Transgender Rights are Human Rights

Transgender Rights are Human Rights

(originally published in Tumbleweird June 2019)

by Ted Miller

In my thirty years as an officer in the United States Navy, being gay was cause for a “less than honorable” discharge. What that meant was that a shipmate could be formally labeled as undesirable and forced out of the military just for being themselves, denying them veterans benefits and the equal treatment afforded their straight peers. Their military skills, fitness reports, or length of service didn’t matter. 

Military members are citizen soldiers, reflecting the diversity of race, sexuality, gender, and religion in our nation. There have always been gay members of the military. I knew some when I served. But until recently, some service members had to hide their true selves in order to serve. Not only were they willing to sacrifice their lives for their country, they had to sacrifice a piece of themselves while serving. 

In 1993, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” allowed gay, lesbian, and bisexual (LGB) people to serve only if they kept their orientation secret. When DADT was finally repealed in 2011, allowing them to serve openly, study after study showed that LGB members have no impact on military readiness.

Openly transgender people were finally allowed to serve beginning in 2016. But the Trump administration started working to reverse that in July 2017, just as the new policy was to take full effect. Last month, the Supreme Court allowed this renewed transgender ban to take effect while challenges work their way through the courts.

This is not a readiness issue. There have been no issues from allowing openly transgender people to serve their country. The only purpose for this ban is to deny the fair and equal treatment of transgender individuals, to formally state through government policy that their value is not the same as their cis-gendered colleagues.

Charlotte Clymer, a transgender Army veteran, said in a CBS opinion piece April 7, 2019:

“The lies perpetuated about transgender people serving in the military have been thoroughly debunked and rejected, by medical experts, by budget analysts, by military generals and admirals, by the vast majority of the American people, and not least by a history of Americans who have been barred from service and proved bigots wrong.

“They barred men of color. They barred women. They barred gay, lesbian and bisexual people. We have been at this intersection of fear, cynicism, and outright ignorance many times, and we are always reminded that the only true threats to our country's strength are hatred and an absence of character.”

Denying the rights of LGBTQIA+ individuals is an attempt to deny their full humanity. Labeling sexuality or gender identity as something that doesn’t conform to a narrow view of the human expression of gender and sexual orientation is an attempt to erase their existence. 

The National Center for Transgender Equality (transequality.org) says there are about 1.4 million transgender adults in the United States. Just like sexual orientation, the overwhelming consensus in the medical community is that gender identity is not a choice. And from the experiences of my transgender loved ones, I know this to be true. They each struggled from an early age to understand who they were, why they felt different, and how to express their self-identities. Their struggle was made tragically worse by family and society who constantly told them that what they were feeling was wrong, that who they were was unacceptable. Whatever the motivation, constant rejection of gender identity inevitably leads to self-doubt, self-hate, and self-harm, all too often leading to suicide. 

We have an administration that wants to allow LGBT discrimination in the name of religious freedom. Last month, the Department of Health and Human Services announced a new regulation that would allow medical providers to cite their “deeply held beliefs” as a basis to refuse service to LGBT individuals—in other words, to deny equal treatment under the law, to deny equal rights, to deny equal humanity.

For transgender individuals, allowing health care discrimination only makes the health problems they face worse. Studies published by Lambda Legal show that 56 percent of LGB and 70 percent of transgender individuals already face healthcare discrimination. Many avoid seeing a doctor when they need it most because of a fear of rejection or mistreatment.

Every human being is worthy of love and acceptance. In a self-governing nation, the government should ensure equal treatment and protection of all. That includes those whose gender may be different than what we assume based on physical characteristics. 

Forcing people into a narrow box of gender identity is harmful to them and to a society that is richer for its diversity.

Human rights apply to everyone. Transgender rights are human rights.

Divided We Will Fall

Divided We Will Fall

(originally published in Tumbleweird May 2019)

by Ted Miller

My mother used to say “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say it.” 

Many of the people commenting on social media posts and online news articles seem to have missed that childhood lesson.

Every time I break my self-imposed rule to “never read the comments,” I see some of the most vile, hateful, divisive rhetoric spewed at fellow Americans and community members. What is it about the internet that makes people think that is acceptable behavior? Nobody that I interact with talks that way in person, to me or to anyone else. I know in my real-life conversations with others we often have significantly different opinions on a wide range of topics, but we don’t call each other names, yell obscenities, or accuse the other of being the enemy. So why is something we would never say to someone’s face acceptable language online?

