Violence, defined as aggression violating the boundaries of another, cannot bring lasting resolution. That is a dangerous mirage, a backfire waiting to happen, like political quicksand. Yet violence remains popular and self-reinforcing, requiring nothing resembling fair play, deep thought, or honor. Violent acts usually take little strength, courage, brains, or skill, unlike self-defense, when the defender respects the principle, inflict the minimum damage necessary for self-protection. What may appear an easy or only way out is a simplistic escape to cover up the problem, for a taste of sickly sweet victory or fervid revenge.

Violence and money are so venerated in this culture, that enough of the general public will go along with overthrowing selectively demonized despots who used to be buddies, along with fairly elected leaders defiant of US policy. The excuse used to be the cold war, or war on drugs. Now the top enemy is terror, terrible weapons in the wrong hands. This undefinable enemy is bound to be elusive and redundant, self-regenerating as long as legitimate grievances fester, ignored and reinforced by arrogant shortsighted superpower attitudes and practices.

Faith in domination by violence or threat is central to boys will be boys legend, machismo, disrespect for ecological issues, colonialism, pride as men commonly conceive it, the infamous fragile male ego. Irrational pride is fragile because its basis is irrational presumptions, about women in particular. Politicians scramble to follow power mad men primed to escalate their world war on evil terror. Next could be anyone not with the US commander in chief. National security is tricky by design, to cover for any intrusive power authorities say they need to fight the latest enemy.

Violence as mythical solution fundamentally corrupts cultures, especially souring competition in relationships, business, some sports. Official brutality, arrogant belligerence, corruption are already big problems, looking to get worse. Not just in dictatorial regimes do political and ethnic minorities get infiltrated, monitored, harassed, beaten, or murdered for no good reason. Powerless enemy nations get designated target practice to feed the propaganda mill, distracting people from domestic issues. Twisted men rape or beat up women to feed some sick sense of power or manhood.

What distortion of power and language allows a man to feel that way? Still what passes for culture pushes men to feel that way. Vicious images encourage vicious fantasies and acts. When the local majority version of god is perceived to glorify war and male power, a likely suspect is male-based religion. Such a god cannot deserve credibility. All the media and advertising ploys demeaning women into sex objects, and male-based cultural norms from biased social sciences, are more culprits. Some people seem content to conform to norms shaped by television standards of reality.

War cannot be a realistic or wise tactic in this age, with doomsday weapons in the picture. There is no way to win a war on terror or evil. Especially in times of crisis, blind patriotism is no substitute for rational thinking, doubting official hot air. That anyone should be intimidated out of criticizing the war on what the President finds evil sounds a bit too convenient. What could Uncle Sam really do with rank and file dissenters? It might get away with making examples of a few, or ruining careers of critical pundits, but jailing masses of protestors would risk the war hysteria popularity, if not riots, general strikes, or economic disaster. Uncle Sam turns a practiced blind eye to misery its policies foster, while giving lip service to helping the poor, or promoting the general welfare. This blind eye also helps big companies grow by ruining or taking over competitors, including businesses, farms, and biodiversity, at home and around the world.

No one should be surprised by Presidential arrogant posturing, but US did sign certain treaties it suddenly feels free to cast off, as burdensome impediments to ambitions of multinational interests. International law means nothing in the face of terrorism, so the President can designate other nations evil, creating a facile pretext for forcing a regime change. International law exists to prevent violent intervention. There is an exception for self-defense, but nothing short. There is no legal or logical basis to warrant taking over a nation because a leader of another nation finds its leader evil or dangerous. That goes beyond the call of the Presidency. In this age the world cannot afford wars to avenge grudges, or make the world safer for free trade, for corporations with big stakes.

The rule of violence may not end before the rule of men. This is the foundation of male power, how women and subordinates are kept down. Men generally assume it makes sense to settle angry disputes by waging violence, despite the stakes. Long-term damage to civilians and environment is flippantly dismissed as collateral damage when weapons of modern war are unleashed. War is regarded as sacred, patriotic duty, above the law, national or international. Business is supposedly regulated to limit damage to the environment, but existing laws get enforced mostly by lawsuits from alert independent citizens or watchdog groups forcing bureaucrats to pay attention.

