Rattling the Talisman Sabre of War Why Not Find Peace Together

This is a long blog. I felt inspired to explore this topic. I think it is a subject we all have to face but I would reinforce with understanding and compassion for all sides. People do what they do because they believe they are doing the right thing, for the most part, some of course may know they are operating out of self interest. However, problem solving requires that we look honestly at issues. This blog is a personal opinion with some research and experience. I would like to see a new era emerge where we no longer make the same mistakes of violence used as a means of serving one group over the other. I would like to see peace emerge across the planet. This is not an ideal it is a choice, in all our interests.

My blog was inspired by some brief sound bytes on my radio. I just randomly flicked radio stations and found some interesting comments regarding a range of issues that somehow feel linked 1) Talisman Sabre joint US/Australian military exercises 2) Expansion of uranium mining and 3) refugees rioting at Christmas Island (island approx. 2000km off Western Australian coast). My immediate thought about what they all have in common is the impact of war/conflict as a generator of refugees around the world, uranium is used in depleted uranium and mini nukes used in warfare and military exercises is the practice of the theatre of war. It is interesting I felt the connections as I heard the programs randomly but only now I see it clearly.

So I felt strongly to explore this. My first thought was to find out what does Talisman Sabre mean. Wikipedia states: A talisman (from Arabic طلسم Tilasm, ultimately from Greek telesma or from the Greek word “telein” which means “to initiate into the mysteries”) is an amulet or other object considered to possess supernatural or magical powers. What I found interesting about this explanation was the metaphorical desire to have supernatural powers. The sabre is the sword.

Here in Australia many peace activists are gathering near Rockhampton to protest the Talisman Sabre joint US/Australian exercises. A basic outline of their position is below followed by the Australian Department of Defence.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/48013

From the left perspective:

“Every two years in July, US-Australia war games take place at Shoalwater Bay, near Rockhampton in Central Queensland.

Called Talisman Sabre, these military exercises are the biggest war games in Australia. They involve 30,000 US and Australian troops and cost US and Australian taxpayers $100 million, for a live-fire bombardment of a coastal wilderness and adjacent marine park, the biggest in the central Queensland.

Together with the associated visits of US warships and recreational leave for US troops, these war games are a time when the cost and baleful influence of the US alliance becomes most visible.

Talisman Sabre was a deal struck by the John Howard government as part of his collaboration on the “war on terror”. Like so many other repugnant policies of Howard, this too has been enthusiastically embraced by the morally corrupt Rudd and Gillard governments — puppets on a string.

At Shoalwater Bay, troops practise invasion and the mock up villages built for the practice invasion have mock up mosques to practice on. But it is not training for the current 10-year-old US war in Afghanistan; rather it is practise for future US wars.”

http://www.peaceconvergence.com/about/

The peace convergence state:

“The Peace Convergence is held on Darumbal Land. The Peace Convergence is a loosely aligned array of peace social justice and environment groups and individuals.

Every two years, around June July, we gather near Rockhampton to challenge the nature and activities of the Australian and US military alliance by focussing on the military exercises, Talisman Sabre, which are held there each two years.

Some groups stay home to expose the US military presence in their home region through protest and nonviolent action. There are many supporting organisations, some are listed below…

Increased military activity in our region, in particular with the global nuclear superpower, is interpreted by our neighbours, and claimed by the military itself, in military media, to be “Saber Rattling” in our region. The social and political implications of these activities are long-term, far-reaching, and incompatible with social justice or environmental sustainability and, therefore, unacceptable.

Why Peace?

