Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Evangelical Foreign Policy Is Over
With Barack Obama's election to the presidency, the evangelical moment in US foreign policy has come to an end. The United States remains a nation of believers, with Christianity the tradition to which most Americans adhere. Yet the religious sensibility informing American statecraft will no longer find expression in an urge to launch crusades against evil-doers.
Like our current president, Obama is a professed Christian. Yet whereas George W. Bush once identified Jesus Christ himself as his favorite philosopher, the president-elect is an admirer of Reinhold Niebuhr, the renowned Protestant theologian.
Faced with difficult problems, conservative evangelicals ask WWJD: What would Jesus do? We are now entering an era in which the occupant of the Oval Office will consider a different question: What would Reinhold do?
During the middle third of the last century, Niebuhr thought deeply about the complexities, moral and otherwise, of international politics. Although an eminently quotable writer, his insights do not easily reduce to a sound-bite or bumper sticker.
At the root of Niebuhr's thinking lies an appreciation of original sin, which he views as indelible and omnipresent. In a fallen world, power is necessary, otherwise we lie open to the assaults of the predatory. Yet since we too number among the fallen, our own professions of innocence and altruism are necessarily suspect. Power, wrote Niebuhr, "cannot be wielded without guilt, since it is never transcendent over interest." Therefore, any nation wielding great power but lacking self-awareness - never an American strong suit - poses an imminent risk not only to others but to itself.
Here lies the statesman's dilemma: You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. To refrain from resisting evil for fear of violating God's laws is irresponsible. Yet for the powerful to pretend to interpret God's will qualifies as presumptuous. To avert evil, action is imperative; so too is self-restraint. Even worthy causes pursued blindly yield morally problematic results.
Niebuhr specialized in precise distinctions. He supported US intervention in World War II - and condemned the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that ended that war. After 1945, Niebuhr believed it just and necessary to contain the Soviet Union. Yet he forcefully opposed US intervention in Vietnam.
The vast claims of Bush's second inaugural - with the president discerning history's "visible direction, set by liberty and the Author of Liberty" - would have appalled Niebuhr, precisely because Bush meant exactly what he said. In international politics, true believers are more dangerous than cynics.
Grandiose undertakings produce monstrous byproducts. In the eyes of critics, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo show that all of Bush's freedom talk is simply a lie. Viewed from a Niebuhrean perspective, they become the predictable if illegitimate offspring of Bush's convictions. Better to forget utopia, leaving it to God to determine history's trajectory.
On the stump, Obama did not sound much like a follower of Niebuhr. Campaigns reward not introspection, but simplistic reassurance: "Yes, we can!" Yet as the dust now settles, we might hope that the victor will sober up and rediscover his Niebuhrean inclinations. Sobriety in this case begins with abrogating what Niebuhr called "our dreams of managing history," triggered by the end of the Cold War and reinforced by Sept. 11. "The course of history," he emphasized, "cannot be coerced."
We've tried having a born-again president intent on eliminating evil. It didn't work. May our next president acknowledge the possibility that, as Niebuhr put it, "the evils against which we contend are frequently the fruits of illusions which are similar to our own." Facing our present predicament requires that we shed illusions about America that would have offended Jesus himself.
Obama has written that he took from reading Niebuhr "the compelling idea that there's serious evil in the world" along with the conviction that evil's persistence should not be "an excuse for cynicism and inaction." Yet Niebuhr also taught him that "we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things." As a point of departure for reformulating US foreign policy, we could do a lot worse.
- Posted in
47 Comments so far
Show AllBacevich is wrong once again. He seems to get the idea that the US is an imperialist nation but his analysis comes up short every time because he doesn't see the motivation for imperialism correctly.
Bacevich argues that the reasons for imperialism are based on something other than greed. In this convoluted essay, he asserts Bush's fundamentalist views of good versus evil are at work.
If that were so, perhaps we would have invaded Darfur. Bacevich, in my view, is naive for not recognizing that corporate greed and corporate power in Washington sit at the core of US foreign policy. The Middle East is the gigantic prize that just keeps giving and giving and giving to Bush's oily friends in the oil industry. No one could possibly dispute the profit statistics that are all too visible since the US invaded Iraq. Who sat in on that secret Cheney meeting? Was it Christian fundamentalists or was it Big Oil?
