The term warrior has drawn considerable attention during our current war with Iran. To remain unbiased, I will not attempt to discuss the merits of the war. Instead, I want to comment on what it means to be a warrior. As an archetype, the warrior can be expressed in the light or in the shadow. The Warrior – takes action, confronts, commands, motivates and can be expressed in the Light (I do)– change agent, protector, disciplined, assertive, leader or in the Shadow (I take) – violent, bully, uses aggression as primary strategy, impulsive. Not surprising that those in charge seem to feel that is necessary to invoke the shadow warrior as the only way to achieve their political objectives. Clearly, going to war should be viewed as a last resort when all other means of conflict resolution have failed. War does require violence and aggression but should be tempered by the warrior in the light. A fair question for the warrior is the necessity to preemptively use violence to mitigate a perceived imminent threat. An additional question to ask before harnessing the shadow warrior, is the response to the threat disciplined or impulsive? I urge our Defense Secretary and our President to answer these questions and not to glorify the warrior in the shadow. Clearly, a warrior acting in the light may still have to go to war. However, the decision to engage in warfare must be disciplined and used only as a means when all other alternatives have failed and that violent protection is only employed when there is a clear and present imminent danger to the country.
