Re: Breaking the Cycles of Vengeance

I know that from reading silently for the past couple of years, the posts to
this listserve that you all are an open-minded and diverse group of
individuals.  It is with much respect, that I disagree with much of what
both Daniel and Paul wrote.  In the past several weeks, I've realized,
rather epiphanically, that I'm not all that liberal.  By that, I mean that I
have never felt so out of place amongst the opinion of my liberal brethren. 
Much of what I've read in response to the crisis has been the most
distasteful display of protracted white liberal guilt on record.  Much of
the talk about "understanding" the terrorists has been both intellectually
incoherent and usually just a thinly veiled grab bag of political grievances
readymade for this particular tragedies.  (this goes double for writers
who've mentioned the Kyoto protocol as one reason for the tragedy as if Bin
Laden can frequently be seen sporting Earth Day is Every Day t-shirts) 
What's more distressing is to hear people provide such tacit moral cover for
regimes that are, in every way, anti-thetical to the very values they
espouse?  I'm not sure what Paul's point about Iraq is, unless of course he
thinks it would have been a better world if we let a dictator like Sadaam
Hussein, who mercilessly executes dissidents, expand his borders and reach
at will.  Truer still, we supported Sadaam when we believed him to be an
effective counterweight against more militant, theocratic Middle Eastern
regimes.  What of it?  We, as well as our European allies, have tried
intervened for several years in the Middle East, partly because we were
trying to protect vital resources and partly because we have been
understandably concerned about a region rife with instability and nuclear
weapons.  But what's the policy alternative?  Not to mention, many of these
terrorists organizations have no policy demands that could be appeased even
if we were to decide that capitulating to unthinkable violence was a great
precedent to set (incidentally, it's unlikely to produce peace, love and
understanding.   Bin Laden has already described our lack of consistent
retailiation in the past as indicative of our weakness and an incentive to
do further damage).  Further, all these opportunistic screeds about foreign
policy ignore the level at which this is a war of cultures and ideologies,
as squeamish as that might make people who believe "we can all just get
along".  When Bin Laden talks of Saudi Arabia, he talks about how Muslim
countries should not allow "infidels" on their soil.  Many of Bin Laden's
criticisms of other moderate Arab nations revolve around the fact that he
considers the Taliban to be a model government and the only truth path for
Islam.  In that light, how does one appease the demands of someone whose
greatest wish is that our way of life is completely annihilated?    I also
find it unsettling that many of these threads pretend to understand what the
"people" of the Middle East think without acknowledge the practical
realities of not living in a free society.  For example, Egyptian and Syrian
newspapers printed editorials proclaiming evidence that the bombing was
really perpetrated by Jews and Serbs.  In societies without a free press,
societies which conveniently blame the West for their troubles and ignore
their own autocratic regimes, is it really meaningful to talk about what
people think without acknowledging that they aren't privy to the same kind
of discussion that we take for granted.  I'm not arguing that the U.S. is
perfect, from from it.  All I'm saying is that maybe, sometimes, liberals
can be predisposed to a kind of unthinking dissent with regards to U.S.
policy.  More importantly, for me, I think that it's valuable to every once
in awhile stand firm on some moral ground.  I don't think it's too much to
say that what happened in New York is unambigously evil and, no matter what
your pet cause, has no justification.  Finding "justifications" or
"understandings" for things like Palestenians walking into a pizza parlor to
kill a room full of families is not enlightened and not "deeper-than-thou". 
It is, in fact, tantamount to participating yourself by covering creepy
intellectual.  As long as we're passing around articles, I suggest reading
Chrisopher Hitchen's eloquent condemnation in the Nation.  Thanks for
providing such a great forum for dialogue.  