Violence remains common against the defenseless, from women and children to the giants of Earth, trees and whales. Fanatics invoking their god or national security stoop to terror tactics. These are considerable cracks in male honor. Sensible rules of battle must enforce a fair fight. Unfair violence soon reverts to glorying in destruction, useful for maintaining the status quo, or lopsided power structure in abusive relationships.

Those who resort to violence may say it is necessary for survival in this world. In self-defense that may be true, but otherwise that reason is long obsolete. Yet war metaphors are popular. Limited wars and terrorists rage on, scattered across the globe. America lays waste selected enemies with smart bombs, daisy cutters, and depleted uranium. If this is the height of modern technology, priorities are hopelessly skewed. Benefits of radioactive elements are overrated and readily replaced, except as weapons, while the risks are incalculable. This also applies to modern farming techniques, especially misuse of chemistry and biotechnology. Big money chases more efficient destroyers of natural balance, while preserving or working in harmony with nature gets reduced to nuisance value, dismissed as impractical, bad for business and jobs.

American popular culture overtly glories in violence, celebrating it for its own sake. Many movies and sports such as boxing and football are virtually rites of controlled violence. Modern weapons are so horrific that warfare has to observe certain limits. This means war cannot go all-out, not every rule gets broken. Limited warfare degrades many areas of life, including intimate relationships. In the contrived dichotomy of role stereotyping, it is taken as given that people will fight for what they want, despite obvious alternatives, like fair competition and cooperation. Those take some thought, respect, give and take, balance, patience, listening, in short a willingness to try different ways than conventional, to work well.

It has been said, men will always fight, but boys can grow up, learn to fight with words, to take their disputes to an impartial tribunal for mediation, to reach, not agreement but reasonably fair resolution. Diplomacy may be hard for all kinds of reasons, but war is no longer a tolerable alternative. Doomsday weapons cannot be set loose anywhere on the globe, because consequences will travel around the globe. Modern warfare can no longer be treated as a merely localized disaster.

The torture called domestic violence is a major gaping flaw in male honor. It is not possible to be unaware that this is not fighting fair. Blinded by his double standards, the batterer may not see his actions as criminal, let alone torture, but in a way it is double torture, hitting so close to home, personal as it gets. His warped idea of pride is having his woman under his thumb. That is bad enough figuratively, but batterers try to enforce it. This is abuse, plain and simple, no way to treat a lover. Any good relationship requires mutual respect, caring, open communication, not rule by fear.

Violence is dangerous by nature, down to verbal violence. Competition is full of mixed blessings, fraught with traps and temptations. Free enterprise is a good example of this. Without fair rules, it degenerates into bigger companies taking over the competition by force, otherwise known as superior ability to borrow. Before the public wakes up, they may end up working for and buying from near monopolies. That is the ultimate mockery of free enterprise, near unrecognizably twisted by concentration of capital. Governments do refuse to permit a few huge mergers, at least for awhile. It is not as though politicians forgot it is their job to promote fair competition, which should create better jobs so the average standard of living can go up. It may be beyond their comprehension, but more likely the average politician ignores most possibilities to help the general public that risk offending major contributors. This is no excuse to neglect the duty to prevent too much power from falling into too few hands, inviting corruption.

On a physical level, contact sports could be relatively harmless, if fair rules are strictly observed. Unruly violence pulls toward its worst aspects, survival of the least sportsmanlike, if not most outright vicious. This is the usual state of war, not a noble struggle. International law has established certain rules of war, but no one would pretend these rules enforce a fair fight. However, most nations pay some heed to these rules. Otherwise, it is doubtful Earth would still be capable of supporting life.

Terrorists do not care about rules, except to serve their own purposes. They do make a statement perilous to ignore. America has misused its power in so many ways. Some client states have turned rebellious, unmanageable, not performing quite as their trainers expected. The good old boys can pretend American might confers some right to dominate the world, but that attitude is only likely to make America the launching ground of the next World War. The choice in the war on terror is not to kill or be killed, because for most people, that choice means an endless unwinnable war, with masses killed on all sides no matter what plans, preparations, and sacrifices of civil liberties bureaucrats can dream up. Foreign policy based on military supremacy is a disaster. Lost in a dream of dominating the world, the old boys may never realize that might makes right is wrong.