“This war against terrorism will succeed only if we fight it from a higher platform of morality,” he said in a speech at the Brookings Institution in Washington. Asked later to clarify, Karzai said, “We must be conducting this war as better human beings,” and recognize that “force won’t buy you obedience.”

The above is from an Associated Press article about the manner in which the U.S. is fighting the Taliban (again) in Afghanistan. And although I agree with Pres. Karzai to a degree, the only way to conduct the war against terrorism “from a higher platform of morality” is to not resort to violence in that war.

“What? A nonviolent war?” That is exactly what I mean. Two of the most effective warriors in the “war on terrorism” are Mark Siljander and Greg Mortenson (I hope both win the Nobel Peace prize at some point). Their methods of conducting this war, however, are very different from those methods being prosecuted by the Pentagon, the CIA or the Department of State.

In order to be effective, however, these methods need to become as widespread as the violence that is currently being used to battle terrorism. The current methods employ as much fear and intimidation to eliminate terrorism as the terrorists themselves.

Are you more willing to villify Muslims, or love terrorists as human brothers? Are you more willing to turn a blind eye to torture, “collateral damage”, and religious bigotry, or are you willing to vocalize your distaste for such practices, even in the face of ostracization in your community?

Unless We the People enact these changes of attitudes and practices in our lives, the elites who run the country will continue to justify their violent and force-filled actions in the name of “national security” and “national interest”.

If we persist in using the cowardly, fear-engendered weapons of violence, hatred, and justification, the war on terrorism will be an abject failure.

Our means determine the end. Encourage those around you to embrace the means that bring about the ends they truly desire…Oh, and do it yourself.

Without the ability to choose and freely pursue one’s interest, can one really have the virtue, the goodness, the morality that will accomplish great things? Without freedom can human individuals, families, and communities really become what they were meant to become (the Aristotelian definition of virtue)? I argue that it is likely freedom that precedes virtue and that only in free situations can virtue have its full expression.

Although one is incarcerated, if his mind or her heart is free, virtue abounds. As that freedom of mind and heart become more and more widespread, so does the virtue of the society.

As a society becomes more controlling of the thoughts, intents, and actions of its members, the virtue correspondingly decreases as force warps the hearts and minds of individuals.

When we turn to legal arguments (which are by definition arguments of force) to justify, rationalize and promote questionable actions, we remove the freedom to use moral decision-making. We take away the necessity for ethical accountability and moral rectitude in our actions. Virtue lessens.

Only as we embrace freedom and eschew force and fear can society be a virtuous one. Our society will be as virtuous as we are free.  Although our societies may be moving in a direction away from freedom, we still have the choice to be free in our minds, hearts, and actions and we must promote freedom for those around us (especially in our families and local communities) by eliminating our desire to control, dominate, or force situations.

We are only as free as we allow others to be. Let us increase our freedom and that of others, and thereby increase the virtue and power of individuals and society.