Faith & Reflection: Voices from the Black Church and Beyond
- War-first policies deepened militarization, fueled failed foreign interventions, and eroded civil liberties and immigrant rights at home.
- Diplomacy, policing, and negotiations often beat military force; the RAND study and examples like FARC and the Good Friday Agreement show this.
- Congress and civil society can reclaim power to end endless war, repeal harmful authorizations, and build security rooted in justice; war is not the answer.
(RNS) — I was 27 years old, living in New York City and early in my career as a Quaker peace advocate, when the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, shook our country and the world. Days later, the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) — where I began my career and which I now run — issued a statement mourning the thousands of lives lost and calling for those responsible to be brought to justice through the rule of law.
FCNL also warned against backlash targeting innocent Muslim and Middle Eastern communities and urged the U.S. government not to “commit the same sin by compounding the hatred, violence, and injustice of these attacks with its own acts of terror and war against another people.” Even amid profound national grief and uncertainty, FCNL offered a clear and steadfast witness: “War is not the answer.”
Sadly, many of the concerns we raised after 9/11 became reality — and then became normalized through the Global War on Terror. While the U.S. has a long history of military interventions abroad and racialized oppression at home, our government’s response to 9/11 ushered in decades of endless war and entrenched discrimination, codified through the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for the Use of Military Force, the Patriot Act and other shortsighted policies. We also saw this war-first approach take root domestically with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, which folded immigration enforcement into the post-9/11 national security apparatus and helped bring the tools and logic of wars abroad to immigrant communities here at home.
Rather than making us safer, these laws deepened the militarization of U.S. policy. The result has been decades of failed wars and military interventions far beyond the countries connected to the 9/11 attacks, alongside increasingly punitive treatment of immigrants within our own borders. A recent FCNL Education Fund report, for example, documents how U.S. military-first approaches since 9/11 have undermined stability and fueled violent conflict in Somalia. Meanwhile, Somali communities in Minnesota, many of whose members came to the U.S. seeking safety, have come under direct attack recently as part of the administration’s campaign against immigrant — particularly Muslim — communities.
The Trump administration’s reckless use of military force, cruel mass deportation campaign, erosion of core democratic protections and blatant disregard for the rule of law demand unequivocal opposition. But these abuses did not begin with President Trump. For decades, Democratic and Republican administrations alike have invoked the “war on terror” and national security to justify expanding military action abroad and curtailing immigrant rights at home.
Friends have long rejected the premise that we must choose between protecting our communities and upholding the rights and dignity of people seeking safety; instead, we have called for policies that advance security for all. For 25 years, fear and violence have too often driven U.S. policy. We need not allow them to dictate what comes next.
It can be difficult to remember that it did not have to be this way. A different response was possible. Rather than invading Afghanistan and Iraq and launching military operations across the globe, the United States could have pursued accountability for the 9/11 attacks through U.S. and international law. It could have strengthened human rights at home while investing in diplomacy, development and peacebuilding abroad. And it could have honored the victims of 9/11 and their loved ones by choosing a path that upheld human dignity and protected innocent lives from further violence.
Research and experience show that such alternatives are not simply aspirational. The landmark 2008 RAND study, “How Terrorist Groups End,” found that terrorist groups were most often brought to an end through the work of local police and intelligence agencies or through negotiated political settlements—not military force. In other words, the tools most effective at reducing terrorism have often been those that treat it as a matter of law enforcement or political conflict rather than war.
We have seen that approach work around the world. From the peace agreement between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) to the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland, negotiation and diplomacy have helped end or dramatically reduce decades of violence involving non-state armed groups. These examples are reminders that pursuing security does not require defaulting to war.
At 52, I still remember the attacks vividly. It was a defining moment for my generation, our country and the world — one that ushered in dangerous and costly changes to U.S. policy, along with new restrictions on our civil liberties and everyday freedoms. I remember a time before security lines and metal detectors became routine at airports, and before the prospect of deployment to war loomed over so many young people.
It pains me to consider how much harm my government has inflicted abroad and within our own communities since 9/11. Yet when I look back over these 25 years, I am also reminded that the story is not only one of violence and loss. We have made meaningful progress toward peace — and that progress offers both a lesson and a reason for hope.
Our world is more connected, and civil society has found new ways to organize and advance change across borders and in our own communities. Nonviolent movements have toppled long-standing dictators, more people are challenging racism, sexism and ableism; and our own Congress has grown more diverse than ever before. Younger generations, too, are building movements for greater justice. Even as the promise of a more peaceful, just and sustainable world has sometimes seemed to recede, the work of creating it has grown.
We have seen that persistence translate into policy change. Last October, Congress repealed the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, ending the Iraq War authorization after decades of advocacy and bipartisan cooperation. And this year, growing public outcry — including from faith leaders standing with their immigrant neighbors — helped stall funding for the administration’s cruel mass deportation campaign for months.
In 2001, Rep. Barbara Lee stood alone in Congress in voting against the authorization that opened the door to the Global War on Terror. Today, more lawmakers recognize the danger of leaving that law on the books, and momentum for repeal is building. The House recently passed a resolution to end U.S. military action against Iran, which narrowly failed in the Senate. Slowly but surely, Congress is beginning to reclaim its constitutional authority over war.
It is also long past time to reject an immigration system that treats migrants, families, asylum seekers and entire communities as threats. That fear-driven framework has helped enable the indiscriminate mass deportation campaign we see today. Armed federal agents have no place roaming our streets masked, detaining people without cause or accountability. Congress must confront these abuses, hold Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol accountable and ensure that armed federal agents are not used to intimidate communities — including at or near polling places.
Twenty-five years after 9/11, another world is still possible. Congress can honor this anniversary by rejecting policies rooted in fear and violence, reasserting constitutional authority over war and protecting the rights and dignity of all people in this country. We do not have to choose between security and justice; lasting security depends on pursuing both.
At FCNL, our advocacy for a better world continues, just as it did in the grief and uncertainty following 9/11. After 25 years, our conviction remains unchanged: War is not the answer — at home or abroad.
(Bridget Moix is the general secretary of the Friends Committee on National Legislation and leads two other Quaker organizations, Friends Place on Capitol Hill and the FCNL Education Fund. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.)
Read the full article on the original source
