Thoughts on Peace: Standing Down the Military in Iraq
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.
Upcoming Thoughts on Travel (and Images)
Last month the March edition of Natural Awakenings (Arizona) Magazine introduced a travel and discovery column called “Go & Tell” written by yours truly. The article was about the Valley of Fire State Park, located 50 miles north of Las Vegas, near Overton.
The April edition features a story about Pie Town, a small “dot” on U.S. Rt. 60 in western New Mexico, that we passed through on our way home from a trip to San Antonio, last year. I will have more stories from that adventure.
I have created a “New Mexico” gallery at my Printroom space, for these and other shots from that leg of the trip.
Thoughts on Love: The Greatest Power
Love is a power… not a force. In fact, love is the greatest power there is. Although we can’t touch it, everyone knows when it is present, and mourns when it is thought to be missing.
Love is greater than any force, and it is available to all. Love can change the worst of situations into the best. That includes war, whether it is waged with our neighbors, other nations, or within our own body.
We don’t have to agree with what another is doing in order to show our love and respect. However, under such circumstances, we tend to withhold love when we feel it is not being shown to us in the way we want it delivered. “If you don’t love me, then I’m not going to love you,” is the logic. That’s not really love though; it’s attempted manipulation.
Yet, the joke is on the manipulator, because if we don’t love others, then we won’t be loving our self. What we withhold from giving unconditionally to others, we summarily withhold from ourselves. Love is the one thing we can afford to give unconditionally, because it is limitless and ever available to flow for the choosing. Yet, we tend to be miserly of this precious energy.
Love is indeed precious, but not because it is scarce. It’s precious because, given its power and profound beneficence to the giver, it is so rarely shared.
We are the first beneficiary of our love. In other words, when I choose to love you, I will benefit from having made the choice, before you do. If you choose not to reciprocate, I will still benefit by the choice to remain loving. I will continue receiving the energy, inspiration, and self-healing qualities that come from being “in” love and having love emanate from within me. I will yet be enabled to love others, as I love myself. Doing so brings balance within ourselves, which then turns magical, serendipitous moments into the rule, rather than exceptions in our life.
By choosing to stay in a loving posture, and being a “channel” for love, we will be “recognized” by others who are doing the same thing. The recognition will be on another level than what we see.
The option for those who choose not to be loving, is to be fearful. We couch fear in other words, such as “cautious,” “safe,” “skeptical,” “wary,” “practical,” etc. They all represent varying degrees of fear, or love with limits and conditions.
Yet, love remains the greatest power, and perhaps our greatest fear.
Love is so powerful we’re afraid we might actually get what we want if we embrace and embody it. If that happened, what would we do with the pitiful stories that we’ve been so proud of telling others? How hollow would our excuses for being unloving sound when we collectively know that loving action would have helped a bad situation? What would we do with the anger that no longer “fits” us?
Love and peace go hand-in-hand. Many are skeptical, but by expressing and practicing love, we can end — and WIN — the “War on Terror,” and bring peace to Iraq and the Middle East. How? It starts by becoming loving, and gaining peace within ourselves. Becoming loving means treating the Iraqis the way we want to be treated, not the way that we fear they may treat us.
This same approach applies to Iran, where president Bush is so fearful of their perceived ability to develop nuclear weapons, there is great talk of an invasion of yet another sovereign nation and destablizing it, thus giving them ample reason to continue their weapons development.
We needed to love (former) president Bush, who did the best that he could, given his upbringing. His upbringing taught him to respect force, and use it. He didn’t understand the power of power over force, or the very real power of love. (For more on this relationship, please consider reading Power vs. Force, by David R. Hawkins, Ph.D.) If he did, he would have ended military action in Iraq. This didn’t mean that troops wouldn’t have been able to protect themselves, but the PRESIDENT could let the world know that our troops would no longer represent an aggressive, lethal threat. Our nuclear carriers would exemplify the intention by retreating from the area.
