Category: Political

Categories
Government History

Not saying stop is not the same as saying go

In some ways I regret my Peaceblog no more writing, not because I don’t believe what I wrote — I do. And not because I feel like I’m selling out — I’m not. It seems to me this issue is on the minds of other people who marched and worked for peace. And it’s not an easy issue to discuss either.

I am aware that there are some people who are unhappy that I’m not continuing to protest the armed conflict in Iraq. That doesn’t bother me, as I knew that there will be people protesting the war until the end and that some will understand where I’m coming from, others won’t. I can accept this.

No, what does bother me is that others see this as a form of support for the war, as some sort of right-thinking move. (I hate that term with a passion, almost as much as I dislike neo-con.)

Let me be blunter: I am still against this war in Iraq. I believe, strongly, that the United States has no right to make what amounts to a unilateral invasion of Iraq. People are suffering and dying because of super inflated egos who have worked out a ‘strategy’ on paper and who refuse to acknowledge that they don’t have all the answers; in most cases, they don’t even know what the questions are. No, I believe the US screwed up.

However, I am also most interested in focusing my energy on what we can do to help the people of Iraq as soon as possible, as well as minimize the anger in the rest of the Arab world. In my opinion, this means establishing an interim government that will be acceptable to the Iraqi people and the majority of countries in the Middle East. At least until the Iraqi feel comfortable enough, as a whole, for everyone to “please just leave now”.

To me, this interim government should be overseen by more neutral parties, in my opinion, something joint between the Arab League and the UN.

I think the worst possible thing will be for the United States to continue in any form of controlling position in this country. Not only will this increase the stress and the anger in the Middle East, quite bluntly, I don’t trust the current leadership of this country not to screw up.

I also want to ensure that the US does not invade any other countries without cause. Not on my watch at least.

Now, taking all that, and borrowing from Jonathon’s upcoming “‘How to Respond to Idiots’ for Dummies” book, I don’t know how one gets from being sadly resigned to the belief that pulling troops out at this time would do more harm than good to the Iraqi people to I am now behind this war to give freedom and human rights to the Iraqi people.

However, there may be some confusion because of a mixed message I’m sending. After all, I am behind a war for freedom and human rights; it’s just that this war is being fought within the United States, not Iraq.

Archived with comments at the Wayback Machine

Categories
Government

From the Ashes arises the bird of converse

Sheila probably spoke for many yesterday when she declared no more war. The anger and bitterness surrounding the issue of the war in Iraq can drain even the most energetic of people. However, my hope is the war of rhetoric has managed to burn itself out, and from the ashes can come true conversation.

Soldiers are heading to Baghdad, and eventually, this city will be in US hands. This isn’t to say the ‘war’ will be over — this is not a typical war, fought by typical warriors. The question was asked — what next? Steve Himmer made a start on answering this question, without rhetoric, providing practical suggestions as to directions. In particular, his suggestion of the UNESCO loan program is a viable, reachable start to helping the people in Iraq. However, equally important, in my opinion, was that he was making an attempt to bridge differences between people with different views of the war in Iraq. And doing so in a non-confrontational manner.

Jonathon Delacour commented on Steve’s efforts, in the same writing where he responded to an accusation of racism levied against him in his comments. His remarks are about the most rational and effective response to that type of accusation I have seen. Rather let loose a stream of invective, and wade in with shirt sleeves rolled up, ready for a virtual showdown, he calmly refuted the accusation; managing to deflect the anger of the accusation, not back at the accuser, but outside the conversation, completely.

That’s what we need to do.

Primarily because of Steve’s reasoned response, Jonathon has also re-directed his discussion about protest marchers into expressing a specific issue rather than the use of more colorful and rather pithy adjectives.

Their conversation, and the comments associated with them give me hope. Hope that could only be increased if other voices join in.

(Hint. Hint.)

There is a conversation waiting to be born about the presence of the US in Iraq, about UN involvement, and the makeup of an interim government. There is also a conversation waiting to re-born about human rights at a global level — a closely related topic. Allan Moult pointed to two documents detailing human rights abuses in the world, including violations in this country. These are a start.

(How poetic that the twin issues of freedom and human rights for the people of Iraq are the same issues that we need to address here in the United States. )

From these conversations, common agreements can be found, perhaps even unified, positive actions. At a minimum, we may come away with a better understanding of our own reactions to the war, the UN, the US involvement, and human rights in general.

It’s just too bad we’re all so burned out. And I’m fresh out of Burningbird magic Rising from the Ashes Pixie Dust to sprinkle about.

And as I was finishing this, I looked up and out the window at a sky filled with black smoke. But it was just a fire at an auto shop nearby.

Categories
People Political

When you pray, move your feet

Steve Himmer responded to criticism about peace marches, in particular the individual actions of self-expression:

The individual voice in an election doesn’t individually matter. Done. In a march or a rally, on the other hand, that voice can matter–and it can matter without having either the individual voice or the collective subsumed. As 10,000 people march in a street, there is necessarily a unified message–we’re all marching for the same overarching goal, stating our opposition to war, in the current case. At the same time, each of us holds an individualized sign, or wears a uniquely sloganed t-shirt, or a mask, or performs a piece of personally important street theater. While the collective voice of the march can’t be ignored, neither can each individual voice welling up into the collective.

In response, Jonathon wrote of the circumstances in which he would participate in a march:

Recently my friend Natsuko asked me what it would take for me to attend an anti-war march.

‘Everyone would have to agree to wear only plain black clothes,’ I told her. ‘There would be no chanting, no placards, no street theater, no drumming, no red-painted faces. Nothing but hundreds of thousands of black-clad people marching silently through the city.’

