Glenn Stewart Coles, 9251 Yonge Street, Suite 8-924, Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada, L4C 9T3

Text Box: In 1986, when Ronald Reagan was the American president and Mohammar Qadhafi was a bad guy, the United States decided to bomb Libya. One of the five buildings destroyed was the residential complex of Qadhafi, and one of his relatives was killed in the attack. During the follow-up press conference, the Americans were asked if the bombs were aimed at Qadhafi. The answer given was that the United States would never specifically target an individual during a bombing raid. Only strategic military sites were acceptable objectives.

How times have changed. Unless you have been hiding for the past week, you have seen the dead face of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi proudly displayed on television, Internet and newspapers. Allegedly second-in-command of Al Quaida, Zarqawi was killed when two 500-pound bombs leveled the house that was sleeping in. The fact that a few others were also in the house was claimed as acceptable collateral damage. Two women and a girl died, but at least we got the evil Zarqawi. The military importance of the target was solely based on one of its inhabitants.

The assassination of military leaders has occurred throughout history. Whether through internal or external means, the death of a leader often serves to disrupt order in the enemy. From Caesar to William Wallace, from Mussolini to Che Guevara, the killing of a leader has often signified the end of a political movement. When the assassins become victors, the end is used to justify the means. Of course, non-military leaders can be even more threatening, and the deaths of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and Ken Sarowiwa were fueled more by fear than military strategy.

A couple of years ago, there was a huge outcry when Al Quaida released photographs of two dead American soldiers. ‘Honor the dead’ was cried, and the propaganda rampantly charged the enemy with inhumane practices. However, much like raising the severed head of an enemy on a pole, the head of al-Zarqawi has been proudly displayed. It seems that the definitions of right and wrong change regularly.

There are many conflicts in the war on terrorism. The biggest conflict is with our moral beliefs, and while fear goes a long way in justifying anything, sooner or later we have to question ourselves and our motivation. Like the chicken and the egg, which came first; terrorism or military oppression, suicide bombers or air raids, resistance or occupation? While it is easy to paint the enemy as devils, the reality is that there is always more than one side to every story.

Now it seems that we can no longer worry just about terrorist attacks from foreign countries. Local citizens bombed the London subways. The bombings in Spain had local assistance. In Toronto, a group has been arrested for purchasing three tons of chemicals intended for bomb construction, with local sites as objectives. When terrorism happens at home, nobody is safe. 

The answers to our problems are simple. Get everyone in the world to accept that killing is wrong. Get everyone in the world to stop living in fear. Get everyone to share rather than take, help rather than harm, love rather than hate. Get the soldiers to carry food and blankets instead of guns, and get the extremists to pray rather than fight. Ultimately, we need everyone in the world to be at peace, and to have the desire to share that peace with others.

There are over six billion people in the world, and each makes their own decisions. One person cannot change everybody, but the spark of change can have unprecedented effects. Joy is contagious, tolerance is contagious, compassion is contagious, and love is contagious. Letting your own light build, and sharing it with others solidifies the foundations for change. Now is the time to make it happen.


© Copyright Glenn Stewart Coles, 2006


First Published June 18, 2006

Military Conflicts

The answer given was that the United States would never specifically target an individual during a bombing raid.