President Obama could embody the inflowing of LOVE by announcing to the world that he as head of a sovereign nation, RESOLVES to seek non-destructive ways to truly end our conflicts and create no new harm. He has that power, for we, the People, have given it to him. He could announce to the world that the United States will NO LONGER present a deadly force to the nation and people of Iraq or Afghanistan, and will WITHDRAW said deadly force.
Who here feels secure enough in themselves not to need to oppress the free will another nation and people in order to feel “safe?”
This doesn’t mean that we put our heads in the sand, or curl our tails between our legs and become uninvolved in the peace process. It doesn’t mean that we withdraw our involvement from the area. It means that we’d celebrate the conception of peace as the new child of our time, and eagerly await and facilitate its birth, nourished by and with, love.
Replacing the military presence, the president could announce that the United States will make an INTELLECTUAL FORCE available to the nation of Iraq — if its PEOPLE so desire — to help it get on its feet and rebuild. If the people of Iraq choose not to have a KNOWLEDGE CORPS of Americans available to assist them in infrastructure planning and building, then so be it. We would respect their decision.
He has that power, as President of the United States, and as a loving human being.
The president can leave channels of communication open at all times, and wait for the Iraqi and Afghan people to ASK for constructive assistance, as opposed to our current strategy of unilaterally IMPOSING destructive “assistance”.
With all due respect to our military, the United States has a far greater, and abundant asset that can change the course of history: as a nation of people with the great capacity to be compassionate and LOVING.
The freedom of expression and tolerance that we have practiced for so many generations — not perfectly or fully, but more profoundly than any other nation, given our diversity — has allowed us to create a level of abundance and standard of living beyond compare, especially for a nation of our size.
There are nations with higher per capita income than America. But none have such a diversity of people, backgrounds, cultures, religions, and beliefs. America remains the benchmark, not only for freedom, but for its social ethos. No other nation has experienced as much freedom… even the freedom to disagree, as we have. We have prospered because of it. That is the power of love in action.
Who has the courage to love? It takes no courage to be fearful, and there is no real leadership being demonstrated when the “top guy” and his cronies are being directed by fear. There’s enough fear in the minions already. Our leader should demonstrate the courage to renounce destruction, and the will to transcend destructive, disruptive ways. This is the only way that our conscience is truly cleared.
Instead of trying to force the people of another country to give up the pursuit of something that we have, why don’t we remove the fear of impending doom that they are living under? This does not mean that we don’t continue developing methods and technologies that can neutralize nuclear material, or protect us from the effects of radiation. But we can certainly stop using depleted uranium materials in our weapons. We can stop “seeding” the atmosphere with more toxins, perhaps to the chagrin of the heads of pharmaceutical companies because their cancer drug sales will go down.
Love is the greatest power, and can heal the greatest wounds; the invisible ones of the heart. It begins at home… right where you and I sit, right now. The love we open ourselves up to and share, will travel to the ends of the universe, as well as next door, through our heartfelt willingness, and intent.
Give it a go.
2007 Vintage Reunion DVD Ships
Happily, I’ve completed the video for the 3rd Annual Vintage Reunion, which I shipped on DVD last Friday.
The main program runs 61 minutes. I added a second video comprised of 311 still images, and set to a music soundtrack of two performances from the 2006 KSBR Birthday Bash at San Juan Capistrano, California; one an opening performance by the all star band. The second was the performance by my friend, Marion Meadows.
The video is priced at $75 ($60 for Vintage Karting Association members), and has quite a few touching moments.
You can view a 3-minute trailer below:
Thoughts on War: As the Wheel of Grief Turns
This past week, 60 Minutes broadcast a story on the massacre of 24 Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha by four Marines led by 25 year old Staff Sargeant Frank Wuterich. Wuterich was charged with unpremeditated murder (killing without military justification), which will be decided by a military jury.
