Should We Bomb Syria (Or Afghanistan or Anywhere)? You’re Asking the Wrong Question

Critics of nonviolence say that option is the prerogative of the privileged. But actually it’s the other way around.
By Colin Beavan /
Apr 25, 2017
Should We Bomb Syria (Or Afghanistan or Anywhere)? You’re Asking the Wrong Question
“Violence does not just come in terms of bombs, of course: It is also embedded in the diversion of resources from health, education, social services, and housing.” Photo by CHUYN / iStock.

I used to be what I called a “pragmatic pacifist.” That is, I got to be outraged about the very principle of military force when I didn’t agree with its use and got to shrug my shoulders and be a “pragmatist” when I did. Take, for example, the recent U.S. dropping of the “Mother of All Bombs” in Afghanistan—I felt outrage—and the “surgical strike” in Syria to deter the future use of baby-killing chemical weapons—I felt sad. But, as to the right or wrong, I shrugged.

My question lately is this: Can one actually admit to the “pragmatism” of force in one case without opening the door to the use of force at any scale in all cases? If you declare one war “just,” haven’t you agreed that every war—to some degree or in some group’s view—is also in some way just?

I know the arguments against a blanket approach to nonviolence, of course. World War II history books tell us armed occupied resistance and warfare against the Nazis was what brought the Holocaust to an end. To be antiwar in the case of WWII is equated by some as almost being pro-Holocaust.

I’ve studied WWII military history ever since working on my first book, Operation Jedburgh: D-Day and America’s First Shadow WarAnd lately I have been rereading Mark Kurlansky’s Non-Violence: The History of a Dangerous Idea. He argues that rather than ending or deterring the Holocaust, the outbreak of war against Hitler actually triggered it. There had been forced repatriation of Jewish people into concentration camps before war broke out, yes, but only in the isolation and brutality of wartime did Germany dare to turn concentration camps into death camps.

Further, armed resistance in Nazi-occupied countries, Kurlansky argues, was often less effective at deterring the German extermination of Jewish people than nonviolent efforts. In France, 26 percent of the 350,000 Jews were lost; 90 percent of Polish Jews died; and 140,000 were killed in the Netherlands. However, Denmark had no armed resistance, but through a program of organized noncooperation and a refusal to enact anti-Semitic measures, surrendered no Jewish people to the death camps. Bulgaria, a German ally, also saved its Jewish population, according to Kurlansky, through an effort of nonviolent noncooperation.

Critics of nonviolence say it is the prerogative of the privileged, that only those not affected by atrocities have the luxury of advocating a nonviolent response. Yet in Kurlansky’s analysis, it is the other way around. Violence is the prerogative of the privileged, since they have the resources to wage battles effectively.

A violent response by the underpriveleged, historically speaking, often ends with their annihilation.

Kurlansky points to case after case of indigenous populations crushed after their attempts to meet violence by colonial forces in the 19th century with violence. On the other hand, he cites the case of a nonviolent attempt to reclaim their land by a group of New Zealand Maori under a leader named Te Whiti on the country’s northern island. Te Whiti’s nonviolent strategy is credited with stopping the genocide of the Maori.

Violence has never stopped violence, in Kurlansky’s analysis.

There may be a humanitarian rationalization for the dropping of bombs—as in the case of Syria—but there is rarely and probably never a humanitarian reason for it.

All of which leads me to this: Asking whether it is “just” to bomb in any one case is erroneous; asking whether to bomb or not to bomb is not the question.

We know one bombing contributes the logical use of force in all other cases. We know fighting fire with fire does not work. So the real question is how do we stop all bombings, no matter the provocation?

And now, as our aircraft carrier group heads toward an irate North Korea threatening to go nuclear, I can’t help but think of Albert Einstein, who had a lot to say on war and peace. He said that peace cannot be kept by force but only through understanding. He also said that being antiwar without being antiwar preparations is irrelevant.

That last idea, that to prevent war requires prevention-of-war preparations, points to a way forward.

As a society, and as activists who seek to change it for the better, we need to recognize and emphasize the fundamental violence of preparing for war and allowing our taxes to be spent on the continued preparation. Keep in mind that violence does not just come in terms of bombs, of course: It is also embedded in the diversion of resources from health, education, social services, and housing.

How to work against war preparations may be the subject for many other columns. For now, it is enough to know that in debating whether to bomb or not to bomb—Syria or Afghanistan or North Korea—we are asking the wrong question.

Colin Beavan wrote this article for YES! Magazine. Colin helps people and organizations to live and operate in ways that have a meaningful impact on the world. His most recent book is “How To Be Alive,” and he blogs at  Besides YES! Magazine, his articles have appeared in Esquire, Atlantic, and the New York Times. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.

Trending Videos
Help Us Rate These New Member Submissions
Climate Change Documentaries
New Videos
Featured Documentaries

Films For Action is a library for people who want to change the world.


Our mission is to provide citizens with the knowledge and perspectives essential to creating a more beautiful, just, sustainable, and democratic society.

Films For Action was founded in 2006 by a few friends in Lawrence, Kansas, after realizing how essential healthy media is to a healthy democracy.

Over the last 15 years, we've reviewed and curated over 1,000 free documentaries and 4,000 short films, plus over 150 pay-per-view documentaries, spanning 34 topics related to changing the world.

During this time we've been able to reach tens of millions of people - not by owning a TV network or spending truckloads of cash on advertising, but because millions of awesome people keep sharing 'films for action' with their friends on social media - in particular, our 850,000 supporters on Facebook and 70,000 site members. 

One of the coolest things is, thanks to our patrons, our library is ad-free and 100% supported by member donations, while 99% of our library is free to access and always will be. The pay-per-view films on our site, of course, help support the filmmakers, and 90-100% of the revenue for PPV films hosted by us goes to the filmmakers. 

To thank our $5/mo patrons, we partner with filmmakers and distributors to provide access to a growing number of films that are normally pay-per-view. With just 23 highly curated films at the moment, it's basically a mini "Netflix for world changers," but its main function is to support the library as a whole.

If you'd like to know more, want to help out, or you're a filmmaker or distributor looking to collaborate, feel free to get in touch!

Tim Hjersted
Co-Founder & Director
Lawrence, KS