Sometimes the Truth Burns Our Eyes

Over the past few months there have been both successful attacks as well as failed attempts by suicide bombers on universities in Iraq, I wondered about the insanity of it all. Who would choose universities to target? I found myself empathetic to the plight of Iraqi students struggling to get an education amidst a conflict zone and appalled that they could become sacrificial lambs to the politics of a bloody civil war.

In the United States, university campuses are thought to be protective environments for our burgeoning youth – a buffer from the “real” world. It is where a ritualistic process of initiation into adulthood takes place for so many of us in our culture. Not to mention the fact, that there seems to something almost sacred about a bucolic campus – a place that serves as a beacon of knowledge to light the imaginations of the young and ambitious.

So, “revolting” – the only word I can find to describe the violent attack on the campus of Virginia Tech. It’s simply too much to wrap one’s mind around. Blacksburg is not any where near a war zone.

So many questions now being asked about the massacre at Virginia Tech, but we have heard them all before and the sad fact is – that we essentially continue to find exactly the same answers that are all too often found at the post-mortem of these grim scenes. There is really nothing new, only a different place, time, and this time, yes, even more victims. The gunman was a loner – disaffected by the community in which he existed. His professors had been disturbed about the menacing nature of his writing. And, he was living in a state – no, a nation in which the gun laws are so liberal that he was able to obtain not one, but two handguns and bring them into an institution of higher learning firing as many as 100 rounds of ammunition as students sat in their classrooms.

The United States has borne witness to innocent children being victims of gun shot wounds, music icons gunned down outside their homes, and even our sitting presidents shot while the nation watched. We have little hope that the tragedy at Virginia Tech will bring about enough rage to effect radical changes in our gun laws, but I hope that it is a catalyst for at least incremental policy shifts because anything else would be an insult to our dignity as citizens of this nation. Sometimes the truth burns our eyes like staring directly into the fiery blaze of the sun. We must reconsider our positions and re-evaluate our ideals. We must force a re-examination of ourselves as a nation of diverse values, but interwoven communities. No more children in this country should become the sacrificial lambs to the politics of our Constitution. I don’t care about anyone’s “right to bear arms” because all of the students gunned down at Virginia Tech had their human rights violated as they laid in pools of their own blood.

A Precursor to Freedom

Iraqis marked the anniversary of the fall of Baghdad to American military forces by mass demonstrations. They were apparently protesting the presence of the American occupying forces, rather than celebrating the ouster of Saddam. Although Iraqis were seemingly exercising a right that we enjoy in our own democracy, freedom of speech and assembly, it could be considered highly suspect since it was actually organized, perhaps even coerced by Muqtada al-Sadr. Who can really know the hearts and minds of people who live in chronic fear?

The date of April 9th – in recent years, has been commemorated by video clips of the public denigration of a statute of a certain, defunct and dead dictator- has actually served only to reflect on the poor judgment given to making a war in Iraq. So, thank goodness there was very little hullabaloo about it this year in the media. Since April 2003, Saddam Hussein has been captured, executed – albeit in a botched spectacle kind of way, Baghdad has undergone a rapid ghettoization, and even worse – that region of the world, in general, has become extremely volatile. This anniversary also reminds us of just how long the Iraqis have waited for their so-called “freedom” because liberation does indeed imply some sort of freedom will be forthcoming. However, their now deposed dictator has been replaced by another more sinister kind of oppressor – civil war fueled and funded by external sources. We are left to wonder if this civil war contained within the boundaries of Iraq will soon morph into something even worse. Civil wars are unpredictable by their very nature. At least Iraqis knew what to expect from Saddam.

Although Iraqis no longer have one single figure labeled a dictator by the international community, does that really mean they are free? Perhaps there are many different kinds of freedom and these are valued differently according to culture, historic reference, and collective experiences. I imagine that many Iraqis would view the ability to travel freely through their own streets without concern for their security as freedom. Perhaps, Iraqis would find a weekly paycheck that allows them to provide for their families – liberating. Peace seems to be a necessary precursor to freedom. And, perhaps peace is another kind of freedom that is more valued than democracy – because at the moment, the hard truth is that peace and democracy are seemingly mutually exclusive in Iraq.

Propel Them Home?

According to an article in this weekend’s Washington Post, President Bush once again reaffirmed his commitment to veto the House and Senate versions of a bill that would create a deadline for U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq. This seems to be a daily ritual of his that we have all become accustomed to. For weeks, the cajoling among politicians on this issue has resulted in a media saturated with words like “early departure”, “withdrawal”, “surge” and “veto” swirling about.

So, it occurred to me as I have followed the whole “troop withdrawal” debate that perhaps it is in fact, the language inserted into the argument that is the real bugaboo to ending the war in Iraq. As I recall, it was President Bush or at least his administration that introduced this terminology to the debate. It has given him an unfair advantage and perhaps the anti-war proponents have not even noticed. Haven’t you ever been in an argument and found yourself vehemently opposed to another’s idea simply because of a word or phrase used to describe it? You know, those loaded words that make it impossible for you to agree with someone -the words used that you instinctually associate with a negative connotation. Well, in the case of the war in Iraq, President Bush’s words are really loaded. Afterall, debates are won or lost depending on words cleverly exchanged during a verbal joust. You give all of your power away if you allow your opponent to choose the words you can use during the debate. So, I think that may be exactly what has happened in the debate on the war in Iraq.