If anyone should have been in the seat, answering questions of responsibility his actions it would be President Bush, who is largely responsible for the conditions and policies that prompted Sgt. Wuterich to be in Iraq.
Unless someone forgot, Haditha was a war zone. Sgt. Wuterich’s company had just sustained a casualty; one of their Humvee’s had been blown up by a bomb embedded in the road that was detonated by remote control. While no gun was pointed at them, the driver, Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, was dead nonetheless.
Sgt. Wuterich, had immediately responded by killing five Iraqis who got out of a car that was in visual line of sight of the explosion, weren’t compliant, and had attempted to flee. He described the death scene:
“…basically a pile of flesh, in essence. That may be a sight I’ll never forget. He was missing one of his arms. His legs were completely severed from his body, but they were still attached because for some reason his Cami’s didn’t rip completely.”
The story goes on to say that Wuterich and the surviving soldiers, who were now under fire, eventually killed 19 more people, mostly men, but several women and children. They stormed two houses. Each time, they tossed a grenade first, then entered the space.
Sanctimoniously, 60 Minutes correspondent, Scott Pelley asks Wuterich the following question:
“Frank, help me understand. You’re in a residence, how do you crack a door open and roll a grenade into a room?”
I really wondered if Pelley was serious. This was not like taking a stroll on a street in peaceful suburbia, picking a home at random, breaking in and tossing a hand grenade. They were engaged in the War on Terror. They were seeking “victory”. They were “protecting American interests.”
How could Pelley seriously be asking a 25 year old why he did what he did, when a 60 year old, who ought to know better, is the one who insisted that we needed to send him?
How could what Sgt. Wuterich’s actions be labeled as murder, when President Bush’s were not?
While the president didn’t pull any triggers, or push any buttons that led to death, he argued for, and secured the means to provide the guns, bullets, bombs, and to divert national and world attention toward Iraq in an antagonistic way. He also had the power to direct attention in a conciliatory and diplomatic way, with cooperation from the world community, but did not have the patience for that, or simply didn’t think it was necessary.
The Sgt. faces imprisonment, whereas impeachment hasn’t even been considered for the President, much less any kind of criminal prosecution.
I’m not suggesting that President Bush should be impeached, or prosecuted. However, if he is not, then Sgt. Wuterich is certainly no more culpable. His choices are in a direct line of progression from the choices of our president. You could say that he could have sought certainty before opening fire on people who, under the cirumstances, might have been innocent. On the other hand, he and the rest of his men could have been killed. Then he would have been spotlighted on the ABC Evening News, as some of the 3200 who have given their life for freedom, and the president — still singing the same tune — would be seeking more troops to replace the ones who have fallen.
The wheel of grief keeps on turning.
War is not a win/lose event. It is a loss for all parties.
War as Yesterday’s Way: Not Today’s
Beingness and this Problem With Iraq
Do you think my inquiry into, and discussion about “who we are” is an intellectual exercise? Think again. Every action we take revolves around our self-understanding, or lack thereof. Our willingness to express the wisdom of our own conscience, or simply blend with the ideological herd that is public opinion, indicates the extent to which we will live an awakened and aware life, or go through the motions in a walking sleep.
Some people appear to be betting that we will never wake up.
We are now at the fourth anniversary of our occupation of Iraq, and 3200 American soldiers have given their life, not for our freedom, but for our president’s image. As of this writing, the body count of Iraqis killed since American occupation began is somewhere between 59,000 and 65,000 (Visit www.iraqbodycount.org). The British medical journal, Lancet estimates that over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed.
I find it fascinating that as obsessed as we are with statistics, there is NO official estimate of the number of Iraqi citizens killed. Worse yet, there has been no outrage about it.
None of this seems to have phased our president. He fancies himself as a protector of freedom and liberty, making America and the world safer, but it’s certainly not safer in Iraq, and it doesn’t feel safer in America. Yet, he asks for patience, more money, and more American troops, a percentage of whom will certainly give up their lives. In other words, he is asking these young men and women to give up something for him that he would not do for them. These are dear people, indeed.
