WISE WOMAN WINS WITHOUT WAR

Many years ago, a Middle Eastern king found himself in a tough spot. A nasty sort stirred up a rebellion against him, that ended up dividing the kingdom in half and threatened to destabilize things permanently. So the king sent out his top general and a sizeable army to capture the rebel. The army chased the rebel through the territory of the people he’d convinced to follow him, and ended up besieging the rebel in a particular city. During the pursuit, the rebel’s following had dwindled, as often happens when a king offered a strong show of force to maintain his hold on the throne.

So the army prepared to raze the town to capture the rebel, with the aim of executing him. That many innocent citizens were in the way was regrettable, but in the end the integrity of the kingdom demanded that the rebel get his due. Leaving him alive and unmolested would send the wrong signal to other would-be rebels, of which there was no shortage in this particular kingdom. It would signal that the king was weak, that his rule could be challenged, and that rebels paid no price. It would also leave the rebel himself alive to try and gin up support again to mount another rebellion. So he needed killing, as they say in the Western movies, and the town to which he’d fled would likely suffer collateral damage as a result.

Well, seeing the king’s army bivouacking all around the city evidently had a strong psychological effect on the townsfolk. One day, as the commander checked on his troops, he heard a voice coming from inside the walls—“Come here, sir. I need to speak with you.” It was a woman’s voice, and she seemed so insistent that the general decided to see what she wanted.

It turns out that the rebel's popular support was none too strong even in the very town that had become his last refuge. No reasons are given in the records, but one can surmise certain things. Being a rebel, he was probably the strong-willed sort that demands a lot and stirs up trouble and generally makes himself a nuisance. He may have decided that since taking the whole kingdom, or even half, was now beyond reach he’d settle for kicking out the local rulers and run the poor town. Maybe he didn’t bathe often enough, or burped over lunch, or made rude jokes that no one laughed at. Whatever the reason, the lady who spoke to the general wanted to know something: Would the army still invade if the town took care of the rebel on its own?

The general probably weighed the options, but ultimately decided that invading would be pointless if the rebel was no longer a problem, so he replied that no, the army would not invade if the town dealt with him. The woman said thanks, and that she’d get to work.

And she did. The next day, what comes over the wall? Why, it’s the rebel’s head sans his body. The townsfolk had done what the army came to do, and made sure the rebel’s troublemaking days were over.

The records don’t include the woman’s name, but she’s come to be known as the “wise woman of Abel” (Abel being the town’s name), because she averted a war by acting rationally. If you want to read up on this tale, look to 2 Samuel 20. Would you have read this far if I’d started off telling you “In the such and such year of King David’s reign, a man named Sheba set forth to overthrow the king and establish himself over all Israel?” Of course not. Hence waiting to lay it all out until the last minute.

So what’s the point of this story? Well, two things that I can see. First, in the realm of politics and warfare, leaving a threat out there to fester just beyond the peripheral vision is a bad thing. King David seemed to understand that leaving the rebel Sheba out there meant trouble down the road, and so prudently decided to deal with him post haste. Second, the only way to “win without war” against hardened men like Sheba is to show nothing but strength and resolve. King David didn’t have a UN to bog him down, didn’t have fair-weather allies like France and Germany to undermine him, and we have no record of any anti-war movement climbing up his back to “contain” Sheba in his refuge at Abel. David just sent in his army, and the show of strength alone was enough to win without having to fire a shot.

The same could happen in Iraq, where all reasonable people agree there rules a madman with terrible designs on the world. But winning without war will only happen if the peace-loving people of the world band together and show strength. It's entirely within reason that if enough of Saddam's generals see that we're coming for Saddam, they could decided they've had enough and toss his head over the proverbial wall. And I'm sure that President Bush, though a self-described "loving man," would like nothing more than removing Saddam without having to send in the Marines (and the army, and the air force, etc). As things stand now, though, that isn't going to happen. Saddam in encouraged by the sight of millions protesting President Bush’s 18-month “rush” to war, while not protesting a single solitary thing that he, Saddam, does to his own people. His potential assassins are cowed by the same sight. The protesters, knowingly or otherwise, make winning without war, which is their stated goal, impossible.