The War on Peace: How U.S. Foreign Policy Puts Us All at Risk
by Samina Sundas
We live in tumultuous times; a world in great peril with an epidemic of terrorism spreading throughout, growing ever powerful through a vicious cycle of violence, with no end in sight.
Countless years, military actions, humanitarian aid packages, and lives lost later, we seem to have accomplished next to nothing. Looking back, it is clear that our sense of security here in the United States is only a falsehood, a temporary respite, waiting to be shattered by the next devastating attack that highlights our failures both at home and abroad.
The news is often disheartening, particularly to those who study it for the first time in detail. It can be discouraging to even dream up new approaches, yet we owe it to our future generations to make every attempt at redefining the global climate of war. To that end, there are some simple truths that may bolster our spirits; basic concepts that have been ignored, overlooked, or avoided by those with the same shortsighted thinking that earned us this position in the first place. The pundits might argue our innocence, that we were simply reacting to a series of external events that we had no control over, but the reality manifests itself in stark contrast. If we are to sincerely take on the critical work of spreading peace and the noble ideals of democracy our nation represents, we must be willing to adopt a critical eye for self-examination.
To continue on this path, acting as though the United States is isolated, protected by the vast oceans on our borders, and somehow insulated from the catastrophes of other humans, is to live a self-perpetuated lie. It only compounds the problems, until eventually the illusion is shattered by violence; and then, once again, painfully begetting more violence. For Americans, the underlying goal must be to improve our nation to usher in the changes we seek globally. As with any other problem, the first step on this road to peace begins with understanding.
The problem with U.S. foreign policy
To understand what is happening now, we must first review the past in order to own our failures. The United States’ foreign policy with both Pakistan and its surrounding nations has been a dismal exercise in shortsightedness. There was a time when to “secure America” all that was needed was U.S. naval carriers stationed throughout the globe, and diplomacy meant a coup d’état that momentarily aligned American and foreign interests. On many occasions, we have funded, trained, or otherwise installed the very same villains we vow to hunt today.
Unfortunately, such examples are merely the obvious tip of the iceberg, and they rarely paint a clear picture of the long-term implication of such actions. Such corrupted attempts to pacify entire regions of the world have festered into the resentment and anti-Americanism prevalent in much of South and Southeast Asia. To further obfuscate things, our own news media sensationalizes that tale with absurd claims like “They hate us for our freedom” and other such propaganda, lest they take the unpopular (and less profitable) position of admitting that our great nation is fallible.
Adding to this resentment is the long-term policy of unconditional financial support for the State of Israel, the only country the United States offers a “blank check” approach to foreign aid. To say that this ongoing support weakens our capability to promote peace abroad is perhaps the greatest understatement of this century. The entire Muslim world has its eyes on Gaza; despite our lack of understanding, the rest of the world is cognitive of the atrocities being committed on our dime, with our implicit blessing. Our message to the world is far too ambiguous — preaching peace and practicing war. We cannot hope to defeat violence while promoting it elsewhere.
Suffice it to say that a quick study of our past behavior validates the discontent with U.S. foreign policy commonly found abroad. My opinion is that most Pakistanis find themselves somewhere along the spectrum between unhappy and hostile towards the United States.
The good, or bad, news is that this spectrum is dynamic. We can change where people identify themselves on that spectrum, for better or for worse. Let me restate that; we must change where people identify themselves, if not for humanitarian reasons then for the sole purpose of protecting American lives in the future. The tragic lesson we seem incapable of learning is that while our rhetoric and fanfare on cable news can mask from Americans the reality of our actions, we cannot mask these realities from the people who have to live with the consequences. These are the people we are forcing to endure corrupt governments whose only interest is that of self-preservation without a thought to the long-term stability, economic opportunity, or prosperity of their country. We cannot hide the horrible number of civilian victims of drone attacks simply by not reporting it. We cannot hide hunger from children that cannot eat, and no amount of spin will provide these people freedom, democracy, economic opportunity, or security in the slightest.
Terrorism and militants
The real danger of this duplicitous nature comes when a militant insurgency encounters a civilian population. This is precisely what’s happening in Pakistan right now. Repeated U.S. drone attacks in the mountainous and other remote areas of Pakistan have driven Taliban, al-Qaida, and other miscellaneous bad guys into the populated city centers below — the only safe refuge, from their standpoint. This pits U.S. military action against heavily-populated areas where civilian casualty is almost guaranteed. The more violence we inflict, the more violence terrorists respond with where possible. These days that conflict is playing out right in the heart of Pakistan, pulling ordinary people into a vicious cycle that only strengthens the resolve of terrorists. It makes their propaganda easier to digest among a population that already harbors varying degrees of anti-Americanism (as described above).