It is our belief that peace is a pre-requisite for ecological sustainability and for social justice. Weapons proliferation, military posturing and war games increase regional tension and fuel non-weapons states desire to develop militarily. The only way to increase security in our region and globally is create mutual cultures of respect and understanding. Australia (and the US) should be investing finances, energy and resources in practicing and promoting peaceful solutions to global conflict and to addressing social and environmental needs and home.”

http://www.defence.gov.au/opEx/exercises/ts11/
The Department of Defence states:

Exercise TALISMAN SABRE 2011 is a biennial combined training activity, designed to train Australian and US forces in planning and conducting Combined Task Force operations in order to improve ADF/US combat readiness and interoperability. This exercise is a major undertaking that reflects the closeness of our alliance and the strength of the ongoing military-military relationship.

What is Exercise TALISMAN SABRE 2011?

Exercise TALISMAN SABRE 2011 is a US led Australian supported exercise to improve combat training, readiness and interoperability, across the spectrum of military operations from conventional conflict to peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance efforts. The exercise forms part of the Australia Defence Forces’ (ADF) extensive training program to ensure the ADF is prepared to protect and support Australia and its national interests. The exercise also contributes to the ability of Australian and US military forces to work together efficiently and safely. By working with the US military forces, the exercise strengthens proactive and responsive strategies and enhances measures to defend Australia and its national interests.”

When I contemplated the awesome power of weaponry and war machines, people are in awe at the fighter aircraft, the notion of Top Gun comes to mind, it is exciting, it appears powerful, it is fast and furious. Yet that in my view is the drama that excludes the after effects, the reality of war. They call military exercises war games, that can be compared with the violent video games that children engage in, in some cases scanning their faces into the game, so they become the soldier. The characters are often large bulky men with large weaponry and you see more violent females appearing as ‘strong’. I recall Helen Caldicott in her book Missile Envy raising the issue of the personification of weaponry as masculinity and power, the warrior image. She spoke of the scientists naming nuclear weapons wanting to feel like creators ‘god’. The nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were named ‘Little Boy’ and ‘Fat man’.

Wikipedia gives a definition of Fat man (refer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man)
“’Fat Man’ is the codename for the atomic bomb that was detonated over Nagasaki, Japan, by the United States on August 9, 1945. It was the second of the only two nuclear weapons to be used in warfare to date (the other being “Little Boy”), and its detonation caused the third man-made nuclear explosion. The name also refers more generically to the early nuclear weapon designs of U.S. weapons based on the “Fat Man” model. It was an implosion-type weapon with a plutonium core, similar to “The gadget”, the experimental device detonated only a month earlier in New Mexico.[1] “Fat Man” was possibly named after Winston Churchill,[2] though Robert Serber said in his memoirs that as the “Fat Man” bomb was round and fat, he named it after Sydney Greenstreet’s character of “Kasper Gutman” in The Maltese Falcon. “Fat Man” was dropped from the B-29 bomber Bockscar, piloted by Major Charles Sweeney of the 393d Bombardment Squadron, Heavy, and exploded at 11:02 AM (JST), at an altitude of about 1,650 feet (500 m), with a yield of about 21 kilotons of TNT or 88 terajoules.[3] Because of poor visibility due to cloud cover, the bomb missed its intended detonation point, and damage was somewhat less extensive than that in Hiroshima. An estimated 39,000 people were killed outright by the bombing at Nagasaki, and a further 25,000 were injured.[4] Thousands more died later from related blast and burn injuries, and hundreds more from radiation illnesses from exposure to the bomb’s initial radiation. The bombing raid on Nagasaki had the third highest fatality rate in World War II[5] after the nuclear strike on Hiroshima[6][7][8][9] and the March 9/10 1945 fire bombing raid on Tokyo.[10]

The nuclear flashpoint of the world comes to mind. This is the conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir inclusive of their desires to join the United Nations Security Council as a member of the nuclear club, has catalysed nuclear weapons programs in the worlds poorest nations in South Asia. According to Wikipedia “The Smiling Buddha, formally designated as Pokhran-I, was the codename given to India’s first nuclear test explosion that took place at Pokhran on 18 May 1974. It was also the first confirmed nuclear test by a nation outside the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. The explosive yield of the bomb was reported to be 8 kt. The Smiling Buddha was called a peaceful nuclear explosion.” An oxymoron.