We seem to have forgotten that we have more in common than not. Fifty years ago, Americans listened to the same news broadcasts, watched the same shows, and read the same newspapers. Our differing opinions about government, religion, and our place in the world didn’t overshadow our common experience. We shared a common set of facts and American values. Our political differences were about how government policy reflects our common values, not whether Democrats or Republicans were the enemy of the state.

The rise of talk radio, cable news, the internet, and social media changed all that. With the rapid expansion of choices in the media we consume, too many of us have moved to our own echo chambers, reinforcing our beliefs while becoming more and more skeptical of information that doesn’t fit our views. Social media algorithms continually feed us what we want to hear at the exclusion of a shared community experience. Misinformation, conspiracy, and divisive rhetoric spreads virally without regard to the facts. And our public discourse seems to have raced to the bottom of decency.

Watching this divisive rhetoric all over the news and social media today, I am struck at how deeply divided we are, and it is deeply disturbing. This divisive rhetoric has spread from talk radio and social media to the halls of Congress. We are no longer Americans fighting together for the future of our country. We are "us versus them," yelling at each other, convincing ourselves that the other is the enemy. It seems like the country is more divided today than at any time in living memory. 

Former CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin said something in an interview last month that really struck me. Reflecting on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report, he was surprised at how vulnerable we were to foreign influence by the Russians. Starting in 2014, the Russian government has worked to use the rise of hyper-partisanship and media fueled polarization to weaken the unity that makes our country strong. Deputy Director McLaughlin said:

"But here's what I think they were successful in. They were successful in creating or exacerbating enormous partisan divisions in our country. Just think about it. The two parties are at each other's throats. The president is immobilized on a number of foreign policy issues. Even the media, to a degree, is polarized about this issue. And the United States looks pretty bad in the eyes of the world. I think the Russians actually succeeded well beyond what they imagined they could here. And that's the other big impression that comes out of this - is how fragile we were. We thought our democracy and our cohesiveness as a nation - I did - were stronger than they turned out to be in the face of this.[i]"

This downward spiral into divisiveness has been worsening for decades. The hyperbolic partisanship that continually paints the other political party as evil has gotten to the point that party power is more important than national unity. The Russians just took advantage of that and are continuing those efforts today.

Unless we change something, this divisiveness will be our undoing, either from within or by a foreign power. 

Maybe we can start by holding each other accountable, one conversation at a time. We can encourage our friends to be more respectful in their disagreements online, particularly when they are arguing with strangers. Other than the trolls and bots, social media accounts are real people with real friends and families. Those friends see what is being said online. We should each ask ourselves if we would tolerate the insults and hate if we were witnessing the conversation in person.

Maybe we should remind our friends, and ourselves, that the golden rule applies online as well as in person. If we can make it socially unacceptable to bully and spew hate online, maybe we can start to close the divide and focus more on what we have in common.

We are all in this together. As Abraham Lincoln said, “United we stand, divided we fall.” Let’s not divide ourselves. Let’s work together to make our political discourse more positive.

If you can’t comment in a nice and respectful manner, don’t comment at all.

---

[i]CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin, All Things Considered, National Public Radio, 4/18/2019

Saving Mother Earth

Saving Mother Earth

(originally published in Tumbleweird April 2019)

by Ted Miller

Last week, as the snow was finally melting from my favorite running path, I noticed a single plastic shopping bag dangling from a tree limb overhanging the Columbia River. As it moved in the gentle breeze, I thought about the person who had used that bag. Had they carelessly tossed it on the ground? Had it blown there from a nearby business? Do people even think about the consequences of littering? A single plastic bag, marring the natural beauty of the riverfront, is just a tiny example of the billions of tons of plastic released into the environment every year around the world. 

The explosion of plastic production didn’t begin until the 1950s. Today, plastic pollution is so ubiquitous that one of those plastic shopping bags was found at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, the deepest part of the ocean.[i]We’ve all heard of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and have seen the pictures of wildlife killed or maimed by plastic. Biologists have even found microplastic in the tissue of fish. Plastic is cheap and convenient, but at what cost to our environment? Did the person who littered that plastic bag think about the environment when they carelessly threw that piece of single-use plastic away? Did they really need that bit of plastic to make their life more convenient?

On April 22, 1970, the first Earth Day, twenty million Americans rallied to call attention to the deteriorating condition of our environment, particularly the growing pollution of our air and water. Spearheaded by Democratic Senator Gaylord Nelson with support from Republican Senator Pete McCloskey, the movement brought together diverse groups that had been individually fighting oil spills, factory air pollution, toxic waste dumps, wildlife extinction, and deforestation. With rare bipartisan support, Earth Day led directly to the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act.

