“Yes, Mr. Secretary. It is tied to that.”
Strauss made no effort to conceal his exasperation. “Professor, you should know this better than anyone. Those were good people, but not one of them ever won a war—or even ended a war—with their approach. Thoreau spent exactly one day in jail, and had precisely zero impact on any policy, before he decided to write a whole book on civil disobedience. Gandhi did not defeat the British through passive resistance; they left because their empire was crumbling after World War II. MLK fought and won battles for civil rights and social justice—but he wasn’t in a real war. And Mandela, bless that man’s soul—he stood for reconciliation, but he only came out of prison after it was clear that apartheid had to end. He won no wars either.
“On what basis are you suddenly proposing that we adopt a strategy that has literally no track record? I understand strategic patience. I understand waiting to attack—for all sorts of reasons. But to suggest that we never fight? That’s no strategy at all—not when you are at war!”
Kilmer nodded. “I understand your point, Secretary Strauss. And I won’t argue with your description of what those men did. You’re right, they were not trying to win wars or end wars. But sir, neither are we. We are trying to avoid war—and that makes all the difference.”
“Avoid war? The war has already started, Professor. They have been targeting and killing human beings around the globe. They have been chipping away at our ability to function as a society and to defend ourselves. And they have made clear that they are unwilling to negotiate—that they expect us to sit back and take the hits. I’m not sure what definition of war you’re using, but by any definition that I’m familiar with, they are at war with us.”
“That is where we disagree, Mr. Secretary. This is not war. This is something else. It is the crossing of rivers.”
Whitman interjected. “What exactly does that mean, Professor? You need to explain what’s caused you to change your mind.”
“The second clue, Madam President. I know what I was trying to warn us about.” Kilmer reminded everyone what the clue had said.
HDT/AL46
“There’s only one thing that would tie Thoreau and Lincoln to the year 1846, at least in my mind, and I now realize what that is. And it explains everything. 1846 is the year the Mexican–American War began—and it was a travesty of justice from the very start. President Polk wanted that war with Mexico, but there just wasn’t enough support for it in the United States. So he decided that the only way to justify a war would be to get Mexico to attack American soldiers—and he did this by sending troops to stir up trouble in parts of Texas that were disputed territory at the time.
“This is what Archidamus was referring to. Polk sent General Zachary Taylor across the Neuces River, into the disputed territory that sat between the Neuces and the Rio Grande. Mexico took the bait and sent its own troops across the Rio Grande to attack the Americans. Polk got exactly what he had wanted. He told Congress that Mexico had invaded the United States and ‘shed American blood upon American soil.’ America declared war. And by the time the smoke cleared, in 1848, the US had conquered about a third of Mexico—all of what we now know as California, Arizona, Nevada, and Utah, along with parts of other states as well. We took it all.
“Both men—Thoreau and Lincoln—spoke out against this war. It was why Thoreau went to jail—because he refused to pay taxes to support a government that would launch such an unjust war. It’s why Lincoln spoke out in Congress, calling Polk’s claims about ‘American blood upon American soil’ a ‘bold falsification of history.’
“That’s what my reference to the Mexican–American War was about. It wasn’t simply an immoral war against a weaker power, it was a war that is remembered—to those who know its history—for how it was started. The weaker power was suckered into behaving in ways that allowed the stronger power to declare war—and then to impose its will.
“The aliens are doing the same thing we did in 1846, Madam President. We think this is war. But it is not war. It is merely the prelude to war. It is the opening gambit of a game in which those who want war need the rest of us to play along. We should not make that mistake.”
Nielsen leaned forward. “Are you saying that everything they’re doing now—including their attacks—is designed to tempt us into fighting back?”
“I am. Think about it. All this time, we’ve been wondering what holds them back. If not their ability, or desire, or fear, then what keeps them from escalating their attacks? Maybe the answer is that there are limits to how much damage they are permitted to inflict on a planet that isn’t even fighting back—a planet that’s clearly not a threat yet. Maybe they need greater justification for a larger campaign. It would explain a lot. For example, why they backed off their earlier rhetoric about destroying human civilization. Why they sent a legal notice, as if to ensure they’re doing things by the book. Why they refuse to engage in a dialogue that might de-escalate the conflict. Why they don’t attack large population centers. Why they provoke us by attacking critical oil and gas infrastructure. Why they tempt us by flying slowly and low enough to be shot down with ease. And why they’ve been targeting those countries and those military installations that are most capable of defending against an incoming aerial assault.
“I think Director Druckman said it perfectly. They’re practically begging us to punch them in the face. They want us to throw a punch so they will have a reason to unleash that concealed handgun they’ve been carrying. Let’s not give them what they want. Let’s not hand them a license for total war.”
Whitman was nodding along. “This is persuasive, Professor. And a strong argument against retaliating or issuing ultimatums. But I won’t embrace this theory before we’ve tried to poke some holes in it.”
“I find it believable, Professor,” said Nielsen. “And it ties a lot of things together. But I have one hesitation. Do you really think they would need to play such games?”
