[John Feeney]

Let me just clarify a couple of things. First, I really don't have any paritcular faith in the potential humanity of guys like Saddam, Pol Pot, etc. I doubt we disagreee much on how disturbed and maniacal most such figures are. I just think it may often be possible to get them out of power without war.

That leads to the main thing I've been driving at: Relative to the funding of the defense budget almost nothing is being spent on investigating and developing nonviolent alternatives. I haven't researched it heavily, but it appears to me that almost all such investigation/development involves small, private organizations. Their funding has to be almost nonexistent compared to the defense budget and the money that goes into private research and development of military technology.

What ideas and methods might arise if large think tanks and other organizations had billions of dollars to spend on researching and creating nonviolent methods?

That said, I don't mean to dismiss the efficacy of conventional diplomacy. It does seem, though, that it is sometimes not able to achieve its potential due to the attitudes of leaders involved. This is obviously just a subjective impression, but it seems leaders often react with frustration and abandon diplomacy before they have to. Thus, there too, I could see the value of research to address social issues which may often impede effective diplomacy. (or applying the results of existing research)

Additionally, as Chris points out, nonviolent resistance has often had surprisingly dramatic results. And that's without any of the R&D that I'd like to see. (I believe most of the techniques used have simply been developed "in the heat of battle," so to speak.) So even simple programs to educate people in the history and results of such methods might have great value. When people are unaware of potent alternatives, they're going to more quickly assume the time for war has come.

Finally - and I know we'll disagree here - now seems like a pretty good time to try encouraging and implemeting some of the nonviolent strategies we do have. Yes, there's a terrorist threat. Yes, they're working on adding to their methods. I do wish we had put more into nonviolent solutions sooner, but we're not facing imminent attack from Iraq. This unilateral attack idea seems to me to be way out of line with the current situation, and may set an incredibly dangerous precedent.

It's not like we can say, "Well, we've exhausted all nonviolent methods with Iraq and they didn't work." What sort of steps has the U.S. taken recently to foster nonviolent methods of resolving the problem with Iraq? Once you get beyond conventional diplomacy and weapons inspections, I don't see anything.