Since September 11, the dogs of war have been loosed upon the world. Many people think it's inevitable, because we have to Do Something about "terrorism," and that "something" has to be done with tanks and bombers and men with guns.

To the people on the receiving end of that ammo, I think it must look a lot like "terrorism" aimed at them; I imagine they feel they have to Do Something, too.

When Bush chose war in Afghanistan as his response to the Sept. 11 attacks and promised to push that war worldwide wherever he could find terrorism, he sent the John Wayne message around the world. It resonated in Israel, India, Columbia and other conflict zones as well. Talks are cut off. Conflicts escalate.

Israel, sad Israel, is dominating the news. It even kept the dramatic Venezuelan coup and its subsequent failure down on the middle of the LA Times front page. NPR and Pacifica are full of learned and passionate voices analyzing and debating events. What strikes me is the similarity between the pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli voices, all filled with justifications and determination, and with the righteous demands of the injured for justice.

TO THESE PEOPLE, and on their behalf, and on behalf of the victims on both sides of all conflicts (I heard the other day that every 22 minutes someone in the world steps on a forgotten landmine), I ask: Why not war?

They (insert your favorite victim of your favorite side of your favorite war) say: "We cannot suffer under this oppression and injustice. It's better to die fighting than to give into this." I think there is something very compelling in this stance. Normal life is full of countless frustrations and the meaningless habitual actions and interactions of just getting by. There's nothing like the exhilaration of a righteous war (and aren't they ALL righteous?) to get you out of the doldrums. To make you feel really alive. That your life has purpose. That's why a good cause is always seductive, at least to some people. Even more so when it's enveloping your friends and neighbors as well.

So why not war, since it gives people purpose and populates our pantheon with heroes to inspire future generations?

I suggest two reasons to oppose war and seek a better alternative to conflict resolution, one technological, the other esthetic.

Our marvelous military technology, which advanced so grandly in the 20th century, lets us do so much damage to civilians and the environment that it makes war impractical. It's not just nuclear weapons and their potential to turn the biosphere into a toxic mess. Look at the horror and devastation wrought by a few hijacked airplanes. Look at those 80 million stranded landmines that, in some parts of the world, make a walk in the woods or a farmer's turn of the plow a dangerous enterprise. War is no longer between competing armies, which is bad enough. All 21st century wars are against civilian populations and the environment; our technology ensures it.

Second and (for me) most important is this: We can do better. We have the capacity, evolved over millennia, to build stable societies based on justice and fairness. We have stirring words, handed down through the generation, about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, about liberty and justice for all. We have a collective understanding about how to live harmoniously, and an unprecedented capacity for communication. Why pursue a collective life of suffering and brutality when we can instead pursue a life of peace, justice and mutual self respect? Many say that war is in our nature. But I say that peace is, too, and so is the capacity to choose.

But now for a harder question: How not war? It seems unthinkable that an attack like September 11 should be without response. Was a different kind of response possible? Could we have found an appropriate response that would not escalate the level of belligerence in the world?

What should Israel do when its people are terrified because riding a bus or eating in a restaurant or being at a bat mitzvah makes you a military target? What should the Palestinians do in the face of an unrelenting oppression under an occupying power?

What should the Colombian government do to combat the plague of kidnapping and assassination? Should the people who oppose centuries of colonialism, still expressed in gross class discrepancies enforced by corrupt institutions, give up their yearning for justice? Should they acquiesce to the status quo of an opulent oligarchy and their middleclass dependents thriving at the expense of the mass of people living in squalid poverty? Don't they have a right to struggle against it?

If not war, what then? For now, let me just suggest the question and not try to answer it.

Peter Rashkin