CPTnet
November 22, 2004

IRAQ: Violence or Nonviolence in Fallujah?

by Cliff Kindy

Practical questions about handling a complex security situation often
confront peacemakers and warriors. Is violence more effective than
nonviolence? The city of Fallujah has been a burr under the saddle of the
US occupation. Players in that drama chose their tools of change.

Some precedents place the options on the table. Najaf and the presence of
Sadr militia groups guarding the shrine presented a complex problem for the
U.S. occupation. The U.S. Military decided to take control militarily with
major air support and tanks and soldiers on the streets. Ayatollah Sistani,
instead, called on Muslims to go to Najaf. That massive nonviolent crowd
enabled the militia groups to withdraw without losing face and the US
military to concede their tactics honorably. The friction de-escalated and
the situation has achieved some normalcy.

In Sadr City, resistance to the U.S. occupation reached crisis proportions
as U.S. patrols and Shia militia groups fought over the city with civilians
bearing the cost. The Iraqi government creatively offered money for guns;
calm came to Sadr City.

U.S. forces invaded Fallujah in April 2004. The situation did not escalate
because a former Iraqi general took responsibility for security in the city.
As the violence escalated in recent weeks, a committee of religious,
civilian, and military persons approached the United Nations to work out a
nonviolent alternative to a U.S. invasion. The Iraq interim government and
the U.S. occupation rejected this invitation as unworkable, so the invasion
proceeded with accompanying deaths of civilians, resistance fighters, and
U.S. soldiers. The city is in shambles and charges of human rights
violations abound.

What are the alternatives? First, a sustainable society at peace will
require economic justice and personal rights such as life, health,
education, freedom to participate in the political process, and employment.
The focus for coalition forces in Iraq has been security. Seventy percent
unemployment, a devastated infrastructure, and dismal prospects for a free
election overwhelm the future. The basis for a sustainable peace is
missing. Energies must be invested in rebuilding the society.

Nonviolent options continue to be viable in all arenas. Those nonviolent
options have the added bonus of NOT eliciting heavy casualties and NOT
building communication barriers between conflicting parties.

Nonviolence can transform conflicts as it reduces the power of armed actors
and increases the power of nonviolent actors. Analysis can identify the key
groups within the violent structures, and nonviolent actions can focus on
changing the attitudes and activities of those groups. Coalitions of
nonviolence can develop the direct actions that take the initiative from
armed actors and empower those who nurture a society at peace. These
coalitions must also take control of the decisions that affect their
society.

Nonviolence is viable and effective when based in the local community.
Violence is often the choice of those who fear they don't have the popular
support to act as they wish. "Choose life that you and your descendents can
live" (Deuteronomy 30:19.)