public with such
regularity and strength of belief that we are led to believe that
our enemies (undefined, and varying both in visibility and in
location), are strong enough to destroy the foundation of our
existence if we let down our
guard.
Here is where the
pattern coalesces, a pattern which we must observe. First, there is
the cultivation of fear which seems inevitable because a powerful
enemy threatens. Second, there is the seeming unavailability of
other options to place our trust in. Third, there is the seemingly
justified assertion of power and aggression. And finally, there is
the enhancement of an image of a rescuing figure - one who can lead
us through this inevitable war that we must face and win. The
illusion is created that
there is no other way but to follow
the one who can be trusted to fight this war most effectively, and
to trust our military might which appears to be the only thing we
can trust.
This 'doctrine' and
the emotions that are connected with it, remains today a reality for
much of the American public, and, following the election in
November, it is likely to determine our national and international
reality for the next four years. Fear, the justification of
aggression as an antidote, the single-minded turning to military
defense and power, the placing of trust in a leader who will rescue
us from fear by sheer strength of character and determination -
these are the features of a pattern which is being continually
seeded into our awareness. It is a pattern whose everpresent reality
prevents us from being aware of the
choice we have in
accepting or not accepting the premise upon which all of this is
based. Only unconsciousness allows this pattern to prevail. In order
to turn this around on a personal and a national level, clearer
perception is needed, a sense of truth is needed, as well as another
strategy and set of principles that can be trusted. These principles
must make themselves known and we must uphold them. Only in this way
will we be able to avoid continuing down this dangerous path - this
path which has such dire consequences for our own national safety
and for the peace of the world.
* * * * * *
"A
Secure America in a Secure World." (Foreign Policy in Focus: Sept.
2004)
http://www.fpif.org/papers/04terror/index.htmlAn
important article with a clear exposition of alternatives to the
'Bush Doctrine' and to the 'war on terror'. If you read only one of
these three links, read this one.
President Bush Delivers
Graduation Speech at West Point. (June, 2002)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020601-3.htmlA
pivotal speech articulating the basic principles of the 'Bush
Doctrine'.
Iraq and the "Bush Doctrine" of Pre-Emptive
Self-Defense." (Aug. 20, 2002)
http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/bush-intro.htmlA
variety of legal experts express their views concerning the
justification for pre-emptive action in Iraq, seven months before
U.S. military action was taken and one and a half years before the
belief in weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was discredited.
