‘What if there was a war and no one came?” This is a frequent question I remember hearing from the Vietnam War protestors in the ’60s and ’70s. That memory surfaces as I read the daily reports of Russian, Ukraine and NATO forces posturing in anticipation of an invasion.

This persistent question from my past borders on subversion as the United States moves troops, military equipment, and weapons closer to Ukraine. The operating question is, “how can the United States most effectively wield its power and support its allies with military aid?” War may hide behind “the last resort,” but many perceive it to be the strongest most effective guarantee of success.

There is evidence that the world is filled with war experts but is deficient in specialists seeking peacemaking processes. Fear and hegemony turn the focus of the U.S. toward weapons production, glorification of “warriors,” and determination to remain the most powerful nation in the world.

The Hill reports there are roughly 750 United States foreign military bases spread across 80 nations! Whereas the UK has 145 bases, Russia has about 3 dozen bases, and China just five. The U.S. has three times as many bases as all other countries combined. It maintains this military presence with a 2022 U.S. military budget of $768 billion.

In addition, The Hill reports the U.S. gives $50.8 billion in foreign military sales. These arms-deals to allies and partners typically allow the recipient country either to procure weapons or security contracts directly from the U.S. In other situations, the federal government buys weapons and ships them to military transport. There are also $124.3 billion in direct commercial sales.

Also, there is another disturbing reality to consider. CNN reports the average age of senators in Congress is 63.9. The average age of a House member is 58.3. Therefore, the average age of a United States Congress member is 61. I hazard to guess this is much higher than the average age of military personnel. The men and women in the army company where I served were almost all in their twenties.

Observe the young soldiers seen on TV news each day or traveling through an airport or train station. Look into their faces. These are the young people our elder leaders are willing to put into harm’s way; jeopardizing their futures, their lives, and their mental health. The age of our leaders exempts them from these military hazards, even as they daily speak cavalierly about our country’s obligation to be prepared to send young people to war. War is the default choice when leaders lack the skill, knowledge, and ingenuity to employ peaceful nonviolent approaches to conflicts.

Maintaining the means to engage in war assures that sooner or later it will happen again and will escalate. The American Revolution was fought by eighteenth-century farmer volunteers. Much later, in WWII, “our boys” were the soldiers. Today we send “warriors” to various skirmishes and wars. Is it even possible to replace our nation’s default to a culture of war? Realistically, we’re told, the answer is, “no.”

However, since 1984, right in our own government there has been an initiative based upon a different answer. It is The United States Institute of Peace, USIP, funded by Congress and governed by a 15-member bipartisan board of directors. USIP has 300-plus staff members working abroad or at the Institute’s headquarters in Washington, D.C.

I remember the discussions leading up to Congress’ vote, but I missed USIP’s bold affirmation: “The United States Institute for Peace is a national, nonpartisan, independent institute, founded by Congress and dedicated to the proposition that a world without violent conflict is possible, practical and essential for U.S. and global security.”

This affirmation should be shouted from the housetops, taught in the schools, upheld in every aspect of our daily lives. USIP gives our nation a new vision and a new hope. It takes us to an inflection point where we can choose to continue believing in the chimera of war or embrace the reality of a world without violent conflict.

Up until now, nonviolent grassroots movements have been perceived as laudable but unrealistic. Mediation and conflict resolution are falsely perceived as a compromise or giving in to demand. USIP can give credence to these movements, and vice versa. It “works with governments and civil societies to build local capacities to manage conflict peacefully. The Institute pursues its mission by linking research, policy, training, analysis and direct action to support those who are working to build a more peaceful, inclusive world.”

To be effective, USIP needs significantly more support from Congress and from constituents. When was the last time you heard anything about USIP from one of our senators or representatives? Urge them to explain their position on the USIP proposition, “a world without violent conflict is possible, practical and essential for U.S. and global security.” Ask them to sponsor enough Congressional USIP funding to give it a resolute position in relation to the military budget.

In 2022 USIP’s budget is $45 million (approximately $½ billion). The military budget is $768 billion. Propose taking 1% from the military budget to increase the USIP budget to $7.8 billion. This is a small step up, compared to the military budget, but it would reflect a giant step toward a new last resort reality.

Constituents and Congress united in this possible, practical reality for the future would be democracy at its best. And it may lead to a time when there is no war for our young people to be sent.

(John Buttrick can be reached at johndbuttrick@gmail.com. He lives in Concord.)