10/13/01
We’re at War
I was in the Catskills visiting the fall colors and my
fabulous friend Christan with Lisa when word came. I was splitting wood to heat
her home when she stuck her head out the window and said, "You better come
inside. The war just started."
I was shocked, as I'm sure we all were when we heard the news that our air
strikes had commenced. It's like the moment when someone who has been dying for
some time finally succumbs. We expect it, yet we are still shocked. I came in
from the cold and watched Dan Rather burbling out the tidbits of hard news
smattered with carefully worded suppositions. I watched as the tape of Osama
came on, poorly translated, but unmistakably defiant and impassioned. I
listened to Tony Blair site the logic and reasons for British involvement in
the battle ahead, and after a time thought, "Before war chop wood, carry
water. After war chop wood, carry water." So I returned to woodpile and
the task of providing fuel to heat the house. How strange was that!
I wish I could say it was all unreal. It wasn't and it isn't. It's all too
real. I'm so conscious of the way in which we've been shaken by the progression
into war. There are so many calls of patriotic fervor demanding retribution,
with the confidence that comes from being the biggest kid on the block. It
sounds so good when we hear the theories of how this war will be waged. We jet
in, bomb the hell out of the terrorists and when they're crippled, move in for
the kill. Sure, we're going to risk some American lives, but the cause is just,
our wills are strong, and our technology is so sophisticated that we should be
able to simply . . .
Hey, but wait a second. We had all the technology available on September 11 and
19 men armed with box cutters and absolute determination were able to deliver a
mortal blow to the great symbols of America. Our technology did not save us
then. It could not. Have we slipped back into the denial of September 10 when
it comes to this war?
The new world war promises to be long and difficult. It's a war unprecedented
in the history of humanity. Today we are willing and enthusiastic. What happens
when we start losing our sons and daughters? What happens when the
counterstrikes land within our borders? These terrorists are extremely patient;
what happens when the war goes on for years? How long can we sustain our
efforts with the steely determination we have today?
We justify our bombing with the terrorist strikes of last month. Within the
paradigm of "real world" thinking, it makes sense. "We have to
strike back," we say. "We should have done it sooner. They are evil.
We should bomb them back to the stone ages." The rhetoric on our side
sounds chillingly similar to the rhetoric on their side. "Yeah, but we're
right," we say.
According to us, we are. But what gives us the authority to speak? When does
history begin? Did it begin September 11? Can we really separate ourselves from
the past?
I'm brought back time and time again to the core beliefs of religious/moral
teachings. The hardest part of right living has to do with living with others,
how we treat one another. Be the teachings Buddhist, Jewish or Christian they
basically require us to treat others as we would like to be treated--you know,
not killing, being kind, not transgressing against one another. "Do unto
others as you would have them do unto you," does not say, "unless
they kill your loved ones." There are no qualifications to the statement,
"Thou shalt not kill."
The tremendous difficulty is that with wounds as great as those inflicted upon
us September 11, we find it difficult to transmute our anger. We feel righteous
in our actions to smite our attackers. We believe that God is on our side.
They see it exactly the same way. They feel righteous attacking the west. They
believe God is on their side. They believe we are the evil ones.
We have different frameworks. Each side feels that it has the sole possession
of the truth. We cannot convince the leaders. We have to democratize and
educate the people. Oppression is not chosen by the oppressed. Only those in
power want to continue an oppressive regime. They do because they receive great
personal gain by their oppression of the weak. We have contempt for their
leaders. This presumes our superiority. But to react with great destructive
force doesn't indicate our superiority. We may see it in all its heroic
aspects, but to others outside our influence, it projects our fear, our terror,
our rage, our callousness.
Still, there is a higher ground. When Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. began
their campaigns of non-violence, they were assured of success by their
determination, their moral certainty of the justice they sought. There was no
precedent for their success. In the war of rhetoric we hear about today's war,
both sides, like the Hatfields and McCoys, cast the blame on previous
violations. We struck back at the terrorist attacks. They struck back at the
bombing of Iraq. Now bin Laden is raising the spectre of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
as the symbols of American hypocrisy. The worst part of his position is that
there are aspects of truth in what he protests. His methods, his hatred and his
call for violence against the "infidels" are the blasphemies.
When our enemies counterattack, they will claim retribution for the bombing.
We'll retaliate. They'll retaliate. Ad nauseum. When and where will it end?
When all the terrorists are dead and buried? What about the angry mobs who feel
provoked into new violence? Are they as misguided as the terrorists?