Bacevich is a bright guy with some very solid analysis. Until he acknowledges the greed that lies behind US foreign policy, however, all his analysis will continue to wander around in the darkness.
Did you ever hear the stories about how various Hollywood stars get caught shoplifting? They do it because for them money is no object, and the greed that comes with it has no meaning. So they resort to stealing. In a similar fashion, the groups you say act of out greed already have all the money and power, etc. Money and power have become simply a tool for other goals. And those goals are world domination. And THAT is where Christian Fundamentalists come in. In others words, I think you miss the forest for the trees.
"the groups you say act of out greed already have all the money and power, etc."
So, the fact that Big Oil has realized all time record profits since the US invaded Iraq is just coincidence? The fact that the Bush administration was tied very directly and extensively to Big Oil was not a factor in their policy choices?
Christian fundamentalists have been nothing more than exploited dupes in the Bush administration. The US history of imperialism far outdates any influence the Christian right has gained. Check out the Chalmers Johnson book "The Sorrows of Empire" or Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" for well documented examples of US imperialism and its underlying causes. The history of this imperialism is traced way back to the 1800's.
US foreign policy has always been about corporate greed. The Christian fundamentalists were wined and dined on abortion issues, prayer in schools and anti-gay bigotry to broaden the Republicans' political base. Don't conflate that, however, with being given access to real power.
In the end, it was always about money.
Yes, the Fundie follower crowd has been lead around by the nose. But those in power who did the leading have had the idea of American Exceptionalism as their underlying belief. And that belief is a fundamentalist view...America as God's gift to the world. As for big oil, of course they're tied to the Bush administration. But that's just a particular. Big Oil itself is just a tool. If there was a company that had a monopoly on wheat, and Iraq was one big wheat field, you can bet we would have still invaded Iraq. The underlying (Fundamentalist) rationale is the same: America is God's gift to the world and it is our duty to use every means possible to dominate it, thereby bringing order to it, and making it ripe for Christian domination. So I guess I'll change my last sentence...I think you missed the biggest forest for the smaller one. Nothing you said is wrong, it's just that I think there's an underlying ideology at work. (That doesn't mean, btw, that America's leaders have always been aware of this underlying belief. Woodrow Wilson, I think it was, would be one who WAS fully aware.)
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
I'd like to characterize our differences as follows and also offer a little snippet of history as additional evidence.
I would characterize your view of US imperialism as one based on "a sense of doing the right thing." The motivation you cite, however misguided you or I might think it, is fundamentally (no pun intended) selfless. The goal, as defined, is to act on a set of values the "perpetrators" believe is the RIGHT thing to do. Does that fairly characterize your view?
I would characterize my view of US imperialism as one based on "pure greed." The motivation I cite is one of knowing they are not serving the best interests of the American people and the country but rather serving a very narrow, commercial segment of the US economy. Does that fairly characterize my view?
Finally, much of what we've seen during the Bush administration's policy in the Middle East had its roots way back in 1953 when the CIA and British operatives overthrew Mossadeq in Iran. Mossadeq was a democratically elected President.
The reason, though some continue to dispute the primary motivation, was Mossadeq's NATIONALIZING OF THE OIL INDUSTRY INSIDE IRAN. Wanna get the big boys really mad at you - just take away their toys. Here's a link for further reading.
The US then propped up the Shah of Iran who ultimately slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own countrymen. In my view, these actions made substantial contributions to the growth of groups like Al Qaeda that Bush ultimately used to justify his policies in the region.
welshTerrier2,
You are correct. It is selfish greed that propels American foreign policy.
We could disagree on the inclusiveness of the selfishness - is it a narrow few or a broader group. Even doing "what's right for America" pits one American faction against another non-American faction.
I've never liked the religious notion of "evil." However, we should learn from Niebuhr's insight that we can not easily identify evil in others or ourselves.
It seems to me that both greed and believing in the unassailable goodness of their cause are equally possible, residing simultaneously in the fundamentalist psyche.
The greed is masked by expressions of righteousness which act both as facade and as internal buffer between the knowledge of greed as evil and the awareness that one's own actions are fueled by it.