Clearly, President Bush wants to “surge”. Of course, “surge” sounds like a powerful and action packed word. It actually makes me think of electricity. On the other hand, for example, Bush refers to any alternative to the so-called surge as a “withdrawal” or “early departure” from Iraq. These words lack the same kind of colorful charge that “surge” has. In fact, it sort of sounds like a “retreat” as in you know, running away with your tail tucked squarely between your legs. It definitely, at least subconsciously, implies some sort of unsatisfactory result. Those of you with a Catholic upbringing may even associate “withdrawal” with “coitus interruptus” and I think you all know what I mean. So, it is no wonder that many politicians (mostly of the male, conservative persuasion) find the whole idea of “withdrawal” abhorrent. I have noticed that Nancy Pelosi can speak at great length, with ease and quite articulately about the need to withdraw troops from Iraq, but some of her male counterparts on the Republican isle look as though someone is about to dowse them with cold water at the mention of “withdrawal” or “early departure”. So, this got me to thinking. Perhaps, those in support of withdrawing the troops should argue their position by using powerful words that insinuate a mere shift in goals and subsequently the benchmark of success could then simply shift to peace.

I want to see the politicians who do not support the war in Iraq take back their vocabulary! I have compiled a short list of powerful words that could be used to entice supporters of war to become more amenable to bringing the troops home. Please see the short list below.

Instead of “withdrawal” from Iraq:

• “Strategically propel” them back to the domestic front
• “Shift our military power back” to protect the homeland
• “Transfer the troops to mission: ‘Secure Our Borders’”
• “Implement a new & important phase called ‘Homeland Protection’”

Global Citizen or Denizen?

Nancy Pelosi, the strong-willed Speaker of the House, has come under attack this week for her diplomatic visit to Syria. Yes, that’s right, her “diplomatic” travels are under scrutiny by the current administration because President Bush doesn’t believe in speaking to people he doesn’t agree with. Fight them, yes. Speak to them, no. Ms. Pelosi’s actions here are quite laudable though. She has demonstrated the kind of chutzpah that separates true leadership from well, plain old pettiness.

The public criticism of Ms. Pelosi’s visit to Syria reminded me of something I had read several months ago that seemed very befitting to the contrast between President Bush’s handling of foreign policy versus that of Ms Pelosi’s. I had been given a catalogue for Claus Miller’s “Signs for Peace” exhibition which features conceptual artwork created from the fingerprints of peacemakers around the world. Walter Veltroni, Mayor of Rome, writing in the preface of this catalogue, reflected on a quote from Kofi Annan who was in turn explaining peacemaking from the perspective of traditional African society:

When dealing with conflict “people gather together under the largest tree in the village and talk. And, ‘if you can’t solve the problem, you meet the next day and you keep talking till you find the solution.’ This is the only path to follow, in dark difficult times such as ours, marked by terrorism and war: the path of dialogue, discussion, mutual respect, and negotiation. Peace is the way to achieve peace. It is a task that each of us can take upon his or her own shoulders, with humility and responsibility, knowing that every small act, every symbolic gesture, may be useful. For lighting up hope. For dispelling fear and egoism, which would be overcome.”

Ms. Pelosi is obviously ready to find her own “Sign for Peace” and actually reported that she felt hopeful for the future at the conclusion of her dialogue with Syrian officials. Perhaps, by reaching out to Syria in such a diplomatic way, this small symbolic gesture of Ms. Pelosi’s could have powerful consequences. Maybe, it will even serve as a signifier to other leaders in the Western world that it is time for them to recognize the importance of their role as global citizens rather than denizens. It’s time to talk and of course, listen.

International Hard News: Just Another Casualty?

During times of peace, our domestic media outlets often provide expanded coverage of international stories. It would seem that it has now become the sole responsibility of the individual to seek out information for themselves if they are interested in escaping the same overly analyzed and over reported news stories that the media exhausts on every channel for days at a time. Maybe the responsibility has shifted to the individual since we are now fully entrenched in a cyberspace-obsessed culture with the Internet providing a ubiquitous stream of information upon demand or perhaps, it is just another distraction?

So, it was after an online visit to The Guardian newspaper this morning as I followed links to an African news site when I realized the dearth of media coverage allotted to the ongoing humanitarian crisis throughout the continent of Africa. Could this be yet another casualty of war? I paused from my news gathering for a moment and reflected upon this simple question, “What should we be knowing about?” When I thought about that for a while, I felt a tinge of anger and resentment well up inside of me as I thought about the pre-packaged, slick and readily available news that is always accessible. Our newspapers and broadcasts here have been filled with rehashed and recycled reports of political scandals, celebrity gossip, and of course the endless debates about the war in Iraq.

However, all of the global issues that existed before the war began did not end and from the looks of it, those pre-existing conditions have worsened. For example, Zimbabwe has an inflation rate of nearly 2,000% while Mugabe is ordering that members of his opposition party be beaten in the streets of Harare. Nearly 100,000 people have recently fled from Somalia and civilians there are being killed in the capital and bodies desecrated in the streets. Did you know that the Janjaweed militias from Darfur are now crossing into Chad and killing villagers and forced at least 2,000 people to flee their villages just this past weekend? And as we all scratch our heads at the recent spate of tornadoes that have swept across the South and Mid-Western plains, were you aware that Madagascar has been being ravaged by a brutal cyclone season with reports of at least 130,000 people affected by the most recent one?

It makes you wonder if this absence of international news is a distraction from the fact that while billions of dollars are being spent on war in Iraq, many countries in Africa are ablaze with conflict, starvation, oppression and preventable epidemics. The United States is missing out on opportunities to provide humanitarian aid to these fragile societies. How outraged would most Americans be if they knew their money could be better spent on humanitarian aid and diplomacy, both of which would contribute to a more peaceful world.