Language is powerful as it is a line of defence in trying to rally some sort of justification or metaphorical significance to bombs that basically destroy, maim and leave toxic after affects.

The essential purpose of building weapons is to instil fear in an opponent, weaken their defences psychologically and physically, to cut off all means of supply of weaponry and support that may give strength and to destroy and maim effectively. The purpose is to win a war, it is not about problem solving, it is dominating the other into submission as the strategy. The issue of whether it is a just war or not appears increasingly irrelevant in the current climate worldwide. There are numerous examples around the world where it is unjust and simply one party bullying another to get what they want.

Significant issues are raised about the legitimacy of war as was the case in Iraq. Scott Ritter (former UN Weapons Inspector) indicated this war was ‘an illegitimate war of aggression’ and other concerns were raised about the undue influence of industry in co-opting the political process and profiting from the spoils. There appears no genuine attempts to investigate or acknowledge mistakes or to look at reforming the military into an institution that promotes peace and stability in a real sense and to ensure it is not co-opted for purposes that are not related to national security or those they pledge to protect. The deeper issue of course is the legitimacy of democracy as representing the wishes of the people and the morality and character of politicians who endorse and lead wars. In addition, international justice also becomes significant when illegal behaviour is occurring at the highest levels.

The mentality of war has its foundation in competition and aggression, thus fighting an adversary to win and feel superior. This can be seen in the socialization of males, it is unquestioned and considered part of masculinity. When this escalates to groups of men and then men with lethal military equipment, it becomes a concern for all citizens across the planet. Increasingly civilians are the targets e.g. 90% of casualties. War as a machine is directed to win wars not to lose. Therefore strategic advantage is perceived in developing and acquiring the latest military equipment that has higher targetting capabilities, unarmed drones (less military casualties), explosive power and lethality. The purpose is to frighten, intimidate and to destroy in order to overpower the enemy and attain surrender.

However, as has been seen in the case of Afghanistan strategically and militarily the allies lost the war. Yet listening to commentaries it is evident that this is not acknowledged, it is termed a withdrawal or ‘bringing the troops home’. Had the war been won it would be across the headlines, but there is a silence which I find very loud in its omission. The truth is that western military power was not superior to unreliable Afghan warlords and religious fundamentalists called the Taliban. This is a significant acknowledgement. The competitive nature of war defines winners and losers. No-one wants to be the loser (weaker), it is not a vote winner nor is it popular to lose, as society promotes winners across the board. Moreover, it creates chinks in the impenetrable armour that is promoted as superiority and as an adversary not to be challenged. Submission is easier to control. September 11 was a significant penetration into US defences and has created an effect what I would term ‘the emperor has no clothes’. That is the super-power concept is watered down. A bit like the metaphor of superman and cryptonite. Militarily and economically that has become visible with the defeats in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The situation of warfare is not dissimilar to the scenario of bullying that is so widely spoken about in schools. The person who bullies in the schoolyard believes he/she is superior (powerful) through words or actions and the other is seen as weak or a loser. They typically bully with a group ‘glee club’ to reinforce their power and justify their cruelty. The one bullied is typically alone or isolated. This can be extrapolated internationally. What is clear is that in society we deem this behaviour as totally unacceptable yet at the international level we regard international projection of power as an appropriate response to problems or conflict to restore what is perceived as peace and security. We have the United Nations indicating if they believe it to have legitimacy or condoned under UN resolutions. Yet in reality this type of bullying is competitive and extremely violent, its has its roots in insecurity. Insecurity seeks to experience power, a powerful person already has power and doesn’t need to take it. In truth, neither win and it is not a game. How is it possible for a war to be allowed to continue by the international community. I recall Gareth Evans (former Foreign Minister) indicating his doctrine of ‘Responsibility to Protect’, this was to protect civilians. He was horrified at the carnage and disregard for civilians. That for myself is argument alone for the illegality of war. Do we require another World War to prove that it is counter productive and has the capacity to destroy the entire planet.