This sets up a sense of dissonance which is misperceived as external threat, thereby causing them to further suppress awareness of their own motivations accompanied by ever louder expressions of victimized outrage against those who would challenge them.
The very fact that they would ask the question WWJD and then get the answer so terribly wrong would seem to be symptomatic of impaired intellect and emotional distress. The fact that many can be caring functioning human beings within the safety of family and a conforming community acts to reaffirm their mistaken view of their role in the world at large.
And yet the converse is often the case, whereby someone may have a reasonably humane and even progressive world view and then act like a complete jerk on an individual level thereby alienating potential allies and undermining the struggle for the greater good.
Unfortunately, I have seen too many of both not to fear that a fully healthy and integrated personality is a most rare and wonderful thing.
"Faced with difficult problems, conservative evangelicals ask WWJD: What would Jesus do?" I would add..." then they do the opposite".
You need to expose the evangelical fundies for their crimes and blatant hypocrisies and force them to tone down their harsh policies.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Better to forget utopia . . .
George Wanker Bush was never interested in utopia. He was definitely interested in having airports and high schools and aircraft carriers named after him and seeing statues of himself in every public square in the United States. The U.S.S. Decider. But the inclement weather over Iraq and Wall Street moved swiftly over Warshington, D.C. (Death and Corruption) and rained dead, poisoned frogs on his parade. Now, as he prepares to slink out of town like the deposed mafia capo he is, here's hoping he chokes to death on German asparagus.
Unfortunately those darn San Franciscans didn't pass the proposition to name a sewage treatment plant after him.
If I still lived in the City I would've voted for it which wouldn't have made any difference because it lost big. Someone said it was because they didn't want to insult the sewage plant.
I hadn't even considered the feelings of the poor sewage plant. A great insult indeed. Good thing it was defeated then.
It's not often I get a chance to post this so I just couldn't resist.
Years ago, we were installing a septic field at our house and needed to find someone to do the job. We called a guy in the Yellow Pages who came out to talk to us. He gave us his business card which read:
"It may be shit to you but it's our bread and butter."
Great!!
Aha! I get it! The very same thing the Ruling Elite says about Endless War:
"It may be shit to you but it's our bread and butter."
It was a fun idea and very tempting.
but most of us thought that our sewage treatment plant is a useful thing and good for the environment.....as opposed to W the Wreaker Bush.
Maybe if they wanted to name the inflow pipe after him it would have won.
4th Generation San Franciscan
Now that makes sense!
"Faced with difficult problems, conservative evangelicals ask WWJD: What would Jesus do?"
From what I gather, nothing that they would do.
Help reduce the deficit - TAX CHURCHES!
Help reduce the deficit - TAX CHURCHES
I've been thinking that same thing for days. They rake in the money, are becoming the deciders of our lives, with the initiatives like Prop 8 that just passed in CA because of all the money the mormons and catholics poured into it, and they're making decisions about what our government does, yet they stay tax free. The law that says when they'll have to pay taxes needs to be changed so they don't have all those loopholes to squirm through.
Great idea and that would go a long way towards paying off our debt!
That churches and religious institutions should be taxed is so basic it makes me wonder if Americans aren't under some spell.
Ah, yes, could it be, well let's see---SATAN'S!!!
I don't think these evangelical fundie policies will disappear overnight but I do believe they'll be softened over time. After all, the harder and tougher those policies, the more money it takes and at a time like this when the treasury coffers have been drained completely, what more can they rob? Also, believe it or not, even some former evangelical members in my state were societally "expelled" for trying to bring up consistency. For example, as a recovering conservative, I once pointed out that I'm pro-life and I am for a better environment and putting this losing Iraq war to rest. I also pointed out that we really need more affordable healthcare as I was finding it tougher than ever to keep up with the medical bills for keeping my daughter alive and recovering. The next day I go back to church and I unexpectedly get kicked out literally. A few hours later I find out that the reason is the priest in that church got word of those points I brought up at a luncheon conversation and didn't like it. Luckily, a week later I struck back and exposed him for sodomizing two boys and raping and impregnating a 15 year old woman and he would have gotten away with it had he not kicked me out. Weird world isn't it?
