Toward a workable pacifism

 I am a pacifist–with qualms.

As a working definition, let’s say pacifism is opposition to engaging in warfare under any circumstances.

It is easy for me to dismiss as morally wrong every US war except one: WWII. WWII has every appearance of being a necessary resistance to a clear evil. None of our other wars meet that criterion for me.

But then comes Ukraine.

Like WWII, Ukraine challenges my pacifism to the core. If ever a people had a right to take up arms, this is one of those times. In apparent violation of my own moral compass, I cheer the destruction of Russian forces (read: killing). I instinctively support the US and other countries’ military aid to Ukraine. These are very un-pacifist sentiments.

And yet, as the war drags on and large swaths of the country lie in ruin, I am reminded of why I am a pacifist in the first place.

The US fancies itself the great protector of peace and freedom; yet in most of our wars, we have been the aggressor. It’s easy to oppose that. But when your country is invaded and raped–wouldn’t it be wrong to not take up arms in self-defense? Don’t we need a deterrent to others’ aggression? To put it another way, isn’t pacifism unworkable? To me, this is the only real challenge to pacifism. And let’s admit it: that’s a pretty serious challenge.

I think in Ukraine in 2022, the answer is yes–a pacifist response would be unworkable, and their choices were to fight or submit. The world’s choices are to provide military aid or see Ukraine fall. But maybe it doesn’t need to remain that way. Maybe humans can create an alternative–a workable pacifism. 

You would have to be prepared to accept the unacceptable. Many of the non-violent resisters would likely be raped, tortured and killed. But then, that’s already what happens in war. Would it be possible to devise a non-violent strategy that ultimately rendered military aggression untenable? If so, what would it look like? Would it be worth it?

I think the core requirement is you would need a strategy to make a country ungovernable by a hostile power. You would need to organize and prepare your entire society for the eventuality of a foreign attempt at occupation–and have plenty of non-violent strategies to gum up the works. You would need to train the bureaucrats & technocrats on how to sabotage the occupier’s plans, and train the populace as a whole how to deal with invading soldiers who can torture, kill and rape you. Non-cooperation, sabotage, and non-violent confrontation would be key. Make plans for calling a crowd of 100,000 people to demonstrate & occupy as needed.

Also, it seems such a strategy could theoretically be devised and deployed in advance of disarmament, and disarmament could be done gradually. 

I am not well-read on pacifist theory & philosophy. I expect these questions have been explored by others. Is what I’m suggesting pure nonsense? I’m interested in your thoughts and reading suggestions.

Note: Thanks to Germaine for granting me publishing permission, and sorry it took so long to get this out there.