I’ve suggested that the wisest thing for president Bush to do would be to issue an order to STAND DOWN military action in Iraqi, as a matter of official and unofficial policy. This does not mean that our troups would become sitting ducks or target practice. It does not dishonor the troops, nor the United States. It is an action that carries with it no shame, and would bring true honor to the peaceful.
This would also bring about an immediate SHIFT in the perception of what our continued presence in Iraq means. Our purpose will no longer be to SEARCH, INTERROGATE, IMPRISON, KILL, and DESTROY. We would be there to aid, instruct, heal, and assist as the withdrawal of our military presence in the region is completed. We would make it clear to Iran that we will be initiating NO military invasion of that country.
This reversal of policy would set quite an example, and send peaceful a message that would be heard around the world.
Spin doctors on both sides will weigh in. Muslims who have denounced U.S. military presence there may call it a victory for Islam. It would actually be a victory for peace, and the peace process.
We would be contributing to the peaceful stablization of the region, bowing to the peaceful will of the People of Iraq and America.
This would not mean shrinking away from involvement in the Middle East. We can offer the Iraqis assistance in their restructuring, through an aforementioned Knowledge Corps, made up of volunteer civilians who have experience in a wide range of social, educational, financial, and physical infrastructure building. They would come only if requested.
Guarantees of safety may be unrealistic today (and courageous volunteers won’t require them), but the spirit in which these steps would be taken and implemented, would create a safer environment for all, and a peace that would benefit ALL.
There will surely be fanatics who try to continue the old way. But once enough people have experienced a sunrise in peace, they will less inclined to protect those whose only purpose is to do harm.
We have been sooooo enamored with the gun. We’ve romanticized it, relied upon it as both heroes and villains. In essence, we’ve practiced getting our way through the use of guns, and their permutations (cannons, bombs, and other weapons, are simply other forms of guns). We’ve not considered there may be other ways.
The problem with our fixation with, and reliance on guns, and forceful action is that we don’t develop our own inner sensitivity and discernment, the ability to listen, and to hear the heart. In effect, by using force, we don’t have to acknowledge the heart of others that can be reasoned with, just like our own.
Guns and other weapons rely on fear to be effective; that is, until there is no fear. If people don’t care whether you kill them or not, then what do you do? You could say that the problem is eliminated if they’re dead, but is that really so?
It’s just like capital cases involving the death penalty. As long as the defendent opposes the death penalty, we’re intent on using it. However, if he says, “yes, I did it, and putting me to death as a way of atonement is an appropriate response,” then the experts would have a field day questioning his sanity and opposing execution.
This is why I’ve suggested that we take a fresh look at who, and what we are. It’s not our body, but as long as we think we are, there’ll be all kind of strife associated with its existence or mortality, rather than the true problems or opportunities that life may present us. Problems won’t go away simply because a life is ended. If we understand that, we won’t be so quick to try that option.
Why has president Bush been asking for “patience” with our presence in Iraq, if not for the fact that the problem hasn’t “gone away” even with documented and undocumented levels of killing? He wasn’t “patient” in limiting the commitment and use of deadly force because he thought he could get away with it. He can’t.
When there is enough fearlessness, a strategy based on killing is ineffective . There will never be “no fear,” but where there is enough fearlessness, it becomes wise to seek other ways to resolve differences. This is true whether we’re talking about the “mean streets” of Baghdad, or East L.A.
Muslims don’t have the licence on fearlessness; it is a trait of the human spirit, available to all who choose it. However, some people rely on the fact that there remain enough who are fearful, and choose to apply their fearlessness to destructive ends (suicide bombers, drive by shooters, etc.). When this occurs, the seeds of tyranny are planted because each side will romanticize its own, and villainize “the enemy”.
Courage is not the absence of fear. It is the will to do what is wise and best to benefit the greatest number (or harm the fewest), in spite of our fears. It’s the impetus to care for the safety and well being, not only for one’s self, but of others, including those who do not see life as we do. Courageous individuals set examples that others would be proud to emulate. What U.S. soldier really wants to be storming into civilian homes, terrorizing families, and being targets for bullets or bombs?
We have trained young people to be killers and sent them to another country to kill. The problem is that enough of the people there don’t really care about living or dying, and are taking themselves out. They actually find glee (or so they’re telling themselves) in plotting the deaths of innocent people, most of whom will be their countrymen. We’re not going to change the situation by killing them. Instead, we’ll give their illogic legitimacy (because we’re using the same rationale), and they’ll continue finding new recruits, to keep the wheel of grief turning.
Withdrawing our military presence, including personnel, and munitions, will remove a major part of the reason that suicide terrorists rationalize what they do. It may actually reduce the behavior. Offering to provide assistance rebuilding affected parts of Iraq that ask for it, will help the healing process to accelerate. These are truly courageous steps that, whether they are chosen or not, ARE actually doable, and within our budget.
President Bush’s recent statement that there would be devastating consequences to American security if we withdrew from Iraq is very “unleader like.” Look at what’s happening now. The devastation from our involvement — as well as the costs, financial and in human capital — is mounting.
Removing the reason that people oppose our presence may be enough to persuade irrational people to begin behaving rationally. On the other hand, their pattern has largely been to victimize their own people, even more than the Americans, who have been collateral damage in this twisted act of war.
Do I care whether Muslims claim victory over the U.S. in order to prevent the needless bloodshed of more Americans and Muslims?
Nope.
