Violence as a way of achieving
justice is both impractical and immoral.
It is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for
all. The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. It is immoral
because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding;
it seeks to annihilate rather than to convert. Violence is immoral because it
thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood
impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends
by defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in
the destroyers.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Nobel address, Oslo, December 11, 1964
An Effective Response to Terrorism
David Christie
An army officer with frontline experience in dealing
with terrorism, David Christie served with three armies on four continents, and
still carries a piece of terrorist grenade in his body. He was Captain and
Adjutant for the 1st Battalion Cameronians
(Scottish Rifles) and 2nd Battalion Malaysia Rangers, and qualified as a U.S.
Airborne Ranger. Since 1989 he has served as a chaplain with the South African
Police.
After the United States was attacked to 9/11, something had to be done. But what? Doesn't it seem that the response has actually
exacerbated the spiral of violence on a global scale? And isn't the same
happening with Israel
and the Palestinians? Al-Qaeda and the Afghans? The Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo? And so on, and so on.. ?
The
spiral of violence is something we South Africans experienced dramatically
during the 1980s, but, praise God, grace came into play and the tide was turned
by what amounted to a massive display of love, led by Nelson Mandela and other
leaders such as Desmond Tutu, who renounced what might reasonably be considered
a justifiable desire for revenge, thus ushering in a period of comparative
peace and healing. It may not be perfect, but it’s a lot better than most other
countries have managed.
One
way to stop the spiral of violence is highlighted in II Samuel 2:26-28, when Abner (Saul’s commander) and Joab
(David’s commander) decided to stop fighting. In fact it was the unilateral
decision of Joab, who was winning, to stop the war.
He had his enemy at his mercy but forbore. There were still many problems
thereafter, but the significant outcome was the reunification of Israel and Judah, ushering in the reign of
King David. In fact Israel
had a regime change free of bloodshed when the armies stopped fighting.
In 1967 I was a young officer in a Scottish battalion engaged in peacekeeping
duties in Aden, in what is now Yemen. The
situation was similar to Iraq,
with people being killed every day. As always those who suffered the most were
the innocent local people. Not only were we tough, but we had the firepower to
pretty well destroy the whole town had we wished.
But
we had a commanding officer who understood how to make peace, and he led us to
do something very unusual: Not to react when we were attacked! Only if we were
100 percent certain that a particular person had thrown a grenade or fired a
shot at us, were we allowed to fire. During our tour of duty we had 102
grenades thrown at us, and in response the entire battalion fired the grand
total of two shots, killing one grenade thrower. The cost to us was over 100 of
our own men wounded and (surely by the grace of God) only one killed. When they
threw rocks at us, we stood fast. When they threw grenades, we hit the deck,
and after the explosion we got to our feet and stood fast! We did not react in
anger or indiscriminately. This was not the anticipated reaction.
Slowly,
very slowly, the local people began to trust us and made it clear to the local
“terrorists” that they were not welcome in their area. At one stage neighboring
battalions were having a torrid time with attacks. We were playing soccer with
the locals! We had in fact brought peace to our area at the cost of our own
blood.
How
had this been achieved? Principally because we were led by a man whom every
soldier in the battalion knew would die for him if required. Each soldier in
turn came to be prepared to sacrifice himself for such a man. Many people may
sneer that we were merely obeying orders. But this was not the case. As well as
being one of the toughest units in the army, we were one of the most difficult
to control. John Masters, in his book The
Road Past Mandalay, says, “They had the reputation of being one of
the toughest regiments in the British Army…No one but their own officers could
handle them.”
The
Scottish soldier has scant respect for rank, but great respect for real
leaders. Our commanding officer was more highly regarded by his soldiers than
the general. One might almost say loved. So gradually the heart of the
peacemaker began to grow in each man, and a determination to succeed whatever
the cost. Probably most of the soldiers, like myself,
only realized years afterward what had been achieved.
A large part of the problem in the world today is that the people who start
wars do not fight in them. If they did, we would have fewer wars. We read in II
Samuel 11:1 how “David stayed in Jerusalem,”
whilst Joab and his army, including Uriah, went to war. The result was David’s grievous sin
with Bathsheba and the murder of her husband Uriah.
David should have been in the field with his men.
The
same happens today. World leaders seem to be largely lacking in personal
courage. I would not be too keen to follow a man who feared for his own life,
but was prepared to put mine on the line. John Masters tells of an outstanding
World War II general who “was usually a good deal further forward than was
necessary.” His actions were motivated by his memories of World War I “about
generals sending troops into hopeless battle, whilst they themselves stayed in
the rear…Nothing raises morale more than a dead general.”
Few,
if any, world leaders are prepared to sacrifice themselves. In fact many are
not leaders at all, merely people who have manipulated themselves into
leadership roles. So how could someone lead a whole country sacrificially
today? Perhaps if he (or she) put his own job on the line and courageously did
what he earnestly believed to be in the best interests of the people, not the
political party or financial supporters. Similarly,
opposition politicians might try commending a government when it does something
courageously good, instead of the endless cynicism with an eye to the next
election. Plato’s concept that rulers should be poor is not a bad idea for
today, either.
The greatest sacrificial leader the world has ever seen is surely Jesus Christ. He
did not defend himself before Pilate (Matt. 27:14). He did not call forth the
overwhelming force (more than twelve legions of angels, Matt. 26:53) at his
beck and call. Pilate only had one Roman legion for the whole of Palestine. They would
have been seriously outgunned!
No!
Jesus went to the cross and won the greatest victory the world has ever seen!
And whilst his son was dying there, God the Father still withheld his hand, in
mercy for a world that was killing his dearest and best. Sacrificial love!
Sacrificial leadership! No reaction! Just overwhelming victory!
That
way, and only that way, will ultimately defeat terrorism, whether by an
individual suicide bomber or a powerful government with massive force at its
disposal. And it is a very hard, long, and often lonely road. Few can handle
it. It is the way of the cross; it is God’s way. It might require you to die.
But we have Someone who has showed us the way. However
small, we can make a difference!
This
article was first published in Today magazine, South Africa, July 2004.