of the past several thousand years, including scientific and technological inventions that have improved the quality of life and life span of humans, the growing amount of important literary and historical works that continue to describe and enrich the human condition, and the ability of humans to engage in commerce and communicate with other humans across the globe in a matter of seconds.

Despite these improvements, we have been unable to rid our lives of the most self-destructive element of human history: war and conflict.

Often, in an attempt to understand why things are, I will try to reduce the issue or problem to its simplest terms, as if I was explaining the issue or problem to a child. The exercise goes something like this, in the context of war: in order to exchange stuff, socialize, and guard against common threats (like natural disasters), people organized themselves into groups or larger communities; when the interaction between these people gets more frequent and sophisticated, it may be necessary to have a system of rules in place to govern those interactions and a sovereign (leader) to announce and enforce those rules to keep things fair and orderly; it may also become necessary to define what the limits of those rules are, that is physical boundaries may be created to let people know when the rules and the sovereign's authority apply; and finally, sometimes different groups and communities will fight, harm, and kill each other.

"Why," a child is likely to ask. "Why do people kill each other?" "Unfortunately," I may reply, "people in different groups and communities may get into disagreements (about the borders, the lopsided results of commercial transactions, etc.), one group simply may not like the different characteristics of another group, or one group may just want to take over another group's land and resources."

A child, often the purest barometer of right and wrong, is likely to be disappointed and perplexed by my response. "People shouldn't fight," he or she would say. "You're right," I would think to myself, "we shouldn't, but we do..... we still do."

Today, the one conflict gaining the most attention is the war on terror, the military battle between, generally, the United States and certain Islamic fundamentalists, led by Osama bin Laden. The conflict culminated with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when four commercial jets were hijacked by nineteen of bin Laden's disciples and flown into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania.

Since that day, thousands of American soldiers and civilians have died in military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. The situation does not seem to be improving, as Iraq is mired in what commentators are calling a civil war and as calls for the United States to reevaluate its approach to the war are increasing.

The question becomes how the current conflict can eventually be replaced by peace. It may benefit America to start considering a movement that was established on September 11, 1906, by Mohandas Gandhi: Satyagraha. "Satyagraha literally means insistence on truth, " Gandhi wrote. With respect to conflict, one who practices satyagraha is, in Gandhi's words, "a civil resister." The underlying moral principle of Satyagraha is that in order to ensure peace and justice, one must change the heart of one's adversary. As a result, one must engage in passive resistance rather than violence. Gandhi noted that, satyagraha "is a force that works silently and apparently slowly," and it is one that can provide permanent harmony, unlike the use of arms and men, which only provide temporary and illusory gains.

While it is unrealistic to believe that American forces will abandon the use of troops and adopt Gandhi's appeal for passive resistance, it is possible that America's strategic approach to the war on terror can embody at least part of Gandhi's perspective -- a perspective that, by the way, was instrumental in defeating the British and obtaining independence for India without the use of force.

This compromise may be reached by supplementing the military presence with a genuine and sustained effort to understand the Islamic fundamentalists, namely their beliefs, their grievances, their reaction to American policies, and how these reactions may lead to recruitment and further violence, among other things. "Peace," Albert Einstein wrote, "cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." Arguably, the United States has failed to understand its enemy and in particular how its actions after September 11, 2001, may inflame the enemy even further.

In addition, the United States must project an identity of tolerance, diversity, and humility, such that suggestions that it is an imperialistic, occupying force without regard for the effects of its international presence may lose their traction. In other words, the government's character should be seen as consistent with American values -- the same values that lead millions to immigrate to and respect the United States.

In short, America should not only affirmatively and genuinely attempt to understand others, it should change its international attitude. Rather than using language of "smoking" people out of their caves, and presenting ultimatums to the global community such as "you are with us, or you are against us," the United States should engage others by encouraging dialogue and negotiation, and by recognizing diplomacy as the preferred and most effective route for mitigating and preventing conflict.

Unfortunately, as William Safire of the New York Times noted in 2004, "Walking softly has never had a positive political connotation [in America]. On the contrary, it is associated with sneakiness or excessive caution." The American political culture needs to reverse its course to acknowledge discretion, humility, respect and understanding as essential elements of America's soft power, elements that are indeed fundamentally American: President John F. Kennedy once said, "Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind... War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today." Even more to the point, President Abraham Lincoln noted, "The best way to destroy an enemy is to make him a friend."

America would do well to embrace these statements from two of the greatest presidents in American history. Our failure to do so will result in a prolonged war. More importantly, it will prevent peace from emerging and the human race from taking an important, yet elusive step forward.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)