America has blood on her hands. This is a truth we must face. As far as bin
Laden goes he will never run out of claims for the violations against his people.
He can go to his bag of grievances a thousand times or more. He can look back
in history and cite the times the Muslim world has been the "victim of
aggression." He can go all the way back to Biblical time and conjure up
reasons for his actions there.
We will do the same thing. We look back at previous attacks on us, on our
outposts, on our interests. We can look back in time and find justifications
for our acts. In this argument, the question is: When does history begin? Each
side will commence history when it best fits their interests.
There are different issues here. One issue is the attack. Another issue is the
hatred for America. Another issue is American Imperialism. Another issue is the
right to live in a free society. Another issue is moral decay. Another is
despotic leadership. We believe in the value of freedom. Not everyone shares
that belief. If you don't believe in freedom, everything looks different than
it does to us. The world sympathizes with us. Personally, I believe in freedom
as a fundamental human right. I am patriotic to the political ideology of
American Government. I believe this to be the best system we've found. I don't
believe we're living up to our ideologies. (I also believe we must make some
foundational changes to include a sense of respect and protection for the
rights of all living creatures on the earth.)
As my father tells me, "We can't solve the world's problems." Still,
I have to try. At this point, I see the only choice is to be a part of the
solution or a part of the problem. The middle ground is gone. Each of us has to
take a stand.
Almost unanimously we deplore terrorism. However, the vast majority seem to
believe in the war. Our emotions are high and our decisions are not
far-sighted. Debate and discussion are important to finding resolution. Now, we
must continue the dialogue, even as the war rages. What's done is done. We
cannot change the past. We must however, continue to bring good will to the
table. We must continue to negotiate a peace. The war may eliminate certain
elements from the face of the earth, but the underlying hostility will only be
ended with compromise. Otherwise, I fear we become the dictators of the world.
If we believe in our freedom, we must also believe in theirs. "Freedom and
justice for all," says the Pledge of Allegiance. There are no exceptions.
In a long talk with Lee Johnson last night, he expressed his point of view that
much of what we have to look at is the process of "identity." He
said, "Our identity was threatened." Our identity amounts to an
established and ordered world view. We are good. We have a right to be where we
are. We have the right to order Afghanistan to do our bidding.
According to our identity, the terrorists attacked us out of the blue. At least
they were unprovoked, we claim. (Provocation is not to be confused with
justification.) But look at it from the perspective of living in the middle
east. For the citizens of Iraq, who have been living in terror for the last ten
years, the terror has been constant. For the people whose lives are lived in
lands far from our homeland, our presence is one of imperial interests. This
war is territorial. We are fighting, we say, for freedom. We are bombing for
our interests which we believe to be best served by bombing, supposedly
discriminatingly, with tons of armaments. Is that not terrifying to the
citizens of Afghanistan, so many of whom have fled to Pakistan? Is their terror
less than ours? I can hardly imagine a more terrifying experience than being
bombed by jets.
We believe we are justified. If you are not with us, you're against us, the
President said. Who are we? What makes us right? This is not the call for
justice. This is the call to war. And war is fought for territorial control. We
perceive the world from our vantage. From where we sit, we are protecting our
way of life; we are defending freedom; we are the vanguard of democracy. But an
identity structure is a closed system. We don't have to stand in the other
guy's shoes to see the world from his perspective. From his point of view we
are invading marauders; we are imperial forces; we are colonizers, subjugators,
and thieves; we are infidels; we are the source of corruption. The either/or
view is sickening. We can't win this war, because it's a war of perception. The
more we continue instigating violence, the more we play into Osama's hand. He
knows he can't beat us at our game. He has to topple us from underneath. If
they can attack us at the symbolic promontories of our civilization, he hopes
to break our spirits. By getting us to respond with hostility, we become like
him. We become harbingers of hate. (Now the terrorists are going after the
media people. Imagine our horror if one of our news anchors or hosts of a
morning show was to contract anthrax. Another symbol would be struck. We can
expect that with their weak forces they will go for maximum impact with minimum
weaponry. Thinking, attack our symbols and they attack our heart, the
terrorists are fighting us with meticulousness and patience.)
Secretary of State Rumsfeld said that no one in America could have imagined
that the terrorists would have commandeered an airliner with box cutters, and
flown it into the great symbols of our wealth and power. Why not? Is it not the
job of our CIA and defense ministries to imagine exactly such scenarios?
According to our identity structure, we shouldn't have to imagine such things.
