Follow-up To My Last Piece

March 6, 2007 - 11:25am

Wow, that last thing I wrote got quite a reaction. I never write for the reaction or lack of it. NEVER. Not because I'm virtuous, but because that would ruin my writing. I'm selfish about my writing.

So I write what I think and feel. But in reading through the comments, I find that I want to have a final say, perhaps a clarification. I replied to a very nice comment that was left by an anonymous person on March 6, 2007 - 9:55am. It's toward the end of the comments. My reply to that comment sums up my position a little better. I'm describing what I see there, not suggesting what if anything can be done.

Here is my reply to the comment. I wrote the comment with no editing, so I'll present it just as I wrote it.

Beautifully said. And I sense your reticence because you are one of those who does NOT like to produce more heat than light. I'm with you on that. And yours is probably the only one I'm going to respond to. Mostly because I'm working on my next piece, which is about my daughter. And it is taking me in a different place emotionally. It's funny, by the time you read these essays of mine, I've worried and worked them until I'm done. But the time the comments get going, I've forgotten what I wrote and moved on.

I believe you are exactly right about the people in Iraq. I watched a documentary made up of films taken by average Iraqi citizens. Many said they love Americans and appreciate our freedom and what our country has made possible and allows to be possible. But many have a problem with this administration and this war. Others may even support it.

But here's the bad news about which I wrote. If 200 people out of a million are furious and determined to cause revolutionary problems, they can. I mean, how many people does it take to strap on dynamite before it becomes a problem? So peace in Iraq will not be dependant on the average citizens. There will be no peace because there are thousands of angry militant Iraqis and insurgents from a variety of countries with a stunningly complex variety of issues who are working against peace.

And they will not allow peace as long as we are there. And sadly, if their only goal is destroying peace so that we will finally give up and leave, they have the power to do this, right in the face of the mightiest military power the world has ever known.

Now please hear me. Nowhere in this piece did I suggest that we should pull out now. Hell, how would I know what we should do? But I do believe that the situation will never be stabilized while we are there. Mostly because there are so many who are determined that it will not be stable. So I think the day will have to come when we just leave because we can't fix things and our presence might even be making things worse. I don't know when that day comes, but how can it not come? Unless we stay forever.

Time will show if I am right or wrong. On that day I have no desire to say "I told you so" if I am right. But I will be SO HAPPY to be proved wrong and I will shout it. "I was wrong!"

Because I would love for Iraq to have a peaceful, free country.

rlp

 

Submitted by LutheranHusker on March 6, 2007 - 12:16pm.

Whether I think you're right or wrong, whether I love what you've written or whether I hate it, two things are always true about your writing and are why I cherish it so much:

1) You always make me think.

2) You always make me examine my faith in "real-life" terms.

This last piece on Iraq was no different, and I thank you for your writing. Most of the time the conversations folks end up having are more important than the conclusions we end up reaching, anyway.

Thanks for the conversations, and for the forum in which you allow them to take place.

http://lutheranhusker.blogspot.com

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 6, 2007 - 1:55pm.

That wooden carving of jesus is hurting. His eyes are moving.

Submitted by tom reindl on March 6, 2007 - 9:30pm.

Remember Apartheid? Nothing was done about it for years and years. Then, the world focused in on it. That is the only thing that can possibly solve the situation in Iraq, as well as the situation in Afghanistan. A worldwide recognition that the masses want one thing, but the brutes dictate another, and the brutes win because they have guns and bombs and are dedicated enough to use them, until the world shakes the tree that these terrorists hide in.

Look, this activity that goes on in Iraq was bound to happen someday. The thumb that crushed open thought and revolution was lifted; what did we expect would happen? Guns and other weapons won't solve this problem, but letting the terrorists know that the world is watching, that the world is reacting, and willing to do something for the poor people they oppress will yield results. The first results will be that the masses of Iraqi citizens will begin again to feel that they have a right to stand up, and that when they stand up, someone will have their backs. Right now, many in the US are screaming to leave the backs of those masses unguarded; you can't expect citizens to lay it on the line when the people who oppose them will most definitely kill them if no one is watching.

The world allows this slaughter to go on in Iraq, and until the world stands up and says, "no more!", it will go on as it has. I find it interesting that we scream for help in Darfur, and at the same time, we scream to leave the citizens of Iraq at the mercy of people who will oppress them and kill them unless they "toe the line". The two issues sound like exactly the same issue to me, but my oh my, don't politicians have a way with spinning words to make one look different from the other?

