Re: Breaking the Cycles of Vengeance

Terry,

Okay, so what do we do?  There's an old saying about how to handle dangerous
people, which is to invite them in, and offer them some of your soup, but
feed them with a long-handled spoon.

I mean, I understand your distaste for those who are trying to understand
what could cause people to hate us so much...any answer does sound
dangerously like a justification...but similarly, what (aside from the basic
human desire to live, even if by destroying all others) gives us the moral
authority to kill their people, while defending ours?

I sit here, a young man, never having seen war, never being too close to
death, ignorant of much of the darker side of life, and I wonder what it
would take for humans to stop killing each other, and live in peace.  I'd
like to see Ossama and others like him stripped of all power to harm or
offend anyone, or cause anyone any anguish or pain, but I don't think I want
to see him dead.  It wouldn't bring anyone back, and it just might make his
children, or his relatives, or his followers that much more steadfast in
their opinion that we are the Infidels of Satan, and we must be destroyed.

You're right that this is not page 1, nor even page 5 of the story.  There
are thousands of years of aggression between our cultures, and when looked
at from a long view, there are atrocities on both sides, and, in my opinion,
none of them justifying the next atrocity.

So how long does the spoon have to be?  How can we protect ourselves, and
still give them no further reason to want our destruction?  How do we stop
Bin Laden without fueling the fire for his followers?

Help.
Christopher

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Terry Sawyer [SMTP:TerrySawyer@excite.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 11:40 AM
> To:   Daniel Leviton; Loeb@soulofacitizen.org
> Cc:   sl@csf.colorado.edu
> Subject:      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/
> 
>