Kilmer gave this some thought. “As I see it, Mr. Vice President, we only have to believe two things. First, that they want to launch an aggressive campaign. That seems easy enough to believe at this point. And second, that they face certain constraints on their ability to declare war. Maybe they also have debates about what is ethical. Or arguments about what is legal. Or disagreements about what is wise. Once these two elements—their interests and their constraints—are properly in place, the explanation becomes plausible. Even then, I would be a bit skeptical if not for one other crucial point. This isn’t some theory I hatched out of thin air, one that just happens to fit the data. Old-Kilmer wrote down certain things for a reason. And taken together, the three clues tell a complete and consistent story.
“The first clue tells us why they want war to begin with. It’s a pre-emptive war, of the kind that Germany believed Britain was waging. The second clue warns us that their strategy is to bait us into war, like the US did with Mexico. And the third clue advises us not to fall into the trap, and to resist peacefully—however long it takes.”
NSA Garcia raised another doubt. “If we were to accept this theory—that their objective is to provoke us—then why aren’t they targeting religious and historic sites? Why not destroy Saint Peter’s Basilica, or the Great Mosque in Mecca, or the Pyramids, or the Statue of Liberty? Those types of attacks would likely incite even more Earth-side anger than what we’ve witnessed so far. The cries for war would be deafening.”
Director Druckman offered an explanation. “Bombing those targets might make sense from the point of view of what they want to do, but I can tell you from experience that what would be most effective is not always feasible. If we take seriously Professor Kilmer’s idea that there could be limits to what the aliens can to do in the absence of a direct provocation from us, then it’s not hard for me to believe that they can concoct justifications for bombing a military installation or an oil field, but they can’t justify bombing religious or cultural targets. When you can’t get away with doing whatever
you want, you tend to do the most you can get away with.”
More discussion followed. After another twenty minutes, Whitman had made her decision. Everyone, including Strauss, was on board with the approach Kilmer had suggested—albeit with varying degrees of confidence.
“As soon as we’re finished here,” Whitman announced, “I will update Congressional leadership. More importantly, we need to get the international alliance on board immediately. Many of them will be relieved when they hear the analysis and what it implies. But this will not be an easy journey for anyone. We have no idea how long the aliens will continue to attack while we sit quietly. We don’t know how many rivers they’re allowed to cross before they have to stop trying to provoke us.”
“You’re right,” Kilmer said. “We could see a lot more death and destruction before they stop. But I don’t think we have to sit quietly. We don’t plan to send them an ultimatum, but we can still send a message. Passive resistance is peaceful, but it still calls for defiance. Civil disobedience is civil, but it permits insolence. We can’t launch missiles, but we still have a target to hit: the conscience of what appears to be a powerful, but still reluctant enemy. We can still try to shame, energize, and empower those among them who know this war is unjustified—but who are waiting to see how we react to these provocations. That is what old-Kilmer would have advised, I believe. I think that’s the message he left for all of you after he realized he wasn’t coming back.”
“Well, I trusted old-Kilmer,” Whitman said. “And I think he was wise to put his trust in new-Kilmer.”
Whitman turned to the group and asked whether anyone had any final thoughts to add. “I don’t want anything that you think is important to have gone unsaid."
“I will speak for myself,” General Allen announced. “This is extremely compelling. At the same time, it worries me that we’re dealing with an entity that would stoop to such a level to justify war against a weaker power. It makes you wonder what else they’re capable of doing.”
“It’s evil, plain and simple,” NSA Garcia concluded. “But I believe the professor’s argument is sound.”
“What the aliens are attempting might be unconscionable, but it makes sense,” Druckman added.
Strauss spoke last. “I support this approach, Madam President. And I’m ready to help make the case to Congress and to our allies. I also think we need to speak to the Russians very soon, as they could launch an attack at any time. But if Professor Kilmer is right, this is actually good news—even if it means we’re dealing with darker stuff than even I had imagined.”
Kilmer hesitated for a moment—I should probably just let it go—but then decided to wade back into the discussion.
“Madam President, if you don’t mind, I’d like to add one last thing—about what I just heard. I say this with some hesitation, given the harm the aliens have already inflicted on us, but… maybe we should not be so quick to judge them. The reason they need to resort to such nefarious tactics seems to be that there are others on their planet who will not allow an unjust war. We lose sight of such things at our own peril. Maybe they have moral codes or laws that are not so different from ours. And they have people like Archidamus, who has put himself at risk to help us. He knew I was smuggling out information that could help stop this war, and he not only allowed me to do it, he contributed to it. We’ll have to deal with these aliens for a long time, I suspect. We should stay open to the possibility that they are, perhaps, not so different from us. At least in some ways.”
“Do you really believe that, Professor?” Strauss asked, sounding genuinely curious. “Or is that something your employment contract with an elite liberal university forces you to say?”
Kilmer shook his head. “My contract says only that I should try to provide evidence for the things I say.” He looked around the room. “And in this case, there is plenty of evidence to choose from.”
He paused, briefly, before addressing each person in turn.