Steve responded in comments:

Interesting–the other day, while marching, I wondered at what point what other kinds of mass events were possible, and one of the ideas I considered was a silent river of people flowing don’t the street with signs or chants, without looking left or right. I, too, think it would an incredible piece of street theater, and definitely one worth trying.

march2.jpgMarch 7, 1965 600 people began a walk from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama unified behind one goal: voting rights for blacks. These were simple, peaceful people of all ages from all professions and background, with the men primarily dressed in black or gray suits, the women in dresses, white or black, maybe a bit of color with orange or pink or green mixed in. Six blocks later, they were set upon by police who gassed and beat the peaceful crowd as they walked silently through the street.

There was no screaming at the police, and no thrown rocks, sitting in the street or other acts of civil disobedience. The weapon the marchers carried was more frightening to the authorities of that time – a message of equality.

march1.jpgHowever, neither the message nor the marchers would be stopped. Led by Martin Luther King Jr, they marched again two days later, but this time as a means to convince the federal courts to give them explicit permission to march from Selma to Montgomery. The judge granted this permission, and on March 22, 2500 marchers started a walk in Selma, Alabama that would end with 25,000 marchers, five days later in Montgomery, Alabama.

The photographs and television coverage of the brutality of the police, played against the quiet dignity of the marchers and the simplicity of their unified message, more than any other event, led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

One of the photographers of the march quoted the old African/Quakers proverb to describe it: When you pray, move your feet. To this I add: decide what’s important, and act accordingly.

march3.gif

Categories
Government History

Peaceblog no more

I have removed the Peaceblog logo from the sidebar. I’m not sure at this point exactly what a peaceblog is. After three difficult days of thinking, I’m not sure what ‘peace’ is.

Before the invasion, ‘peace’ meant to me working to prevent my country from invading Iraq without good and decent cause and world support. By world, I mean UN support.

I never at any time considered Iraq an imminent threat. We are not justified attacking the country for this reason. We’re not justified attacking the country for 9/11. The only justification we could have for an armed conflict is to remove Saddam Hussein because of his oppression of the people of the country, but talk about Weapons of Mass Destruction is not concern about the Iraqi people. Too late the people of Iraq entered our regard.

Once we entered the country, once we dropped the bombs, we started something and to leave now will just result in a stalemate that will result in yet more death in a country that’s seen too much of it. The same type of death that resulted when we encouraged the Iraqi people to revolt 12 years ago and then didn’t stay around to help them. I bitterly regret that we started this war, but we can’t just leave now.

However, acknowledgment of finishing what we’ve started is not support. I do not support Bush and his administration. I do not support their short-sighted arrogance or their frightening long-term view for the Middle East.

The Sydney Morning Herald had a story today about disagreement within the Bush Administration about post-war strategy. It notes that the State Department (Colin Powell), as well as Britain’s Blair, believe in turning over the administration of Iraq to the UN after the war, though Powell has shown he won’t publicly refute the President’s and the Pentagon’s interest in maintaining US control.

I agree with turning the temporary administration of Iraq to UN control, as the country goes through what will be an extraordinarily difficult time. Replacing US control of Iraq with UN control is my push and my focus now, and that’s what I’m working for. The US presence will still be there, including our money and aid — we did start this after all — but under UN supervision as part of the UN forces.

And I do not agree with American corporate profiting from this war. Period.

The US staying in control of Iraq makes this a war of imperialism, regardless of how we want to wrap it. Not only will this inspire more terrorism, it will further destabilize the Middle Eastern region with fear of what the US will do next. I won’t soon forget the discussion about Syria and Iran last week. I won’t forget the implications of those words, and neither will Syria or Iran. Or, most likely, North Korea.

I also support direct Arab League involvement in the administration of Iraq. We have to start getting over our distrust of each other — Western world and the Arab world. Being the enemy without is not going to stop the spread of Muslim fanaticism or any form of fanaticism for that matter.

A most vivid image in my mind is that Iraqi driver the morning of the first bombing of Baghdad. The country was under war and the city had just been bombed, but the driver still signaled to turn, still stopped at a red light. Of all the images of destruction and violence and death from Iraq, this is the image that haunts me the most.

What the people of Iraq, and the Middle East, want is what we want — normalcy. Nobody wants war but the fanatical and the ambitious.

Archived with comments at the Wayback Machine

Categories
Political Weblogging

Long haul

Sheila Lennon sent a note and posted that she’s dropping out of the war:

War plus anti-war does not equal peace.

Pro-war and anti-war blogs are two sides of the same coin. War and anti-war fight each other with hearts and minds and furious typing.

On the streets, anger fuels protest, and is met with anger.

The potential for tearing our country apart again is already shaping up: “Support the war, support the troops” vs. “Support the troops – Bring them home.”

…

I’m dropping out of the war. I don’t want war in my living room any more. I don’t want to give it my attention. I can’t stop it, can’t change it, won’t fight it. All I can do is live as peacefully as I can, without sucking in its virtual fumes.

I can understand where Sheila’s coming from, except that none of us can drop out of the war. Especially the Iraqis. Especially the soldiers. But Sheila isn’t talking about dropping out of the war – she’s talking about not feeding the frenzy of pro- and anti-war rhetoric.

How does it support the troops to accuse others of being traitors, to make fun of people who disagree, to feed a constant anger? What’s peaceful about a peace movement populated by people screaming “I hate you!” and throwing rocks?

I agree with Sheila, I want no part of the war she describes. However, dropping out of the rhetoric war and not writing about the real one are two different things. Our writing, or not writing, about the war isn’t going to make it go any faster or prevent any people from being killed. However, writing about the war can help us resolve our anger, frustrations, and fears. It can also help us understand how we got here – to come to terms with the war and our own involvement and responsibilities. With a little respect and patience, it can also help us understand others’ viewpoint as well.