Today, the Earth Day movement is the largest civic engagement event in the world with over a billion people participating in a day of action to improve the environment.[ii]There has been a lot of progress in the last forty-nine years to curb pollution through education, regulation, and activism. But the earth is still threatened with toxic waste, plastic pollution, deforestation, species extinction, and climate change.

Each of us should work to be more aware of our impact on the environment, but individually we can only help so much. Collectively, we are part of the biosphere. We are both part of the problem and the key to the solution. The planet needs global change to save itself. 

As I wrote in my January column, “The Greatest Threat to Our Existence,” the average temperature of the planet is rising. This is a fact that no amount of denial can make untrue. Thousands of scientists have concluded that humans are the cause of the dramatic rise in global temperature since the start of the industrial revolution. Without urgent action to mitigate the effects of climate change, we will be facing large scale famine, poverty, disease, and mass species extinction.[iii]

Whether the tipping point is in twelve years or fifty, if we do nothing now, life on this planet will be forever changed and humankind may not survive. We know the causes of climate change and we have the capacity to limit the global temperature rise. The solution will require comprehensive, multi-national effort, but it can be done.

Congress has proposed a set of broad-ranging policy ideas to combat climate change known as the Green New Deal. Building on the success of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal to recover from the Great Depression, the Green New Deal would work in a similar way to incentivize green energy, rebuild infrastructure, reduce or reverse carbon emissions, improve the environment, stimulate the economy, and, ultimately, save the planet. 

The United States can be the leader in combating climate change, or we can continue policies that ignore the problem until it is too little, too late. Naysayers claim the Green New Deal will cost too much, be ineffective, or put us at a disadvantage while China and the rest of the world continue to pump carbon into the atmosphere. But pointing the finger or waiting for a perfect solution won’t help. Starting now is the only way to ensure a cleaner and more sustainable environment. We can attack this problem while avoiding unintended consequences. We can help those impacted by programs under the Green New Deal while taking bold and decisive action. The United States has overcome seemingly insurmountable problems before and we can do so again. 

This Earth Day, think about your impact on the environment. Avoid using plastic bags, walk instead of driving, and recycle what you can. Think about the future of the planet.

If we really only have a decade to reverse the effects of climate change, we must prevent disaster by starting now. The time for arguing about whether climate change is real is over. It’s time for action.

---

[i]National Geographic, May 11, 2018, “Plastic Bag Found at the Bottom of World’s Deepest Ocean Trench.”

[ii]earthday.org, “The History of Earth Day.”

[iii]U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2018: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II. The complete report may be accessed at nca2018.globalchange.gov.

Who Profits from People in Prison?

Who Profits from People in Prison?

(originally published in Tumbleweird March 2019)

by Ted Miller

Today there are more than 2.2 million people in prison in the United States – more than in China, Russia, or in any other country in the world. That means that the incarceration rate is much higher in the U.S. than anywhere else. At 698 per 100,000 people, the rate is more than 5 times higher than our closest NATO allies. 

Do we really need to lock so many people up? Who benefits from so many in prison?

In the last four decades, criminal laws that emphasize prison over probation or parole, starting with the so-called war on drugs, have resulted in a massive increase in the prison population. This trend disproportionately impacts persons of color and the poor while doing little to improve public safety. 

But the cost to the public has been profound. The cost of federal and state prisons is estimated at $80 billion per year. As part of the rapid increase in prison populations, private prison companies have gone from almost nonexistent to reaping huge profits at the taxpayer’s expense. Private prisons are now a $5 billion industry with top executives receiving millions in compensation. 

Private prison companies use strong-arm tactics and heavy lobbying to maintain their hold on the prison industry. With contracts that have minimum occupancy requirements, these companies incentivize sending people to prison to satisfy a contract instead of in response to crime. 

In 2017, CoreCivic, the largest private prison company in the U.S., threatened to close its prison in Estancia, New Mexico and lay off more than 200 workers if more prisoner beds weren’t filled. Last year, in spite of an effort to reduce the use of private prisons in Montana, CoreCivic convinced the state to extend their contract for a prison in Shelby, Montana, citing potential job losses and a promise to return $34 million to the state budget. 