By the way, this is partly why we soundly defeated the extreme ban on abortion measure in my state. Plus we reduced the GOP's victory in the state. Maybe someday, we'll turn it blue.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
"What would Jesus do?" I would add..." then they do the opposite".
*
Jesus never condemned slavery, said to give Caesar what is his, and his solution for battling evil spirits was to make a deal with them and send them into peaceful swine.
Not my kind of enlightened deity-playing games with his own creation!
The issue of Christian Fundamentalism is so much embedded in American culture.
Christian fundamentalists (including many Catholics) are basically authoritarians and they tend to believe in the gospel of prosperity. They love authority. They love control. They love religious absolutes. They love money because money gives them control. They believe God blesses those who are prosperous. God blesses America because it is prosperous. The Christian fundamentalists gave birth to the illusions of American exceptionalism. That is why Christian fundamentalists make great capitalists and far better patriots that you and I.
An important point. Christian fundamentalists prefer only to see individual sin, the sins of the flesh. The sins of the flesh were the only sins recognized by the post Constantine church to mask the sins of institutional power, the sins of Empire, the sins of the institutional Church, the institutional sins of war, crucifixions, and oppression. Also the post Constantine church only spoke of individual sins because these sins were used to to control the faithful.
I believe the future church will see much change. The more progressive Christians today and the increasing forces of Christian liberation theology view things far differently. To them, Christ was most explicit about institutional sin. Institutional sins are far more troublesome for the church because they are counter cultural to an unjust status-quo. Under Constantine, the church became part of the status-quo.
The sins of institutional power must also be seen as the sins of corporate oppression and power. The people who serve such institutions are not necessarily evil. In most cases, they are merely complicit. The evil comes from the tendencies of the corporate structure itself. The corporate structure eventually become more and more obsessed with its' own perpetuation and power and increasingly more indifferent to all human values that do not serve its' interests.
This is what constitutes the intrinsic evil of capitalism. The sins of institutional capitalism and group think within these institutions is what eventually becomes a power that works against all outside human values that may affect their bottom line.
That is the sort of change I would like to see. But I cant see it happening.
That in a setting where millions are murdered, a president gets impeached
for a blowjob speak volumes. This is America. We are infatuated with
sexual misdemeanors.
Sioux Rose
STEPHEN V. RILEY: EXCELLENT post! Very insightful.
"Faced with difficult problems, conservative evangelicals ask WWJD: What would Jesus do?"
By all biographical accounts that I have read (both critical and laudatory), George W. Bush is a conservative evangelical Christian, raised as a Methodist, but "born again" into a fundamentalist world view later in life, around the time he gave up abusing alcohol. Whether he actually had his ephiphany strolling on a beach somewhere with Billy Graham or some other channeling charismatic preacher figure is a rather irrelevant side light. By all historical evidence out there, George W. Bush is indeed a conservative evangelical Christian.
9/11, international jihad, and anti-American animus in the Middle East and among Muslims worldwide were difficult, real world problems that Bush had to face. Therefore, (if Bacevich's analysis is correct) George Bush must have sat down at some point after the 9/11 attacks and asked "What would Jesus do?"
I submit it is theologically impossible for Bush to have ever used this posited reasoning process, asked that big WWJD question, and somehow come up with the answer "I know! Jesus would go torture people!"
Therefore, it seems to me that either (a) Bacevich's thesis is incorrect, or else (b) George W. Bush is a sinful, and possibly delusional hypocrite, or possibly (c) Bush consciously decided to let Jesus's will be trumped by secular necessity - the ends supposedly justifying the means.
Bill from Saginaw
Sioux Rose
Bill: You're so naive! Bush used the Christian faith as a fig leaf to win the support of all those authoritarians looking for a resolute father figure to neatly break the world into teams of good versus evil. AS if he has faith in anything, as if there is a morsel of higher realization in someone who not only condoned torture, but MADE war for NO just reason. Do you think Jesus would approve of that?
Thank you Siouxrose.
Sioux Rose
As I went at length to share a few days ago, Bush's presidential status as # 43 linked him with the I ching # 43 that was all about how to deal with evil. Obama, as president # 44 will face an altogether different karmic lesson: that of Temptation. Who, what, when, where and how that temptation arises is a matter between him and the nation's future, added to higher Creative forces.