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 7, 2007 - 1:05am.

The situation in Iraq is nothing like the situation in Darfur.

For one thing, a few thousand foreign troops would probably be sufficient to stop most of the violence in Darfur. This is demonstrably not the case in Iraq.

For another thing, the desired mission in Darfur is peacekeeping. The American military is not on a peacekeeping mission in Iraq. It doesn't want to be on a peacekeeping mission. It is on a search and destroy mission. There is a difference.

-Toby.

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 6, 2007 - 9:38pm.

This reminds me of a scene from Pixar's "A Bug's Life". It's where the ants, who have been terrorized by "Hopper" the grasshopper and his gang of gangly thugs for years, suddenly realize that they outnumber the sons a bitches by thousands to one. They link their arms, and with no weapon other than righteous vengeance, they set upon those grasshoppers and kick their butts all the way to China. Kinda makes me wish the same would happen in Iraq. Not to mention a lotta other places in the world.

Presbyterian Gal

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 7, 2007 - 12:35am.

That is an attractive idea to us because that is what we did in 1776. We can't make anyone else do that. At some point, we have to let people be responsible for themselves, no matter how much it breaks our hearts. I firmly believe that all people would be better off governing themselves, but how do we make them understand that they really can? I wish I had an answer as easy as the question.

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 7, 2007 - 12:36am.

I am Lisa P, and I am too silly to remember to log in.

Submitted by tom reindl on March 7, 2007 - 1:02pm.

Toby,

While I would somewhat agree with you on the scale of Darfur verses Iraq, I would not agree with you on the mission. An ARMY, sanctioned by the government of Sudan, is killing citizens. The Sudanese government, while publicly denying that it supports the Janjaweed, (the group attacking and systematically killing its opponents) has provided money, equipment, and assistance and has taken part in joint attacks with the group, systematically targeting the Fur, Zaghawa, and Massaleit ethnic groups in Darfur.

The mission is exactly the same, because the reason for war is the same, religious or ethnic differences. In order to end the targeted attacks, we would have to topple the Sudanese government, because that government has sanctioned the "ethnic cleansing". The two situations are twins, and the only difference may be the scale, although the jury is still out on that one. In Iraq, Sunnis attack Shiite and vice versa, while in Darfur Janjaweed attacks three different groups. The other difference is that on the surface, neither Shiite nor Sunnis has government sanction for their activities, while in Sudan, the Janjaweed are sanctioned by the Sudanese government. That means it's going to take a lot more than a thousand soldiers, it's going to take a war, just like the one in Iraq. Those are the facts, and they aren't easy to come by, especially since the only news in this country that is easy to come by is politically driven. The two political parties in our country aren't interested in actual facts, they are interested in whatever it takes to get themselves elected, or re-elected. So the blurbs you hear on TV from politicians need to be taken with a grain of salt; always remember that if a politician is talking, he has an agenda according to the philosophy of his political party. Darfur only looks different than Iraq because politicians are playing spin games with the two situations.

If you don't think the Iraq war is worthwhile, and I can't say I blame you for feeling that way, then you definitely won't think a war in the Sudan is worthwhile either, especially when the body bags start coming home.

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 8, 2007 - 2:41am.

For those who are interested, there is a very good article about Iraq and Darfur in the latest issue of the London Review of Books. You can read it online here:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n05/mamd01_.html

Submitted by tom reindl on March 8, 2007 - 6:29am.

Anonymous,

Thanks for the link. I wish more people would read it, and I also wish that instead of a reactionary mob mentality, the citizens of our nation would read between the lines of political spin and find out for ourselves what is really going on. I have to admit, the further I read into that article, the more disturbed I became that any intervention by a global peacekeeping force could cause a widening of the conflict in Sudan. If things continue on that course (there's no reason to believe they won't), the same people who cried for intervention in Darfur will cry that we withdraw from Darfur at some point as well. Isn't this just madness?

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 9, 2007 - 7:35pm.

Your last couple of sentences reminds me of a poem that was written by Mark Twain that was to act as a contract, carved in stone, between Mr. Twain & Mrs. T.K. Beecher over whether or not there was an afterlife.

"If you prove right and I prove wrong,
A million years from now,
In language plain and frank and strong
My error I'll avow
To your dear waking face.
If I prove right, by God His grace,
Full sorry I shall be,
For in that solitude no trace
There'll be of you and me
Nor of our vanished race.
A million years, O patient stone,
You've waited for this message.
Deliver it a million hence;
[Survivor pays expressage.]"
- Mark Twain.