The case of Afghanistan showed the pointlessness of warfare and destroying the civilian population by both sides, the US alliance and the Taliban. Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world it is perceived as weak. The people are mostly uneducated therefore perceived on some psychological level as inferior to the US/Western allies. Indeed civilian casualties are termed as ‘collateral damage’ rather than using the real words of ‘murder’ or ‘killing’. The language of war sanitises to ensure it doesn’t evoke opposing reactions or links to shared humanity. To dehumanize the enemy is a strategic approach to justify killing and activities deemed unacceptable in civil society.

These notions of winners and losers predominately playing out in the minds of competitive men as outcomes. The loser is perceived as weak. The defeat of the Western allies by the Taliban would have sent a signal across the Muslim world that the Western military are weak. This has significant implications for global security. Warfare undermines security as populations personify the other as ‘the enemy’ and animosities can go on for decades or longer as was the case in the former Yugoslavia. It was clear that the demonisation of Osama bin Laden created the arena for the war on terror or what some have termed ‘an endless war on terror’. Osama bin Laden was not tried by an international court yet was widely seen as the architect of September 11, the truth I am still not aware of today. I am awaiting evidence as I believe in justice first. However, the very naming of this person as evil created conditions around the world which escalated fear and reduced freedom of speech in public demonstrations, enacting new laws (Patriot Act, US and ASIO Act in Australia). Under the Howard Government here in Australia there was more observation (filming) of activists and deportation of activists protesting. For example Scott Parkin, a US citizen was arrested by Immigration and police here in 2005, held without seeing a lawyer (held up to 14 days by law now) and deported for protesting outside Halliburton in Sydney. People may recall Dick Cheney was US Vice President at the time and previously CEO of Halliburton. This was considered extraordinary as Australia is tolerant to protests and identifies as a democratic country. Thus the ‘terror’ fears reduced public freedoms. In respect of Australian National Security, the largest Muslim archipelago in the world is to the north west of Australia, I wonder how did Indonesians feel about Australia entering wars with other Muslim countries, could that escalate tensions in this region? So the Australian presence in Iraq and Afghanistan weakened National Security here in Australia in my view.

We hear the term fundamentalism yet I regard this as extremism, but particularly, those with unquestioned beliefs where there is a sense of ‘righteousness’ or being right. Here is a definition in part from wikipedia.

“…The term usually has a religious connotation indicating unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs.[4]

Fundamentalism” is sometimes used as a pejorative term, particularly when combined with other epithets (as in the phrase ‘right-wing fundamentalists’).”

I see fundamentalism on both sides, one religious doctrine and one military doctrine. The fundamental belief that superior weaponry backed by wealth produces and maintains power and that this protects national or special interests. Moreover, the murder of people is justified for the higher cause of national interest or as was seen in the former Bush Administration, special interests. This needs to be questioned. These are unquestioned beliefs that the military would be wise to look at if they wish to retain legitimacy. It doesn’t mean the military becomes obsolete, it means its fundamental principles and modus operandi need to be evaluated and checked in respect of aligning with national interest (civil society over corporate) and global peace and security objectives.

The outcome of the US and allies military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan have made the US more insecure and significantly financially weakened the State. The US is in serious financial decline and has been since the 1980s. So it can no longer afford expensive weapons systems in the name of national security of particular interests. The notion of an evil world out there comes from a Hobbesian belief that the world is tooth and claw (the world is violent) and people need protection. This is what fear creates. However, a libertarian belief, similar to the US Founding Fathers principles would focus on John Locke’s opposition to authoritarianism and promoting of greater freedoms. This leads to broader internationalism, openness and cooperation. Moreover, the core American values enshrined in the symbol of the Statue of Liberty of – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as national values, if true would translate to all peoples of the world. That is the true projection of power I see and it connects to the Talisman concept of supernatural powers. The connection to higher values are the real power, not violence. I see this as the real pledge of allegiance that keeps soldiers out of harms way, rather than using the military to pursue corporate interests disguised as national interest which was evident in the Bush Administration. This was questioned by Michael Moore’s ‘Fahrenheit 911’ and former Nixon Council John Dean in his book ‘Worse than Watergate the secret presidency of George W Bush’.

