A problem that has come up repeatedly during the current Iraq war is distinguishing the threats. Comparisons to Vietnam abound – once again we are fighting a force that doesn’t play the war game like we do. They don’t wear uniforms, they don’t publicize the locations of their bases. This implicates the huge question of who is a “combatant” and who is a “civilian.” I plan to address this question in a later blog post.
The immediate impact is that our soldiers don’t know who is going to shoot at them, and so they end up detaining – or, in more disturbing situations, killing – people who were arguably innocent and not a threat.
In December, the Department of Defense posted a story that relates how “Moderate Muslims held in coalition detention centers in Iraq are turning in radical Muslim detainees on a daily basis . . . .” The article attributes this to a shift in attitudes, and quotes a Marine commander who “described several instances where middle-of-the-road Muslims actively repudiated Islamic extremism inside the walls of coalition compounds.”
This strikes me as a very odd situation, for several reasons. We are detaining civilians – albeit those who are considered to be a threat “to coalition forces, Iraqi Security Forces and stability in Iraq”fn1 – and we are detaining them without affording them a trial or any other kind of adversarial hearing.fn2 I think it is only reasonable to assume that a person in a position of indefinite detainment will try to figure out what he can do to get out – what do his captors want?
So, yes, of course the detainees will turn in “radical Muslims,” if it seems like that is what we want from them. But I have serious doubts that the detainees are doing this out of some sense of justice that is newly grown from their confinement, as the article suggests, and I have serious concerns about whether those being accused of “radical” really are. Further, even if we assume that they are “radical,” does that mean that they are a threat?
An important concept in Buddhism is that of not causing harm to other living beings. This concept is embraced in several components of the Eightfold Path – right intention, right speech, right action, and right livelihood.fn3 This can obviously be applied to both the detainees who were involved in violence against soldiers and/or civilians, and to American forces who may detain those who are innocent. This could also be considered to apply even to American forces detaining those who have committed crimes – if the families of the detainees have not been notified,fn4 this could obviously cause harm to them as they worry over what has become of their loved one.
Is it reasonable and realistic for these parties to alter their behavior so they are not causing this harm? The first question, of the detainees who were involved in violent acts prior to their detainment, is perhaps the hardest to evaluate, and I will leave it for last.
The American forces who are detaining those who may be innocent could certainly take steps to ameliorate that risk. The detainees could be given trials, allowed to present evidence and witnesses – in short, be given the same protections we consider a basic right in this country. This would take time, and cost more, but those arguments usually do not carry weight when compared to the threat of false imprisonment.
Of detaining those who have committed crimes, and not informing their family of their imprisonment and location, I believe that avoiding harm in this situation is easily done with little risk. Even if a detainee refused to give information about his family, the American forces could setup an office where family members could come in and give the name of their loved one and find out if he has been detained. It could be argued that risk may arise if a prominent person is detained and a rescue attempt is made. While I do not think this risk is significant enough to justify withholding information on all detainees, even if it was, the followers of a prominent person who is detained are likely to know what happened, as a prominent person is rarely alone and witnesses to any arrest would probably exist.
To return to the question of the detainees who were involved in violent acts prior to their detainment: many may be reacting to the violence from the soldiers, and feel they have no other option. This very quickly becomes a “chicken or the egg” kind of problem, which is so very common in human conflict. The question of who caused the first harm is rarely resolved, and as long as neither side is willing to take the risk of attempting peace, the cycle continues until one side overpowers the other. As the Dalai Lama noted in his 1989 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, “violence can only breed more violence and suffering . . . .”
This strikes at the heart of the purpose of this blog – to explore how Buddhism applies to the world of humans, a world that has always contained the threat of violence from other humans. Is a non-violent, compassionate response to violence sustainable? To some extent it is, as Buddhism has survived for over 2,500 years. But most countries that have been traditionally Buddhist during that time – Japan and China are the primary examples – have engaged in violence. The one country that I am aware that may have a claim to not having used violence, Tibet, has been invaded and much of its population is displaced. And, if a country cannot sustain itself under the principles of Buddhism, should it still try, knowing that it has signed its own death decree?
Another issue raised by the article is that of the assumption that “radical Muslims” are necessarily a threat. Those who use their beliefs to justify their own violent acts obviously are a threat. But what of those who believefn5 that violence is appropriate, whether to defend their land or to spread Islam, but do not engage in violence themselves? Do we attempt to re-educate them, as the detention centers appear to be doing?fn6 Do we imprison them for fear that their beliefs may eventually lead to actions? It is easy to say that religious freedom is a good thing, but what if the other person’s religion (or even their interpretation of it) requires the elimination of our religion?
This is another difficult question, and for now I will defer to the Dalai Lama on this topic, as he has spent much more time reflecting on this topic than I have:
“Perhaps the most significant obstruction to interreligious harmony is lack of appreciation of the value of others’ faith traditions. . . . I believe that the best way to overcome ignorance and bring about understanding is through dialogue with members of other faith traditions.”fn7
***
fn1 Walter Pincus, U.S. Holds 18,000 Detainees in Iraq, Washington Post, April 15, 2007, at A24 (click here to read).
fn2 Id.
fn3 The Noble Eightfold Path, Wikipedia, Jan. 25, 2008, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Noble_Eightfold_Path.
fn4 Pincus, supra.
fn5 When I use the word “believe” in this context, I obviously refer to those beliefs which are actually espoused or otherwise outwardly visible.
fn6 See the last few sentences of the article: “a new curriculum offered to detainees at coalition compounds . . . The courses include offerings that reinforce basic Islamic tenets such as the sanctity of life and property, loving humanity and avoiding hatred, earning a living, and practicing respect and tolerance for humanity . . . Roughly 1,000 [detainees] are participating in mixed Sunni and Shiite religious discussions led by imams hired by coalition forces, a course that will become mandatory for detainees who have been deemed ready for release. . . . “They come out understanding the difference between what the extremists have said, or what the extremists have made them memorize, vs. what's actually in the Quran.”
fn7 His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Ethics for the New Millennium (New York: Riverhead Books, 1999), 222.
Comments