“General Allen, you’re familiar with Operation Northwoods, I’m sure. After all, it was the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in 1962, that proposed to President Kennedy that he authorize false flag attacks to help start a war against a weaker country. The JCS even proposed attacks on American soil, perpetrated by Americans, just so we could incriminate Fidel Castro and create a pretext for war against Cuba. Thankfully, JFK rejected that idea, even though other covert action against Castro continued.
“Secretary Strauss and Ms. Garcia. You both know that President Johnson used the infamous Gulf of Tonkin incident to justify the first major escalation of war against Vietnam, even though Johnson knew that his justification was premised on a complete fabrication. But let’s not forget that it was his defense secretary, Robert McNamara—and later, Nixon’s national security advisor, Henry Kissinger—who most helped their presidents perpetuate the war by lying to the American people about what they were doing in Vietnam, and about how well things were going.
“As to the past sins of the CIA—Director Druckman, you know that history better than I do. What the agency did in the 1950s alone could fill many bookshelves. And that was just the beginning.
“And we aren’t even close to the worst offenders on this planet. We have done a lot of good along the way, but what we’re now calling evil should not look alien to us. Every one of you in this room has predecessors who did precisely the things we find unconscionable here—and in many cases, they did so quite recently.”
Strauss smiled. “Touché, Professor. All true. And you managed to hit every one of us. I suppose the only people who are still innocent are the historians.”
“I didn’t mean to suggest that at all, Mr. Secretary,” Kilmer said, returning to his seat. “I think we deserve more blame than all the rest. Every leader has the power to do harm, but it’s only when citizens know nothing of history that leaders find it possible to do evil on behalf of their people. My predecessors and I have failed humanity more often, and in more ways, than anyone else.
“But I don’t say any of this to justify what the aliens are doing. My concerns are entirely practical. Because I don’t think we can strategize against a player that we’re unwilling to understand. We will neither fight effectively, nor negotiate successfully, if we are too blinded by fear or hatred to see what’s really going on—or to consider how the other side justifies the things they do.”
~ 121 ~
At 11:00 a.m., Whitman and Nielsen gave the international alliance a preliminary update. All leaders agreed not to retaliate and committed to establishing additional safeguards to ensure no attacks were launched by accident.
At 12:00 p.m., Whitman, Nielsen, Strauss, Allen, and Perez briefed members of Congress. There was palpable anxiety, as political pressure was expected to surge when the death toll mounted. But there was also relief—the strategy made sense and there was renewed hope that Earth might, in fact, survive this.
At 1:30, Kilmer sent a message to Archidamus, hoping he might validate the strategy Earth-side was adopting.
We have discovered the missing piece and the puzzle is complete. We find ourselves, suddenly, with nothing left to do. My friends and I just sit around now.
At 2:00, Archidamus wrote back.
You deserve the rest. And sometimes, it is what is needed most.
At 3:15, another three attacks were reported, one each in the US, Russia, and China. No one retaliated.
At 7:30, after a three-hour meeting of the international alliance, a message was delivered to ET-1. It was drafted by a group that included Kilmer, Silla, and Nielsen, and was then approved by an international panel. Written on behalf of the Human Population of Planet Earth, it included the following text:
From the very start, we welcomed you to Earth. Despite not knowing anything about you, we invited you to our planet. Even before you spoke a word to us, we offered you gifts so that you might understand our good intentions and learn more about us. When the gifts went unreciprocated, we sent more. Even after you started to threaten
us, we implored you to consider peaceful coexistence. Despite your repeated rejections of our acts of goodwill, we continued to propose communication, dialogue, and engagement.
Now you have started to attack—without any provocation—the people of Earth. You have killed many thousands, including our innocent children, and you have scared and angered billions of us. Perhaps, given your strategic interests, you consider your behaviors to be appropriate. Perhaps these actions are technically legal according to your laws. We can only assume that you find some way to justify these acts, no matter how clearly immoral they are. At least by the standards of any human society on Earth, your actions fail to meet even the most basic requirements of moral conduct or justice. We would hope that a civilization as advanced as yours would hold itself to an even higher standard than we hold ourselves. And yet, your behavior suggests otherwise. The attacks continue. The terror campaign continues. The killings continue. And worse—the unwillingness to even talk of peace, continues.
How are we to respond? While we would consider ourselves morally justified to retaliate militarily, we wonder—how would that make our behavior any different from yours, which we condemn? Do you not also find ways to legitimize the damage you do and the pain you inflict? Retaliation will only fuel the cycle of mutual mistrust and enhance the perception of mutual grievances. That cannot be the way forward if there is ever to be a durable peace and genuine friendship.
So, we have decided—as one global community—that we will not fight back. We will stand, with the strength of our moral convictions, and face whatever it is that you claim you have the right to do. We will suffer until you are tired of making us suffer. We will endure until you are ashamed of having tested our endurance. We will show you what it means to be strong, even as you destroy, with little effort, all that we have built and known. We will bet our lives, and the lives of our children—even the very survival of our species—on the fact that, ultimately, it will be you, not us, who will have to say enough of this… no more.
The Peacemaker's Code Page 43