To look in the mirror to find the enemy is the self, is the hardest reality check yet it is the most important to ensure mistakes do not occur again. This is real courage. I don’t see it as self blame, but self honesty with the intent to create a different future. For the world cannot maintain militaries with such fire power that can destroy the earth several times over. This is why public debate and dialogue must occur around the legitimacy of war and the pathway of alternative methods such as conflict resolution and peace education as alternatives. Real security comes from these higher values and fear will de-escalate.

Yet collectively governments are still investing in the military worldwide to the tune of a million dollars a minute. In 2004 statistics indicate the total costs reached $1 trillion dollars. In 2010, US government military spending is US $663.8 billion (refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States). Wikipedia indicates the costs of the War on Terror are often contested, as academics and critics of the component wars (including the Iraq War) have unearthed many hidden costs not represented in official estimates. The most recent major report on these costs come from Brown University in the form of the Costs of War project, which said the total for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan is at least $3.2-4 trillion… (US) Department of Defense’s direct spending on Iraq totaled at least $757.8 billion, but also highlighting the complementary costs at home, such as interest paid on the funds borrowed to finance the wars and a potential nearly $1 trillion in extra spending to care for veterans returning from combat through 2050. (refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War)

Insecurity inflames escalating costs and conflicts around the world and the deliberate arming by external parties for profit. The wars cost government yet the industrial military complex are benefiting as they are the weapons sellers in a market place. They are following the rules of profit maximization which does not factor in the human reality. The commercialisation of military equipment is at the core of this problem as it is profitable to do it, there are vested interests in keeping wars going. I recall Noam Chomsky’s book Profit Over People, the title says it all. I see this is the central issue and it feeds into so many dysfunctions across our world that move us away from real peace.

Whilst I feel for the families of any soldier that is killed in warfare, I note that there appears to be no acknowledgement by the Australian government of the innocent civilians in Afghanistan or Iraq who suffered from the violence of the Australian/US military presence in these countries. We still have a view of seeing ‘our side’ rather than seeking to solve a problem so that both sides win. I see this one sidedness as a form of nationalism that seeks to win. When I taught children REAL HOPE I used a blindspot card to demonstrate that when we cover one eye and stare at two dots, one of the dots disappears. I explain that when we think we are right we can’t see the other side. Therefore, we don’t see it, it is a form of denial. It is clear when you listen to language when people are in denial. However, to truly engage in peace, we have to face the truth of what we do and the purpose for which we do it. If a mistake is made then it takes real courage to face it with humility. This is not weakness, it is the opposite. Sadly the war mindset teaches men that they are weak if they acknowledge mistakes or show compassion. This is a false teaching. Peace is found when we speak truth and we show love to those suffering. This is the supernatural power the military is looking for.

Within a mindset of compassion (shared humanity), the suffering and loss of the innocent civilians in both Iraq and Afghanistan warrants significant reparations to assist them to rebuild their countries for their families and the future of children. Certainly a responsible, fair and just world would redirect funding for military into health, education, sanitation and healing the many wounds from warfare. Those who would argue that the Taliban would get a boost, I would offer that developing the country would eventually minimise fundamentalism as extreme conditions lessen, more moderate ways of living would return. It is the poverty and lack of education that become a hotbed for blind (ignorant) fundamentalism. Unquestioned doctrine without education can become a hotbed for extremism driven from righteousness and the need to be right.

