In the 1980s, people across the US created panels for a quilt that ringed the Pentagon in a protest against nuclear war. Each panel represented what the maker could not bear to lose, but would lose, in a nuclear war. I contributed a panel with representations of my family members, animals, trees, and the natural landscape. Most Americans understand that nuclear war can and should be averted. However, most also believe that engagement in some sort of non-nuclear war is necessary, inevitable, and will always be part of human society, perhaps because they believe it is part of human nature. The Seville Statement, endorsed by many scientists, including an American psychologist, David Adams, authoritatively disputes the idea that violence is part of human nature.

Despite the fact that the US is now engaged in multiple wars and war-like actions, war not only should but can, be ended, permanently, in this generation. Is this an idea whose time has come? I believe so. Further, I believe that psychologists have an obligation to help.

For those who would like to get started thinking about how to participate in ending war—or even to get their mind around the idea that war can end, talks by peace advocates such as David Swanson, author of War is a Lie, and journalist John Horgan, author of The End of War, may be useful. You can start learning about these ideas right now, by clicking on a link to an interview with Horgan. Or this talk by David Swanson.

The American Psychological Association says: Our mission is to promote the advancement, communication, and application of psychological science and knowledge to benefit society and improve lives. Anyone who has visited a war zone, or an area recovering from conflict, or who have read about war’s impact on civilians, will agree that the absence of war would improve lives. So why is peace not a top priority of the American Psychological Association?

On the APA website, one can find a list of “…more than 600 scholarships, grants, and awards sponsored by APA and other psychology-related organizations.” They are listed by topic, and among the topics is the term “military” which brings up ten awards. The topic “peace” does not exist in this list. Why should psychology give grants for the study of the military but not of peace? I hope that every member of APA will ask a member of the Council of Representatives to raise this question at its next meeting.

In previous posts here, and in a chapter called "Military Psychology: An Oxymoron," I have discussed APA’s problematic, longstanding, dependent relationship with the military. Again, I encourage every member to ask a psychologist who is a member of the Council of Representatives to challenge APA to question its dependence on the military and use its resources to advocate for an end to all war.