When Compassion Becomes Dissent
February 27, 2003 10:59 AM Subscribe
When Compassion Becomes Dissent A great essay about writing, dissent and the children of Iraq by David James Duncan author of The River Why and the Brothers K.
This post was deleted for the following reason: more op-eds
Minds are not going to be changed in any case
Mine just was. Or shifted at least. I was already what I guess you could call "soft" anti-war anyway - I participated in the Feb 15 rally here in Toronto, for example. But I've found the rhetoric on both sides equally as likely to be guilty of over-simplification and thus equally troubling. This war is only tangentially about liberating the Iraqi people, but it is also only partially about Iraqi oil. Demonizing Bush is much more obfuscating - and dishonest - than demonizing Saddam is. Etc.
Anyway, in all the white noise, I found myself looking in vain for a comfortable fence to sit on. This extraordinary essay was like a compassion booster shot or something. The section detailing the American doctor's visits to Iraq was powerful, gorgeous, devastating. And it reset the focus to where it should remain: on people. The kind of people who die by the thousands in wars they have nothing to do with.
Fantastic link, idixon. Thanks.
posted by gompa at 12:42 PM on February 27, 2003
Mine just was. Or shifted at least. I was already what I guess you could call "soft" anti-war anyway - I participated in the Feb 15 rally here in Toronto, for example. But I've found the rhetoric on both sides equally as likely to be guilty of over-simplification and thus equally troubling. This war is only tangentially about liberating the Iraqi people, but it is also only partially about Iraqi oil. Demonizing Bush is much more obfuscating - and dishonest - than demonizing Saddam is. Etc.
Anyway, in all the white noise, I found myself looking in vain for a comfortable fence to sit on. This extraordinary essay was like a compassion booster shot or something. The section detailing the American doctor's visits to Iraq was powerful, gorgeous, devastating. And it reset the focus to where it should remain: on people. The kind of people who die by the thousands in wars they have nothing to do with.
Fantastic link, idixon. Thanks.
posted by gompa at 12:42 PM on February 27, 2003
Postroad, I think various hawk arguments need to be squared away:
1. The war is to liberate Iraq.
2. The war is to disarm Iraq.
3. The war is for regime change in Iraq.
4. The war is for democracy in Iraq.
5. The war is to end the suffering of Iraqi civilians.
6. The war is to secure resources in the Middle East, thus changing the balance of power away from the Saudis, and setting the stage for further interventions against Iran and Syria.
Now, clearly these are not the same thing. Liberation of Iraq would require leaving at the end. Democracy would require staying long enough to see it put into practice, and might result in a government hostile to US regional goals. Disarming Saddam without regime change will not necessarily reduce Iraqi suffering. Regime change alone would neither ensure disarmament nor the reduction of Iraqi suffering. And leaving a garrison in place for geopolitical ends will neither liberate Iraq nor foster democracy there.
Now obviously there will be differences of opinion within the Hawk camp, just as there are differences of opinion within the dove camp. But given the tremendous price we've paid already, in terms of political capital and security, and the even greater costs of an actual war, I really think the White House should pick a reason and stick with it.
And thanks for the link idixon.
posted by condour75 at 12:43 PM on February 27, 2003
1. The war is to liberate Iraq.
2. The war is to disarm Iraq.
3. The war is for regime change in Iraq.
4. The war is for democracy in Iraq.
5. The war is to end the suffering of Iraqi civilians.
6. The war is to secure resources in the Middle East, thus changing the balance of power away from the Saudis, and setting the stage for further interventions against Iran and Syria.
Now, clearly these are not the same thing. Liberation of Iraq would require leaving at the end. Democracy would require staying long enough to see it put into practice, and might result in a government hostile to US regional goals. Disarming Saddam without regime change will not necessarily reduce Iraqi suffering. Regime change alone would neither ensure disarmament nor the reduction of Iraqi suffering. And leaving a garrison in place for geopolitical ends will neither liberate Iraq nor foster democracy there.
Now obviously there will be differences of opinion within the Hawk camp, just as there are differences of opinion within the dove camp. But given the tremendous price we've paid already, in terms of political capital and security, and the even greater costs of an actual war, I really think the White House should pick a reason and stick with it.
And thanks for the link idixon.
posted by condour75 at 12:43 PM on February 27, 2003
Since, of course, it's not possible for there to be more than one reason for taking a given course of action.
Sheesh.
posted by jaek at 1:31 PM on February 27, 2003
Sheesh.
posted by jaek at 1:31 PM on February 27, 2003
it's ok to have more than one reason for doing something. The problem is when they're contradictory.
posted by condour75 at 1:42 PM on February 27, 2003
posted by condour75 at 1:42 PM on February 27, 2003
I found the following opinion piece from the NY Times compelling, especially the final paragraph:
History has shown that the use of force is often the necessary price of liberation. A respected Kosovar intellectual once told me how he felt when the world finally interceded in his country: "I am a pacifist. But I was happy, I felt liberated, when I saw NATO bombs falling."
It was written by José Ramos-Horta, East Timor's minister of foreign affairs and cooperation, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 1996.
posted by Plunge at 1:54 PM on February 27, 2003
History has shown that the use of force is often the necessary price of liberation. A respected Kosovar intellectual once told me how he felt when the world finally interceded in his country: "I am a pacifist. But I was happy, I felt liberated, when I saw NATO bombs falling."
It was written by José Ramos-Horta, East Timor's minister of foreign affairs and cooperation, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 1996.
posted by Plunge at 1:54 PM on February 27, 2003
For those that don't want to read the whole article, you can safely start at #5 and get the crux of the essay. And the bottom of the page notes that this is the abridged version. Parts 1-4 were interesting, and had many moments of clarity and poignance, but were not very lucid.
The rest of the article neatly ties up a lot of the reasons that people have against a war, a lot of evidence of alternate reasons (not listed by condour above) for the administration to go to war, and a lot of other shameful facts and thoughts.
The part about the woman going to Iraq several times was very heart-breaking, though. A nice, unique, touching perspective that you have to seek out to find, not just stumble upon or presume. Good stuff. Thanks, idixon.
The Maddy Albright interview that the author spoke of here included these quotes: "When former American secretary of state Madeleine Albright was asked by CBS’s`60 minutes` presenter Lesley Stahl if she thought the death of half a million children was a price worth paying she replied that "this is a very hard choice but the price, we think, is worth it."
posted by Ufez Jones at 2:17 PM on February 27, 2003
The rest of the article neatly ties up a lot of the reasons that people have against a war, a lot of evidence of alternate reasons (not listed by condour above) for the administration to go to war, and a lot of other shameful facts and thoughts.
The part about the woman going to Iraq several times was very heart-breaking, though. A nice, unique, touching perspective that you have to seek out to find, not just stumble upon or presume. Good stuff. Thanks, idixon.
The Maddy Albright interview that the author spoke of here included these quotes: "When former American secretary of state Madeleine Albright was asked by CBS’s`60 minutes` presenter Lesley Stahl if she thought the death of half a million children was a price worth paying she replied that "this is a very hard choice but the price, we think, is worth it."
posted by Ufez Jones at 2:17 PM on February 27, 2003
« Older Ride to Glory | Blimp assaults sleeping homeowner Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
All might be simplified by these posts by simply giving url, title and saying: for the war. Against the war. Minds are not going to be changed in any case
posted by Postroad at 11:27 AM on February 27, 2003