On Tuesday, President Bush gave a prime-time speech to try to garner up support for the war in Iraq and to try to boost his dwindling approval ratings.

He mentioned that the terrorists are no match for the men and women of the U.S. military. This might be true, but are our actions a match for the phenomenon of terrorism?

From the late eighteenth century through the twentieth century, the technique of non-violent action was widely used in highly diverse conflicts: colonial rebellions, international political and economic conflicts, religious conflicts and anti-slavery resistance. Non-violent action has been used to gain national independence, to gain civil rights, to resist genocide, to undermine dictatorships, to end segregation and to resist foreign occupations. Why can’t non-violence be used now?

All governments rely on cooperation and obedience for their very existence. This is the nature of political power. A ruler’s power is not inherent; it comes from the society which they govern. Therefore, political power is a kind of social power, involving social interaction, wielded for political objectives. A ruler possesses power only to the degree that society grants, through cooperation and obedience.

Non-violent action is based on the view that governments depend on people and political power is fragile.

Advocates of non-violent action adhere to the view that political power can most efficiently and effectively be controlled at its sources.

Thus, in recognizing cooperation and obedience as roots of power, proponents of non-violent action regard disobedience and non-cooperation as methods that can disrupt or paralyze a ruler’s system of power, without killing or destroying.

It is often said that victory requires violence. When, in conflicts that threaten the basic beliefs and the nature of a society, people choose not to renounce violence for fear that doing so implies becoming powerless and helpless. Non-violence is seen merely as abject passive surrender. The means of violence are affirmed and approved. These means are designed to injure, kill, demolish and terrorize with maximum efficiency. Sadly, this efficiency continues to grow.

Violence should not be regarded as inescapable. The fact is that, although historians have generally neglected the phenomenon of non-violent struggle, non-violent action is indeed a realistic substitute for violent conflict.

Walter Wink, Professor of Biblical Interpretation at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City, as quoted by Susan Ives in a 2001 talk, writes: “If we add all the countries touched by major nonviolent actions in our century (the Philippines, South Africa … the independence movement in India …) the figure reaches 3,337,400,000, a staggering 65 percent of humanity. All this in the teeth of the assertion, endlessly repeated, that nonviolence doesn’t work in the ‘real’ world.”

The misconception that nonviolence doesn’t work is flat-out wrong.

Political power is always dependent for its strength and existence upon a replenishment of its sources by the cooperation of a multitude of institutions and people, cooperation that may or may not continue.

Political power is therefore always potentially fragile and is always dependent on the society to which it is applied. Nonviolent action can be directly targeted to strike at the availability of each of these sources.

Political philosopher …tienne de la Bo‚tie (1530-63), whose views exerted great influence upon Theoreau, Tolstoy and Gandhi, argued that refusal of cooperation and obedience will produce a crisis for the ruler, once stated: “Just don’t support him, and you will see him like a great colossus whose base has been stolen, of his own weight sink to the ground and shatter.”

Non-violent action is not inaction. It is action that is non-violent. The study of non-violent struggle is critical, now more than ever. War perpetuates and escalates the cycle of violence. If we are to be a society that truly wishes for peace, we must use non-violence in our struggle.