We have all been sorely tempted by Desire, Fear and Duty under George W. Bush.
Life is short. It is high time humanity journeyed beyond it's Savior to reach Eternity.
Bush made the office of the presidency into a virtual dictatorship and because the congress is democratic, it is very tempting to tell those who demand that he go to the "middle" to take a flying leap into the nearest frozen lake. It would be tempting to take the keys of power and force others to bend to our will. We are in financial crisis, and we must take the humbler path. The path where we relinquish our empire, and go back to sowing peaceful seeds of diplomacy. It would be a great temptation to listen to the general of corporations who through their greed have driven this country into the ground. It would take a wise man to temper these individuals and hold them accountable to the law.
Obama's already falling into the temptation of pandering to the rightwing. What's your point ?
Jesus was NEVER a Christian-he was born, lived and died a Palestinian Jew under Roman Military Occupation.
President Bush made a mockery of the teachings of the NONVIOLENT Jesus.
Evangelical Rev. Jim Wallis stated at TIKKUN's [Hebrew for heal, mend and transform the world] first conference for Spiritual Progressives of all faiths and the spiritual but not religious:
"Let me explain exactly what an evangelical Christian is to be about. My evangelical roots are connected to the path laid down by evangelicals from the 19th century. They were the first to speak out against slavery and were the first supporters of female suffrage. In fact, the original altar call was the call to stand up against slavery.
"In this century, we are faced with nuclear weapons and the fact that the arms race put the world in grave danger. The world went to sleep, and now we have escalating proliferation, nations, and groups of angry people with nuclear warheads. The real security threat is coming from the gathering terrorists who are acquiring unsecured materials.
"Activists must be contemplatives, and contemplatives must act. The time has come for the Christian Right to meet the right Christians."
Ex-Roman and now Episcopal priest Matthew Fox said:
"Forget original sin; remember original blessing. There are two Christianities in our midst. One worships a punitive father and seeks obedience at all costs. It is patriarchal, demonizes woman, the earth, science, gays, lesbians, and deep thought. It builds on fear and it supports empire-builders. Its theology includes a punitive father in the sky and teaches original sin.
"The other Christianity recognizes the original blessing that all beings derive from. We recognize awe, not sin, not guilt, as the starting point of true religion. We recognize a divinity who is source of all things and is as much mother as father, as much female as male. We honor creation and diversity. When God created everything, He pronounced it all good. We are here to make love to life. Yes, we are here to make love to life."
BTW-I am NOT an evangelical but a Christian Anarchist [such as Tolstoy and Dorothy Day] of The Beatitudes and the above is excerpted from "KEEP HOPE ALIVE" Chapter 12:
"The Revolution starts now, when you rise above your fear and tear the walls round you down."-Steve Earle
The Rest:
http://www.wearewideawake.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=434&Itemid=147
Eileen Fleming, Citizen Journalist, Author,
Producer "30 Minutes With Vanunu" and
"13 Minutes with Vanunu" FREELY STREAMING
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
'
AMEN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stephen Riley said:
"The evil comes from the tendencies of the corporate structure itself. "
People have formed groups to achieve what they could not as individuals since the dawn of humanity.
These incorporations turned toxic when money-power was added to the mix.
Money-power concentrated and enslaved society.
The only way to decentralize power is to decentralize wealth.
Spread the wealth to fight the power.
Your statement that "The only way to decentralize power is to decentralize wealth" is untrue, and has been so since 1964. How can you remain so behind the times? Intelligent use of IT allows us to separate legitimate power from wealth.
I requires only that decisions be made politically, in an open public process, according to new rules and procedures.
So long as many believe your myth political reform will be impossible because nobody wants the economic violence they think would be needed. It must be made clear that political reform can be exactly only precisely that, and nothing more.
When that has been done, wealth will become politically neutered and harmless.
I hope you're right. But by the bailout, it hasn't happened yet.
Reinhold Niebuhr was a darling of the JFK Cold War set specifically BECAUSE his theology justified U.S. imperial control over the depraved and fallen original sinners of other countries and faiths. I'd much rather that Obama read Paul Tillich's "The Socialist Decision."