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011008&s=hitchens




>  > There's more troubling history. Our leaders, including Bush senior,
helped
>  > create the Mujahideen to drive the Russians from Afghanistan and worked
with
>  > Osama bin Laden in the process. They backed Saddam Hussein and his
Baathist
>  > Party as a counterweight to Iran, whose Ayatollah came to power as
leader of
>  > the only force capable of overthrowing the brutal Shah. The United
States
>  > had supported the Shah since our CIA installed him in 1953, after
>  > overthrowing an elected prime minister who'd dared to talk of
nationalizing
>  > oil. Coincidentally, September 11 was the anniversary of the CIA-backed
coup
>  > overthrowing Chile's elected Allende government, launching nearly
twenty
>  > years of Pinochet's brutal dictatorship.
>  >
>  > The ordinary Americans whose inexcusable deaths rend our hearts may
have
>  > died in part because of our own government's past actions. As always,
the
>  > sins of the fathers are visited upon the innocents.  Unless we create a
more
>  > just world, desperate men from voiceless communities will continue to
>  > destroy more innocent lives, here and abroad.
>  >
>  > How then, as citizens, do we respond? In a crisis of this magnitude,
people
>  > understandably want to unite. I see flags and red, white, and blue
ribbons
>  > on houses and cars, purses, and bodies. The flags are a way for people
to
>  > say their spirits won't be cowed, and to do something tangible, along
with
>  > donating blood, supplies, and money. But they can also promote a
>  > self-righteous crusade of good versus evil.
>  >
>  > I saw this on a beach near my Seattle neighborhood, where people had
>  > surrounded our local 10-foot-tall version of the Statue of Liberty with
an
>  > impromptu shrine commemorating the dead. They'd left candles and
flowers,
>  > crosses and American flags, peace signs, a New York City firefighter's
>  > shirt, and messages of mourning. But then a fundamentalist megachurch
>  > descended to hold a rally, overwhelming the original circle of diverse
>  > messages with new ones proclaiming "An eye for an eye," and "Kill a
>  > terrorist for Jesus!"
>  >
>  > If we feel like wearing or flying the flag, we should. But maybe we
need to
>  > display it next to banners or buttons asking for true justice, not
>  > vengeance. And ribbons of mourning that recognize our common
humanity-even
>  > with the men who lost theirs by being so tangled with rage that they
didn't
>  > care who they killed.
>  >
>  > It's tempting to say that in a time like this, we need to trust our
national
>  > leaders. They're probably right that some force will be needed to
apprehend
>  > the perpetrators of these inconceivable crimes. But our responses need
to
>  > focus on individuals, not populations. And proceed in a way that gives
them
>  > the broadest possible legitimacy, including in the communities from
which
>  > the bombers were recruited. Think of Iran, and the delicate path toward
>  > democratization pursued by reformer Mohammad Khatami. Bomb enough
Islamic
>  > civilians, and his already-beleaguered regime will surely fall,
replaced by
>  > the Ayatollahs. Think of Pakistan, with its nuclear capabilities. If we
>  > don't proceed with caution, acknowledging past misdeeds, we'll only
incite
>  > more terrorists. No one could argue with the trial of the bombers who
>  > destroyed the Pan Am jet, near Lockerbie, Scotland. They blew up
innocent
>  > people. They were tried with full due process. Their jailing created no
more
>  > martyrs or cycles of hatred.
>  >
>  > This crisis would daunt any national leader. Yet the president who now
>  > commands our responses has spent his life sheltered by wealth, indulged
by
>  > friends in high places, and scripted in his every public appearance.
With
>  > few exceptions, his appointees have done everything possible to sunder
>  > common responsibilities and common ties: a Vice President who
repeatedly
>  > voted against Head Start, school lunches for low-income children, and
even
>  > the mildest sanctions on South Africa; an Attorney General who's
repeatedly
>  > attacked African-American voting rights; a Secretary of the Interior
who's
>  > scorned our need to protect the earth; and a Secretary of Defense
obsessed
>  > with missiles that do not defend. Already, Bush has turned his back on
our
>  > interconnected world by rejecting, or proposing backing out of, so many
>  > international treaties: on banning chemical, biological, and toxic
weapons;
>  > prosecuting war crimes; banning land mines; limiting the international
small
>  > arms trade (where weapons we sell as the world's largest arms dealer
have
>  > already been turned against us); and beginning to address global
warming.
>  > His missile defense system would shatter 25 years of arms control
treaties.
>  >
>  > I cite this history not to encourage self-righteousness among those of
us
>  > who question our government's response (God knows we all need humility
now),
>  > but to describe the real context in which we act. For it's going to be
up to
>  > ordinary citizens to raise the hard issues, including which crises we
>  > consider urgent.
>  >
