PSYCHOLOGICALLY INCORRECT: ERRING ON THE SIDE OF DANGER
Diane Perlman, PhD
Richard Rubenstein, MA, JD
Psychotherapists are bound by an ethical code known as "duty to warn."
When someone poses a danger, we are legally
required to take steps to prevent harm. That code now requires us to go on
public record to warn of the inevitable catastrophic
consequences of US-led invasion of Iraq. As psychologists and experts in
causes and prevention of conflict, terrorism, and
violence, we are usually in a better position than the lay public to recognize potential for explosive behavior before it boils over.
In such cases we have a professional responsibility not to remain
silent, lest we become complicit in some preventable disaster.
Just as loyal experts warned NASA about O-rings and heat shield tiles, we now
publicly warn our government about vastly
greater dangers that will be unleashed by war. Previous warnings have gone unheeded, yet these dangers can only be prevented
now, before the shoe drops and an attack is ordered. Actions which provoke global tensions, and fuel cycles of fear, hatred, rage
and revenge, are likely to explode in ways that will horrify us later. Not only our deployed troops and innocent Iraqi civilians, but
we at home, will be endangered by this war, whose consequences include
new terrorism here.
We have good cause to be terrified. There is a broad consensus of expert
opinions that catastrophic consequences are inevitable
if we continue to escalate the violence. But experts also agree they are
avoidable if we change course.
As practitioners in tension reduction, violence prevention, and conflcit
transformation, we know of viable alternatives to war.
We reject notions of "acceptable risks," "acceptable
deaths," and "necessary war" as psychologically illiterate and
baseless. This language of inevitablility, being forced into a war we don't
want, seduces people into accepting the worst case
scenario. War is likely to spiral out of control, causing problems far worse than those it claims to solve. Using violence to prevent
violence is irrational, especially in an age of terrorism, asymmetrical
warfare and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
The airwaves are saturated with dangerous false assumptions about the nature of
conflict and our enemies, made by pundits
speaking far outside of their areas of expertise. Among the
familiar myths they propound:
1. You have to stand up to a bully or you invite worse attacks;
war now will prevent more violence later;
2. War may provoke some terrorist reprisals, but they will be
"manageable." The benefits of the war outweigh any terrorist
risks;
3. Al Qaida will attack us whether we invade or not, so we
might as well invade;
4. We have exhausted all other alternatives; war is our only
choice.
5. You can't deal with tyrants. The only thing they understand is force.
On all counts, clinical observation demonstrates the opposite:
1. Americans have been offered unrealistic fantasies of destroying
Saddam and "liberating" Iraq quickly and cleanly.
War will provoke widespread violence quickly, including a chain reaction of
terrorist reprisals, prompting new recruits and
motivations for renewed attacks. We will be perceived as the bullies.
2. Such cycles of violence are anything but manageable.
They create what Dr. Robert Jay Lifton calls "an atrocity producing
situation," setting precedents for "preemptive strikes", actually provocative strikes, to be imitated by others, inviting global
anarchy. Invasion won't prevent proliferation or use of nuclear
weapons and other weapons of mass destruction; it will provoke
them. Both UK intelligence source and US security experts
including former US President Carter predict that Saddam Hussein
will only use his WMDs if provoked by an invasion, which only
makes psychological sense.
3. Terrorists are likely waiting for a US invasion to signal more
terrorist attacks. Analysis of cycles of violence reveals
a pattern and ethic of reciprocity. If we attack Muslims, they retaliate.
Bin Laden's words, "So let America increase the pace of
this conflict or decrease it, and we will respond in kind."
are psychologically credible and plausible.
4. There are many options between the extremes of invasion and
inaction. Professionals have many strategies for preventing
future violence. Escalating violence only propels cycles of retaliation. Establishing communication transforms them. Multilateral
discussions with Iraq over a wide range of issues, using proven conflict transformation approaches, is psychologically sound.
Continued inspections should be embedded in a context of effective strategies of tension reduction and violence prevention.
5. There have been many times in history where we have dealt effectively with
tyrants, as with the Cuban missile crisis. Contrary
to popular misinformation, they are not psychotic or irrational. Threats, domination, humiliation, ultimata, and backing into a
corner make them more dangerous.
Americans who favor war were not asked in polls if they also favored
provoking terrorist attacks at home, or whether they
would be in favor of trying clinically proven non-violent conflict resolution approaches as an alternative. This, too sends up
warning flags: media and policy discourse about the war, like the polls themselves, risk being superficial, misleading because
they ignore the most basic lessons of psychology regarding predictable human behavior which we continue to ignore our gravest
peril.
From the newly forming social science think tank,
The Institute for Behavioral Science and Global Security, IBSGS
Diane Perlman, PhD, Director, IBSGS
Co-chair, Committee on Global Violence and Security, Society for the Study of
peace, Conflcit and Violence, Division 48 of the American Psychological
Association and Psychologists for Social Responsibility
contributor to The
Psychology of Terrorism.
Richard Rubenstein, PhD, Chairperson, IBSGS
Institue for Conflict Anlaysis and Resolution, George Mason University,
author Alchemists of Revolution: Terroism in the Modern World