Another facet of Evangelical foreign policy has been the "global gag rule" that denies USAID funds to any women's health NGO that does not totally obscure abortion. Many NGOs would not certify this obscurantism or got caught and lost most of their funding.
This rule was instituted by Reagan and re-started by Dubya, and has resulted in greatly reduced effeciveness of NGOs providing health and reproductive services in developing countries. As abortion is legal (with restrictions) in the US and in most countries, and USAID funds are public, recent Republican presidents with Evangelical ties have taken the law into their own hands when attaching this string to foreign aid. Its also sometimes an imposition of alien values on a needy population.
If Obama follows Clinton's lead, he will once again end this unecessary, illegal and damaging rule.
Grappa
I thing those two options are incorrect, Obama is a Free Will christian, where as Bush is a Determinist. Do we make the choices of our living, as it relates to nurture , or is God and/or the Devil in control of our every action?
"With Barack Obama's election to the presidency, the evangelical moment in US foreign policy has come to an end."
That is just stupid to say about a country that has enthusiastically backed the carnage for eight years, and for whom the flavor of the month in 2012 may be something entirely different.
One new 'terror' attack, and we'll all be putting little flag-decals and magnetic yellow ribbons on our cars again and enthusiastically launching fresh crusades.
Sorry Prof. Bacevich,
I often find you a voice of reason. However, I'm surprised you think that our foreign and domestic policies are determined by the president. You're more out of the loop than I had hoped. The intellectuals are letting me down as they completely ignore the significant fact the our democracy is completely subservient to the undemocratic pressures in Washington. Money, religion, it doesn't matter what you worship, so long as there is an unquestioning faith in something other than reason and a modicum of humanity as the basis for governance. The most influential lobby, AIPAC, has proven that they will quite willingly wisk our world into a nuclear holocaust, sacrificing U.S. autonomy, morality and constitutional law, our lives and treasure. For what? A biblical prophesy. From my perspective, it seems Zionist zealots are running our country, cheered on by clueless Christian evangelicals. Obama raised more money than any candidate in history. His appointments and policies will be reflecting and appeasing those who placed him in power.
Obama has stated that he will increase military funding. Sorry, but in this day and age of increasing literacy, depleted uranium, fervent nuclear military posturing, war must be made obsolete. The military budget must be significantly reduced. We need to immediately bring our troops home from the Middle East. Are you missing the global consensus and frequent polling of why some people hate U.S. policy, Mr. Bacevich? Further, if Obama is true to his word, Jerusalem will be only Jewish, and policy towards the Palestinians as sub-human will remain the United States declaration, as well. You know that to be a slap in the face of Islam. As a scholar and an historian, I have to question why, Prof. Bacevich, you wouldn't recognize the political realities of what will certainly not change in U.S. governance. We must rapidly bring back into line the reality of U.S. lawmakers and advisors working on behalf of the American people. This must be done first and foremost. Get all money and lobbyists out of politics. Start looking out for average American citizens. So far, by Obama's statements and appointments, no sane person would expect much change. I'm surprised that you do.
If anyone thinks AIPAC has some clout now, just wait until Obama's new Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, gets his feet on the ground.
We couldn't get so lucky that the Evangelical movement will dry up and blow away! That they will not continue to strive to usurp the nation again..again...and yet again. I do not believe that for a second. They believe as much in their ideal's as the rest of us do ours. They see this as a 'Christian Nation' and by God that's what they are going to try and make us into whether we like it or not. This is just a minor set back for them. They will be back in full force. They may be cloaked in some different garb that fools people into believing their kinder. But, they will be back all the same. Because they are religious fanatic's! And religious fanatic's do not give up that easily!
How can you be a great thinker and believe in original sin? Original sin is the belief that we are all born bad and sinful. If god made us and he is good, how can we be bad much less born bad. If there is a devil, isn't god responsible for that devil. Did god screw up when he made Adam? Did god screw up when he made Eve and through her curiosity and intelligence brought "evil" into the world. We have free will, but to exercise that will condemns us to hell forever.
Middle Eastern religions divide the world in a world of evil and a world of good. If god made both how can either be evil?
Bush made up the evil boogie man so he could wage everlasting war against a shadow. It's time to grow up and use diplomacy and take the sword and mold it into a tool for work rather than an object of destruction.