So back to the catalyst for this blog, the Talisman Sabre exercises, perhaps for the next meeting of US/Australian forces, why not start training the troops in conflict resolution and problem solving. The military could fulfill one of the most important roles on this planet, peacekeeping, keeping warring parties apart, until the conflict resolvers come in and sort out the complex social and political problems that are often the real reasons for conflict. What we require today is healing, as the people are deeply tired of the conflicts and controls exercised over their lives. Many feel a powerlessness that can become the seeds for future conflict. It is time to live the democracy many countries say they represent. The majority of people do not want war, as they are the victims of it.

I feel our world is moving from the dinosaur of violence as a solution. I do feel we are going to move to a new trajectory of seeing that what we do to another we do to ourselves. That was evident in the US scenario where they funded the fundamentalists and mercenaries to fight the Russian occupation of Afghanistan (1979-1989). What this did was provide a platform for future fundamentalism in that region. The poverty in Pakistan and distortions of the Muslim religion provided opportunities for that to happen. The demand for oil enmeshed in both commecial and national interest was a driving motivation. The fact that Dick Cheney at the time was the Vice President of the United States and was previously former CEO of Halliburton revealed serious conflicts of interest and highlighted corruption at the highest levels. In a sense the corporatisation of government could be the term which usurps the representation of the people, as real representation of all the citizens is the basis of power in a legitimate democracy. This distortion became the impetus to enter Afghanistan and became the quagmire that the US eventually realised they would not win. Australia blindly followed as John Howard was a friend of George W. Bush and himself ethically questionable. It was an unquestioned alliance which brought dishonour and illegality to Australia which has a very good reputation around the world. However, the lesson for Australia is that it was not our war and Australians, Afghans and Iraqis died needlessly, as was the outcome. Andrew Wilkie (former intelligence officer, Office of National Assessment) made the point in an interview that Australia complied with the US and that it was not backed up by the Australian intelligence community. He said the issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq were considered a low level threat to Australia. Therefore there was no evidence to back up Australia’s entering into an alliance with the US. His assessment was that Australia should not have joined the alliance of the willing with the US. This lead us deeper into the situation with Iraq which was a disastrous and cruel war, not because Australia lost the war, but because so many suffered needlessly because of the greed of a few. This is what happens when corruption and greed buy influence and core values are not integrated in the persons who hold responsible positions. Yet we see this corruption across the world as we have made money our god, not the values of civilisation.

It all comes back to money.

Until we teach values to children in schools and we help children to understand problem solving rather than the use of violence. When we come into the wisdom of not placing children in front of violent video games and calling this winning and fun, then we will start to move from a culture of violence to a culture of peace. These lessons appear to have not been learned as we are still practicing war. However, in the future truth will come to the surface as a realisation that war doesn’t work and as Byron Katie states (www.thework.com) it is not intelligent. All war must be conducted on paper as it is the war within that is the real war, coming from unquestioned beliefs. War is a projection of inner violence and beliefs of others that simply causes more pain and suffering.

The real courage and heroism of men is seen when they admit their weaknesses and work towards the common good of all people. I have seen greatness in men, it comes with virtues and principles. I see it in those who put down their weapons and face the world with courage unarmed. The peacemakers, Scott Ritter said, had the real courage as they were speaking up unarmed. He said he respected that. Gandhi comes to mind, his bravery facing violence, non violently. Peacemakers are not just in civil society they exist in the military, in the government, in the military industrial complex, politics etc. they are the ones that see another pathway where we all win. The peacemakers will choose to sit down and work out the problem and find solutions. Now is the time for them to stand up and speak their truth for the future of all children. This is what world peace begins to look like. It will serve everyone in truth and it feels great.

So let’s not rattle the sabre, let’s meet in the middle and solve the problems as a society. There are no enemies, only people of differing perspectives. Can we move to a place where we can solve our problems as a civilisation with a shared humanity where everyone can win? We are indeed one family.