Conditions of violence, understaffing, and other human rights violations are much worse in private prisons. The ACLU continues to record staff misconduct and prisoner abuses by CoreCivic, yet the company continues to grow its business across the country. Other private prison companies like The GEO Group have similar track records. In fact, problems with private prisons were bad enough that a government Inspector General report in August 2016 prompted then Attorney General Sally Yates to begin phasing out private prisons for federal inmates. This order, however, was overturned by Jeff Sessions soon after Trump took office.

More recently, private prison companies have been profiting on the dramatic increase in detaining immigrants under the Trump administration’s policies. The rapid increase in housing immigrant detainees has been a boon for private prison companies. And as we have seen in recent news, conditions in immigrant detainee facilities are often inhumane for people who have not been charged with any crime.

Prisoners and their families also suffer from the profit motive behind incarceration. Even for detainees who have yet to be convicted of a crime, private companies have arranged to gouge those caught up in the criminal justice system. Phone calls often cost a dollar a minute for families to talk to prisoners. Digital services like emails cost fifty cents to a dollar each. Substandard video teleconferencing is being sold in place of in-person visits. Prisoners often have to buy essentials like toilet paper and soap at the prison commissary at prices that are higher than market rate. The profit motive for these services skews priorities and makes our prison system worse for both inmates and society.

Young people are also a part of our growing prison population. Nearly 60,000 people under age 18 are behind bars on any given day in the U.S. Poor behaviors that used to be handled by school administrators are now often turned over to police with long-lasting effects. Youth who are imprisoned are cut off from their families, limited in their education, and often subjected to trauma and violence that far exceeds the nature of their misbehavior. This trend only adds to the cost of our prison system and shifts too much of the responsibility for our children to a criminal justice system that will not prepare them to be productive members of our society. 

Reducing the cost and overuse of the prison system will require reforms in sentencing guidelines, improvements in prison management and oversight, and updates to criminal law. Certainly, prison is an important part of a criminal justice system. Some criminals, especially those who are violent, must be separated from society. But, in many cases, there are other ways to punish and rehabilitate that are more efficient and effective. Pre-trial detention isn’t always necessary. Minor crimes, including many drug offenses, don’t always warrant the cost of sending someone to prison.

A comprehensive approach to prison reform is needed. Reducing the profit motive in something that should be a government function is a good place to start. The money spent for private prison companies and incarcerating so many people who shouldn’t be behind bars would be much better spent on education, health care, infrastructure, or any number of things that will benefit society more than locking people up.

Data sources: Although multiple news and sources were used as background for this column, all data cited can be found at aclu.org and prisonpolicy.org.  

I Believe in Love

I Believe in Love
(originally published in Tumbleweird February 2019)

by Ted Miller

I’m a believer in love. I believe in the power of love.

But what does that mean? When I sat down to write this column, I wanted to write a concise definition of what love means to me, but I didn’t know where to start.

Millions of words have been written to try to describe love. Stories about love have been told in every language since humans first developed the ability to communicate. We all experience love, yet every experience of love is different.

The capacity to love is fundamental to our human experience. In fact, love is essential to childhood development and to our physical and mental well-being.

Love binds us together. It is love that makes us care for each other. A mother loves her child unconditionally from before birth. Parents care for their children without an expectation of anything in return. Love keeps families together through generations. Love among friends and within a community leads us to pool resources together for the common good. Love is the thing that ensures our species survives. And love for our fellow humans can lift us all and make the world a better place.

Every major religion teaches about the importance of love, especially love for those who are less fortunate, those who are strangers, even those who are our enemies.

In Buddhism, the Dhammapada, 1:5 says, “For hatred does not cease by hatred at any time: hatred ceases by love, this is an ancient and eternal rule.”

In Judaism, Leviticus 19:34 says, “The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

In the Christian bible, John 15:12, Jesus says, “My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.”

In Islam, Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 72, “None of you has faith until he loves for his brother or his neighbor what he loves for himself.”

Other religions have similar teachings. All are variations on the golden rule: Treat others as you would like to be treated. Or more simply, love each other like you love yourself.

When I think about the power of love, I remember Aesop’s story of the North Wind and the Sun. The Sun bets the North Wind that he can get the traveler remove his coat. The North Wind, thinking he is more powerful, accepts the challenge. But the stronger the North Wind blows, the tighter the traveler closes his coat. The Sun then comes out. The Sun’s warmth soon encourages the man to loosen and then remove his coat. The moral: warmth and kindness wins. To me, this story is a metaphor that means love is stronger than hate.