>  > Congress just authorized $40 billion to rebuild New York and beef up
>  > anti-terrorist security. Much of this investment is appropriate. But
why
>  > have we chosen not to make other investments addressing crises equally
real?
>  > According to Bread for the World, six million children die every year
of
>  > hunger-related causes in developing countries-the equivalent of three
World
>  > Trade Center attacks every day. For an annual appropriation of $13
>  > billion-that's a third of what our Congress just authorized, or five
percent
>  > of our existing $260 billion dollar defense budget-we could meet the
basic
>  > health and nutrition needs of the world's poorest people every year.
Yet
>  > we've chosen not to. Nearly 50 million Americans lack health insurance,
but
>  > we've chosen to be the only advanced industrialized country not to
provide
>  > it to our citizens. Guns kill 30,000 of us a year, yet we choose to do
>  > little to control them or address the poverty and rage among our own
>  > desperate and marginalized. I cite these examples not to diminish the
horror
>  > of these unjustifiable attacks, but to stress that all shattered lives
are
>  > just as real, and to ask why some cataclysms disturb us so little.
>  >
>  > I fear that this tragedy will pave the way for needless and provocative
>  > military buildups and interventions that will spawn further spirals of
>  > vengeance. Already, the Bush administration is using the crisis as an
excuse
>  > to despoil the environment, to starve our every human need except
physical
>  > security, and to erode the very liberties that let us challenge
destructive
>  > actions of state.
>  >
>  > But it doesn't have to be this way. Imagine if these terrible events
>  > inspired us all to take on the difficult work of creating a more just
world,
>  > and making the necessary common investments so indiscriminate violence
and
>  > needless suffering do not prevail.
>  >
>  > The crisis has already produced a wealth of individual acts of courage
and
>  > compassion. We saw tremendous heroism in the firefighters, police
officers,
>  > and ordinary citizens who gave their lives trying to help others live.
We've
>  > seen an outpouring of personal generosity: people giving blood,
comforting
>  > their neighbors, collecting supplies. American Christians and Jews have
held
>  > vigils to help protect threatened mosques, and a Jewish family
volunteered
>  > to walk with a Muslim woman who felt threatened just stepping outside.
For
>  > the moment, we're common mourners: People seem careful, vulnerable, and
>  > extraordinarily kind to each other. These events just might be able to
break
>  > us away from our gated communities of the heart.
>  >
>  > But by itself, individual compassion won't create a just world. To do
that
>  > requires asking what common choices would respect the humanity of all
human
>  > beings-and then working to make those choices a reality.
>  >
>  > This means acting in common, raising our voices, continuing to speak
out no
>  > matter how hard it becomes. We need to be kind to ourselves, and
nurture our
>  > souls while we act: whether through walking in nature, playing with
>  > children, dancing to music, or communing with our God and the people we
>  > love. We also need to take public action-including reaching out to
those who
>  > disagree with us on how to respond to this brutal cataclysm. Because
from
>  > what I've observed, there's ample common ground once we make clear we
share
>  > the goal of preventing these horrors from continuing to be visited on
>  > innocent humans again. We need to act with enough faith and strength to
keep
>  > on raising the difficult questions, demanding paths that are both just
and
>  > wise.
>  >
>  > If we really raise the hard questions, we'll probably take some heat
and be
>  > called some names. It might help to carry flags at our vigils and
protests,
>  > since true patriotism requires taking responsibility for the choices of
our
>  > nation.
>  >
>  > We can never know every facet of this situation. We will not know every
>  > detail of how our government responds. We may not know whether our
actions
>  > will prevail. But we need to speak out, whatever the obstacles or
costs, for
>  > our own human dignity. And also because this is the only way that the
cycles
>  > of vengeance have a chance of finally ending.
>  >
>  > Paul Loeb is the author of Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in
a
>  > Cynical Time [St Martin's Press, www.soulofacitizen.org] and three
other
>  > books on citizen involvement with war, peace, and social justice
issues.
>  >
>  > Copyright 2001, Paul Loeb
>  
>  --
>  Dr. Daniel Leviton
>  Director, The Adult Health & Development Program
>  Professor, Community & Public Health
>  Center on Aging
>  College of Health & Human Performance
>  University of Maryland
>  College Park, MD 20742-2611
>  Phone: (301) 405-2528; Fax: (301) 445-1546
>  
>  


"I describe myself as a pacifist because I'm obviously a violent son of a
bitch. I hate the language of pacifism because it's so passive. If you are
nonviolent, you'd better be ready for a lot of conflict." Stanley Hauerwas





_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/