And yet . . . the painful truth is that we must. "There will be further
retaliations." Bush doesn't want us to hear that. It's top secret
intelligence. He doesn't want us to live in fear. He doesn't want us to hear
the truth for ourselves. Today, I heard that the news media has agreed not to
broadcast the unedited words of Osama bin Laden. The protector/fathers will
keep from us information. Isn't this exactly the sort of freedom American
soldiers are prepared to die for?
The terrorists got through our defenses and struck us from inside. We have been
living without fear of attack. We have felt invincible. Clearly, we're not
invincible. We are vulnerable. We did not anticipate the terrorists. We must.
They're trying to outsmart us. We must be smarter. We cannot be lax in our
security. Our first line of defense must be protection, not bombing. Even
today, we are still lax with airport security. So, while we're not responsible
for the actions of the terrorists, we must responsible for our safety. With
massive amounts of investment in intelligence and the military we must find
ways to defend against those who commandeer airliners. We must defend ourselves
from the mail-in terrorism. We must do all this and protect our civil
liberties.
It angers me that in our hawkishness we feel almost no compunction to
self-examine. We've allowed the oppression to go on in Afghanistan. We've
supported the Taliban, when it was in our interest. We've supported bin Laden,
when we wanted to kick out the Russians. Now that we're bombing, we bomb with
food, as well. The hunger in the region has been going on more than a decade.
No wonder it is seen as hypocritical.
When Hitler killed the Jews and Gypsies, the dissenters and homosexuals, he did
not see himself as evil. In his identity structure, he was rescuing the world.
Stalin didn't see himself as evil. He was protecting the world. The Inquisitors
of the middle ages didn't see themselves as evil. They tortured bodies to save
souls, a higher good. These terrorists don't see themselves as evil, either. We
see them as evil. And they see us as evil. Who's right? It depends on which
side you stand on as you look out at the other.
I believe in freedom. I believe in the American ideals. I want to see the
American ideals brought to the rest of the world. I believe that people, not
leaders, want freedom. I believe that people, not leaders, want the right to
choose their government. But to some, democracy and freedom are the evils. We
cannot convince them otherwise. When we resort to bombing and mass destruction
as the tools of our diplomacy we jeopardize our reputation in the world. The
efforts we make to seek justice in these times must be tempered with clarity of
mind and a long range goal. What we accomplish by our violence is to incite
more violence from the already violent other side. The comparison of the
terrorist attacks to the Nazi's invasions or attack of Pearl Harbor does not
contain the notion that those fighting forces had nations and armies supporting
them. These terrorists are in small "cells," small bands of
individuals working on isolated plans.
We took a powerful hit last month. It hurts. It's frightening. It's enraging.
Yet, we cannot simply strike back with greater force and rest assured that the
problem will be solved. We may kill the terrorists. We may disrupt their
network. But there will be others. Look how great their strategy and tactics
are next to ours. Bush wants the all-powerful missile defense shield to protect
us. They didn't use missiles. They used box cutters and brought this great
nation to a halt. That is much scarier. However, these tactics also point to
their strategies. They cannot hope to fight might with might. They have none.
They have to strike us from within. They have to strike us with our own
resources. In all likelihood, they will use our way of life to try to bring us
down.
Andrew Sullivan wrote an insightful and important piece last weekend. It
appeared in the New York Times Magazine:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/07/magazine/07RELIGION.html?ex=1003499453&ei=1&en=c70f29794b1c6cfe
In it he lays out in understandable language the nature of this conflict as the
religious war it is. He lays out the power of fundamentalism in coherent terms,
and makes the point that we are engaged in an epic struggle. He draws us to
examine the core moral issue as the "universal principles" expressed
in the U.S. Constitution where religion and politics were separated as being at
the heart of our position.
To continue to live in this country, where everyone is free to choose how to
worship, is the essential struggle. We're protecting the rights of people to
choose for themselves--be it a relationship with God, a relationship to a
school of thought, a form of worship or the right to disbelieve. This freedom
requires great civil tolerance. Tolerance is anathema to fundamentalism.
Fundamentalists of all tyrannical regimes have sought to destroy this freedom,
declaring an absolute adherence to doctrine and its tenets as the supreme
authority. From tyrant to tyrant the doctrine has changed, but the basics of
such doctrines remain the same: a hierarchical structure where the individual
must surrender totally to the tyrant.
As Sullivan concludes, "We are fighting not for our country as such or for our flag. We
are fighting for the universal principles of our Constitution -- and the
possibility of free religious faith it guarantees. We are fighting for religion
against one of the deepest strains in religion there is. And not only our lives
but our souls are at stake."
Regards,
Marc