I’m not naïve enough to think evil doesn’t exist in the world. Humans have a terrible capacity for divisiveness and hatred. The daily news is full of stories of racism, homophobia, and misogyny. War, genocide, and slavery exist today. Although we have the resources and capacity to feed and clothe the world, millions of humans suffer in poverty and hunger every day.

All too often, people who don’t look like us, talk like us, worship like us, or think like us are not treated as one of us. The partisan division in this country is worse than at any time in my life. The hate I see on social media makes me wonder if we can ever come together as a country, let alone continue the long road towards justice and peace for all. Where is the love?

There are times I feel hopeless and want to just retreat from the world. But I refuse to give in to the darkness. I refuse to give up hope. I still believe we are capable of seeing the good in each other.

We can value the dignity of every human being and treat everyone with love and respect while at the same time protecting ourselves from those that would do us harm. We can work together to help those less fortunate than us. We can speak up for the oppressed. We can demand a government that works for the common good. We can remember the golden rule and choose love.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love.”

I believe in love. The alternative is too much to bear.

The Greatest Threat To Our Existence

The Greatest Threat To Our Existence

(originally published in Tumbleweird January 2019)

by Ted Miller

“Right now, we are facing a man-made disaster of global scale. Our greatest threat in thousands of years. Climate change. If we don’t take action, the collapse of our civilizations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.” 

– Sir David Attenborough, United Nations Climate Change Conference, Katowice, Poland

December 3, 2018

There is a metaphor that says a frog put into boiling water will immediately jump out to save itself, but a frog placed in tepid water that is slowly heated will be boiled alive before recognizing the danger. Although I like this metaphor as a caution against complacency, it is not scientifically valid. In fact, frogs are ectotherms which regulate their body temperature by changing location. A real frog would sense the temperature change and save itself by jumping out of the water.

The temperature of our planet is rising. This is an incontrovertible fact that the climate deniers can’t make untrue no matter how hard they try. I can point you to websites and propaganda of those who are convinced the earth is flat, but that doesn’t make the earth any less round. I can point to historical studies that obfuscated the link between tobacco and cancer, but that doesn’t mean smoking is good for your health. And whatever doubt the deniers still have about the cause and significance of climate change, it is not based on data and scientific analysis.

Just because you don’t believe something doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

The Fourth National Climate Assessment[i], Vol II, was released by the federal government in November 2018. It is an exhaustive, thoroughly researched report with input from hundreds of experts in wide-ranging areas of expertise. The source material is diverse and meets rigid scientific and quality standards. The report reflects the best information available on climate change and its impact on the United States and the world. I highly encourage you to read the report summary yourself (see nca2018.globalchange.gov).

The report concludes “that the evidence of human-caused climate change is overwhelming and continues to strengthen, that the impacts of climate change are intensifying across the country, and that climate-related threats to Americans’ physical, social, and economic well-being are rising.” 

This conclusion should not be taken lightly.

Scientists have understood the physics of global temperature and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for almost 200 years.[ii]We have known since the middle of the last century that human activity, beginning with the use of fossil fuels in the industrial age, has greatly influenced the earth’s climate. And now the impacts are becoming more dramatic and self-evident. Consider the following:

-       Arctic ice is melting fast. The amount of sea ice has decreased dramatically and the seasonal changes are more pronounced. The arctic is warming faster than any other part of the planet. 

-       Land ice and snow packs are melting much faster than they are being replaced. The ice cover over Greenland and Antarctica is shrinking. Glaciers are receding. 

-       Sea level is rising. Some low-lying islands will be completely underwater within the next few decades.

-       Desert areas are becoming hotter and more arid and more desert is being created in the subtropics.

-       Rain and snow patterns are changing, leading to increased flooding in some areas while other parts of the planet see more drought. 

-       Wildfires are becoming more severe.

-       The oceans are becoming more acidic and are getting warmer. Both of these trends have a significant impact on the ecosystem. Coral reefs around the world are dying. 

-       Extreme weather, including hurricanes and winter storms, is becoming more common.

The consequences of climate change on humans and our environment are potentially devastating. Mass extinctions are possible. Famine and poverty will likely increase as land becomes more uninhabitable, crops begin to fail, and diseases from warmer temperatures spread. Agriculture, the economy, and human health will all be negatively impacted. Climate change will affect every aspect of our lives.

But the situation isn’t hopeless. Action to reduce atmospheric carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions can limit the global rise in temperature. International agreements can establish achievable goals with concrete actions. National and local governments can consider impacts on climate with their policies, regulations, and initiatives. Investments can be made in research and technology to replace carbon-based energy sources and science and engineering solutions can be implemented. 

