I came across an interesting article in UU World about Joseph Naye, who came up with the international relations theory about "hard power" and "soft power". From the article:

The theory centers not on a nation's military might, which he categorizes as ‘hard power,' but instead on the often more persuasive ‘soft power' that can attract other nations through diplomacy, culture, ideals, and policies.

Soft power can take many forms. Franklin Delano Roosevelt transmitted soft power to Europe in 1941 with his famous Four Freedoms Address naming the freedoms every human ought to enjoy: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.

According to Nye, the key to successful international relations is the combination of soft and hard power backed by moral purpose. This leads to the ability to attract people and nations. On the other hand, indiscriminate, over-use of hard power risks driving people to extremism. While some individuals or groups can only be dealt with using hard power, for example Osama bin Laden would not respond to soft power, soft power can play a crucial role in attracting moderates and denying the extremists recruits.

Another article in the same issue of UU World dealt with the dialectic power that occurs when people with differing views come together. That's not to say that one compromises or acquiesces to the other, but that when each opens up to the acceptance of the other a new whole is formed. The power that forms in this union is the power "born of the proximity of opposing forces. It is the power that engenders depth and makes transformation possible"¦ power with, not power over."

The article draws an analogy to electricity. The positive and negative poles are inert in isolation. Put them together and the power is released in a spark, a light bulb, the computer screen you are looking at right now.

I think there is an important lesson in these two articles. We must recognize and bring to bear our source of power. It is not in arguing incessantly with those who disagree with the cause of peace, but in including them in our dialog and allowing for and identifying the need for their hard power. We must begin to recognize when to use each type of power and allow those best suited to wield it. Sometimes perhaps that means hard power when dealing with criminals and real (substantiated, please!) imminent threats. Sometimes perhaps that means soft power when there is a need for open dialog, easing of tensions and focus on our common humanity in peace.