A Buddhist "What if..." about Our Wars

Thinking about them as a spiritually inspired contrarian

Important Disclaimer: Nothing in this post is intended to support or oppose any political party or personality. I’m not proposing attachment to any views but rather a reappraisal of those we hold.

You may not consider yourself a follower of any particular religious path, but please join me in reflecting on the November 5 election in the United States from a spiritual and practical perspective. For me, as a Buddhist, that means looking inward. When half of the voting population of my country seems to have a different view of the nation’s principles than I do, then clearly, there’s something I’m failing to understand.

The results of the election also remind me of this quotation from my teacher, Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche:

If we could see the whole truth of any situation, our only response would be one of compassion.

As I work to understand the “whole truth” about the U.S. voters who are angry at “elites,” I know the cultural factors and sympathize with some of the anger. But there’s something deeper. It’s an economic and existential angst. And I’m left wondering if the cost of being the world’s policeman through so many wars that often prove to be pointless is taking its toll.

Of course, from a deep spiritual point of view, all wars are pointless and wrong. Some quotes from the Buddha in the Dhammapada, translated by Gil Fronsdal:

All tremble at violence;
     All fear death.
Seeing others as being like yourself,
     Do not kill or cause others to kill. (v 129)

All tremble at violence;
     Life is dear for all.
Seeing others as being like yourself,
     Do not kill or cause others to kill. (v 130)

"He abused me, attacked me,
     Defeated me, robbed me!"
For those carrying on like this,
     Hatred does not end. (v 3)

"She abused me, attacked me,
     Defeated me, robbed me!"
For those not carrying on like this,
     Hatred ends. (v 4)

Hatred never ends through hatred.
     By non-hate alone does it end.
     This is an ancient truth. (v 5)

But we live in a turbulent and dangerous world that would threaten our existence if we didn’t maintain a firm and strategic foreign and defense strategy. Or so we’re told.

Illustration pays tribute to Picasso’s Guernica, created in response to the tragic bombing of the town during the Spanish Civil War.

I asked my AI research assistant about the cost in lives lost and economic impact of the Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq wars and (to date) of the two major current wars in which the U.S. is heavily invested. Here’s a table it came up with:

We all know that the Vietnam War (1965-73), the war in Afghanistan (2001-21), and the one in Iraq (2003-11) also resulted in injuries, disabilities, traumas, suicides, broken families…and an understandable distrust of authority. Despite the enormous costs, not one of those wars resulted in a victory or (in my opinion) improved positioning for the U.S. in the world. The U.S. has lost status.

Vietnam remains a one-party state under the Communists' leadership, but its relationship with the U.S. was normalized in 1995 and has continued to improve. In Afghanistan, the Taliban has established a theocratic system, abolishing democratic institutions and political pluralism. Iraq operates as a federal parliamentary republic with a complex political system. It maintains a strategic partnership with the U.S. but avoids antagonizing its neighbor Iran or appearing overly influenced by the U.S.

One can’t help wondering what conditions in the world and the U.S. would be like today if the administrations of John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and George W. Bush had abstained from each of those conflicts. What if the U.S. got out of the business of supplying arms to countries it deems allies? What if the Biden administration never spent a penny on military support of Ukraine and Israel?

Conventional wisdom holds that diplomacy and military policy are like a global chess game, and I’ve hesitantly agreed. But my Buddhist practice calls on me not to cling to beliefs or to “kill or cause others to kill.”

It also calls on me to attempt to see the “whole truth” of the current U.S. situation. Maybe (gasp!) “America first!” is not just a jingoistic slogan but a cry to stop the bleeding.

Which brings me once again to the Taoist story of the Chinese farmer. You probably know it:

Once upon a time, there was a Chinese farmer who owned a horse. One day, his horse ran away. The neighbors expressed their sympathy, saying it was unfortunate. The farmer simply replied, “Maybe yes, maybe no.”

The next day, the horse returned, bringing with it several wild horses. The neighbors rejoiced, declaring this a stroke of good luck. Again, the farmer responded, “Maybe yes, maybe no.”

Soon after, while trying to tame one of the wild horses, the farmer’s son fell and broke his leg. The neighbors lamented this misfortune. Yet again, the farmer said, “Maybe yes, maybe no.”

Finally, when the army came to draft young men for war, they exempted the farmer's son due to his injury. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on his good fortune. Once more, he replied, “Maybe yes, maybe no.”

I strive not to be attached to concepts, but I’ll do my best to live by this quote from Thich Nhat Hanh:

Peace is present right here and in ourselves and in everything we do and see… Every breath we take, every step we take, can be filled with peace, joy and serenity.

---

From the Pure Land has thousands of readers and hundreds of subscribers in 32 U.S. states and 14 countries. The podcast has listeners in 38 countries. Consider:

• If you are not already a subscriber, please become one. Free and paid subscribers receive the same content, but subscribing for $5 a month or $50 a year helps support my mission to reduce the world’s suffering.

• Make a one-time gift of any amount.

• Share this post with a friend.

• Listen and subscribe to the From the Pure Land podcasts via your favorite app or by clicking here.