Let’s be clear on this. The American soldiers who are fighting, killing, and being killed in Iraq, are not doing this because they want to. They’re doing it because they think they must. They think they must because our president thinks he must appear to be a bigger force than his enemy, who must either be subdued, or eliminated. Yet, he takes umbrage with the Iraqis who feel they must defend themselves by fighting back, or be eliminated.
This is a big mistake on both sides because while we’re posturing, putting more people in harms way, killing the rest, and further destablizing the social fabric in both lands, no one is talking about peace. While this may not be the true intent of Iraqi extremists, I suspect that peace is what the majority of the Iraqi people want. It is certainly what the majority of Americans want.
Americans who have become more vocal for peace, know that peace is not a natural outcrop of the president’s strategy, not when we have become as much a source and symbol of repression, death, and destruction as the home grown suicide bombers. They’ve GOT to be tired of their own people blowing up their own.
I imagine that there are some mercenaries operating in the region who are in it for the thrill, but I’m sure that for most American soldiers, surviving one suicide bombing experience, or mortar attack, is more than enough of a “thrill.”
The president’s concern for the American troops that have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan goes as far as getting them enough bullets, body armour, and gadgetry to help them think that they’ll be able to kill and maim others without getting killed or maimed themselves, just like the slash and burn, death and destruction video games many of them grew up playing.
Heck, the president himself is operating under the same mindset. He promotes and fosters policies that keep the incindiary rhetoric and posturing going, giving some nut case a reason to raise the stakes. I believe the president believes he’s doing what’s best for the country. However, he is not. And most people close to him fear his power too much, or actually believe that there is a “gain” for America by continuing along this path, to tell him the truth.
The president wants to hold out for “victory,” but not for peace. Why? Because his approach won’t bring peace. So “victory” means more deaths… of Iraqis, Afghans, Iranis, and Americans. “Victory” means more toxic saturation of the land, and ultimately, poisoning of the people. We’re not counting such things anyway, so it doesn’t matter. ”Victory” means an increased sense of inevitability that someone is going to be pissed enough, and their heart broken enough, to not give a damn about the millions of innocent Americans our president is claiming to care for while not giving a damn about the millions of Iraqis who are being put in harms way today. This is the spiral our president has embroiled us in. It can be stopped, but not by force. It can be stopped through the power of love.
There’s nothing like peace. Peace is not the absence of fighting. Peace is the absence of wanting to fight, or needing to, in order to validate one’s particular way. That’s the power of love at work. If we are truly for peace, we’ll explore peaceful means of interaction and adjudication of legitimate grievances. It’ll also mean we’ll be willing to respect, hear, and make restitution for the grievances we’ve caused for others (heaven forbid!).
Peace involves forgiveness. Even if others are unwilling to forgive us, we’ll forgive them, for forgiveness clears our conscience, frees us of agendas, and makes room for freedom to flourish. We can set an example that challenges our enemies to actually hear the caustic tone of their rhetoric when it’s not returned by equally caustic utterances by us.
There is much that we can offer Iraq that would prove to be a “win/win” situation for them, if they were willing to pursue it. If we let them know in no uncertain terms, that we are NOT interested in taking over their country or destroying its people by standing down our weapons and ordering a withdrawal of deadly force, it would remove a very large distraction from Iraq. Right now, we are simply convenient targets of hatred.
The president should not fear what happens if we pull out of Iraq. He should show confidence in the Iraqi people to determine their own destiny since we removed one of our political puppets. He should show confidence in American intelligence and ingenuity to keep our country safe. He should demonstrate a commitment to not continue throwing expensive gasoline and money on an already intense political fire in the Middle East. In this way, he would garner more support from the world community. More importantly, his priorities will be seen to be in order by the people at home. Right now, more and more Americans are waking up to the fact that they’re simply out of whack.
Feedback