And, perhaps most importantly, individual citizens can hold their elected officials accountable for decisions affecting the climate. We must do everything in our power to reverse this trend. Subsidies to the petroleum industry must be eliminated and clean, carbon-free energy sources must be incentivized. Individual choices and environmental habits are important, but only governments can drive the change we need to save the planet.

Like the proverbial frog, we are at risk of boiling alive. But, like the real frog who can save itself, we know what is happening to the planet and we are fully capable of saving ourselves and the natural world.

We just have to feel the heat and know that it is real.

---

[i]U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2018: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II. The complete report may be accessed at nca2018.globalchange.gov.

[ii]Ibid, p. 39.

War and Peace

War and Peace

by Ted Miller

(originally published in Tumbleweird December 2018)

One hundred years ago we fought the “war to end all wars.” The war was devastating. Over ten million people died and many times that number were injured in what was then known as the Great War. New weapons like poison gas, tanks, and aircraft made killing more efficient than ever before. The horrors of that war were so grim that many thought mankind would never go to war again. 

This sentiment was summarized by H.G. Wells in The Daily Newson August 14, 1914 when he wrote:

“This is already the vastest war in history. It is a war not of nations, but of mankind. It is war to exorcise the world-madness and end an age… For this is now a war for peace. It aims straight at disarmament. It aims at a settlement that shall stop this sort of thing for ever. Every soldier who fights against Germany now is a crusader against war. This, the greatest of all wars, is not just another war—it is the last war!”

How wrong we were. The war that ended on Armistice Day a century ago was just another in the long history of wars among men. We even had to rename the Great War when just a few decades later we were in the midst of World War II.

I have always felt that a strong military promotes peace by acting as a deterrent to war. As a submarine officer on patrol carrying nuclear ballistic missiles, I believed that if we ever had to carry out the orders we were trained to execute, it would mean our mission of deterrence had been an utter failure. Success was the avoidance of nuclear war. Success meant peace. Success was met through strength.

As I was preparing to commemorate the centennial of the World War I armistice at the Bells for Peace gathering on November 11, I reflected on my thirty-year career in the military and my thoughts on war and peace. Did military strength really ensure a lasting peace? That certainly hasn’t been the case in my lifetime. I realized that the horrors of war do not alone lead to a lasting desire for peace. 

Hundreds of millions of people have died as a direct result of war in the last century. Hundreds of millions more have been displaced. Today, the wars in Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Iraq continue to destabilize the world. Armed conflict is ongoing in Africa, Mexico, Asia, and Eastern Europe. And the United States is at least partially involved in every one of them.

We are currently fighting the longest war in U.S. history. Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, we invaded Afghanistan to fight Al Qaeda and have been at war in that country ever since. 

We have become so inured to the war in Afghanistan that it barely makes the news. We celebrate our veterans, but forget the fact that we are still at war. Fewer and fewer Americans serve in the military and the majority of us are insulated from the reality of war. 

War is expensive, not only in lives, but in dollars. The wars in the Middle East have cost U.S. taxpayers $5.9 trillion since 2001.[i]Those costs will continue to grow well in to the future as we care for veterans and pay for ongoing obligations in the region. 

Is the cost of war really worth it? If the goal of war is indeed peace, perhaps there are other ways to achieve it. 

I know that peace isn’t easy. I know that evil exists in the world and that we must protect ourselves from those who would do us harm. I agree that we should be ready to use our military strength to defend our allies and ensure stability in the trouble spots of the world. But I also think that we can use our strengths and resources to combat the things that lead to war. 

Poverty, hunger, social injustice, and a lack of education tend to lead to civil unrest that spills over into violence and war. War, in turn, leads to more human suffering. Breaking the cycle can reduce the tendency towards war and help usher in an era of peace.

We should be promoting peace through humanitarian efforts backed up by our economic, diplomatic, and military strength. Our resources can be better spent helping others instead of funding the military industrial complex for an endless cycle of war. I’m not anti-military, I’m pro-peace.

We need a strong diplomatic corps to promote peaceful solutions. We need to work with our allies to resolve conflicts. War should be a last resort. 

On November 11, 1919, President Woodrow Wilson issued a proclamation to commemorate the first Armistice Day with these words:

“To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country’s service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and justice in the councils of the nations.”

If only we could promote peace and justice around the world without going to war to do so.

---

[i]“Costs of War,” Neta C. Crawford, Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs, Brown University, November 14, 2018.