This is of particular note when dealing with the worldwide threat of terrorism, where the enemy is unmarked by uniform and isn’t acting on behalf of a government — or even pursuing the will of the people. Because of their ability to blend in with civilians, the resulting terror they can inflict on locals is magnified a great deal; Pakistani people live in fear of not only attacks from U.S. military exercises but also violent terrorists who live among them and who feed on the violence. Even those Pakistanis who have yet to witness the destructive nature of this powder keg are slowly drifting across that spectrum of American sentiment, posing more danger to the world’s ability to step back and pursue peace with the same voracity we have exhibited in pursuing war.
Given this understanding of the cycle of terror, we can broach the subject of peacebuilding in a much more practical manner. Peace seekers worldwide can take solace in opportunities to make a substantial difference.
In order to have an evenhanded approach to the subject, however, we must also take under consideration the expectations we can have on any nation we seek to aid. It is just as unfair for Pakistanis to assume no responsibility in the troubles brewing abroad as it for Americans to absolve themselves of any wrongdoing. For this reason, our goal should be to identify civilian groups that espouse the same ideals of democracy, liberty, and safety as our own nation identifies itself with.
A strategic response
We must reach out to the various movements within Pakistan that recognize the underlying problems within the region. In this respect, nonprofit groups and various peace seekers can have a profound impact without straining financial resources. Humanitarian aid needs to empower the voices within Pakistan that dissent against violence, terror, and oppression, and the first step in this direction is to help them organize. We should aim to help these groups coalesce into an interfaith and multicultural movement that demonstrates our own commitment to peace.
To clarify: there are three basic concepts that highlight a more effective approach to community building on a global scale. The United States can maintain its own security and safety by reciprocating that need with our involvement abroad. We must offer accountability for our actions and expect in return accountability on behalf of the population we are trying to empower. Lastly, we must assume that opportunity lost on foreign soil eventually means opportunity lost at home. In the global marketplace, no country exists as an island apart from the rest of the world. It behooves us to acknowledge the symbiotic nature of international trade — both in financial terms and in terms of the stability of various regions of the world — that without economic sustainability become susceptible to the kinds of regimes and political corruption that breeds terrorism as an epidemic.
To review:
1. The security of our nation depends on the security of natives where our military intervenes.
2. Accountability for our actions deserves accountability from those we are attempting to assist.
3. Opportunity abroad will result in opportunity at home; prosperity begets prosperity.
I would be thrilled to inform you that such a basic concept is already in practice today. Unfortunately, it seems the responsibility for rescuing the world from a perpetual state of war and crisis once again rests with the few who take it upon themselves to ensure this world is left in a better state than how they found it. Action is needed both at the NGO and governmental level, but to catalyze federal activity we must demonstrate the viability of extending an olive branch to those in need with the ideas mentioned above in mind.
I urge you to discuss this with your friends, families, co-workers, and faith-based groups. Encourage them to read, watch videos, or use any other means to gain perspective on the problematic situation in Central and South Asia.
My simple suggestion is to pose the question, “What would you do if your family was in this situation?” Many of us like to pretend there is no action for which our reaction would mirror some of the tragic violence we’ve seen abroad. The reality is we all might very well be susceptible to just such a call for hatred were our loved ones caught in the line of fire.
Surely this is the reason our nation was spurred to war in the first place. The question now is whether we will have learned our lessons; history clearly shows the inefficiency of military response to global terrorism. If our goal is to build peace around the world, we must respect this critical epoch, a moment in which our choices will be reflected on the global stage for decades to come.
An interdependent future
We can’t expect change unless we are willing to change ourselves. We are responsible for the actions of our government, and our attitude and understanding must begin to reflect that. Our futures are wrapped up together in symbiotic harmony or disorder with the other citizens of the world; our attitude and understanding must begin to reflect that as well.
If there is one glaring takeaway from this article, it is that we are all bound to one another whether we wish to acknowledge it or not. It’s the butterfly effect realized through humanity and we must now embrace it to focus on building a global community — a beloved community that can provide everyone the security and opportunity we all seek.
I am constantly overwhelmed by the similarity here with the American promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — a patriotic call for us to engage in what could redefine our history forever; the moment America sought to wage peace instead of war.
Samina Faheem Sundas, a native of Pakistan, is founding executive director of the American Muslim Voice Foundation (AMV, www.amuslimvoice.org). In 2007, Sundas and AMV’s work for social justice and interfaith understanding were honored with the Martin Luther King, Jr. Award by the Fellowship of Reconciliation. Sundas lives in Palo Alto, California, and regularly visits her homeland; she may be contacted via e-mail at saminasundas@gmail.com.
