Iraq's Refugees Ask: 'What Is Our Future?' (by Sister Simone Campbell)
I was in Lebanon and Syria in January and saw up close the agony of the war.
In Damascus, young Iraqi refugees have created a youth choir at the Good Shepherd Center. After singing for us, many came forward to tell us their stories. One young woman told us of fleeing with her father and disabled brother after being threatened in a town near Baghdad. The family thought it was most dangerous for the disabled child and thought that the 15-year-old daughter could act as a mother to him. Now they are worried because the mother and other children are in constant danger.
An 18-year-old spoke of coming with his mother, who has cancer. His father is still in Iraq and is working to support the mother and son in Syria. They are hoping to be able to relocate to a third country, but they have already been waiting over a year and his mother is getting sicker. He does not know what will happen to them.
The Iraqi chorus leader told us that they come together to try to learn from each others' suffering, both when they were in Iraq and now in Syria. He told us, "We smile, but inside our hearts we suffer in our own way. Jesus told us to love one another, but also we must ask what is next. What is our future? We want a solution to two problems—our having to leave AND the reason for leaving…the war. We were born free but now we do not have the freedom to make our own solutions."
It is with these words echoing in my mind and heart that I know we must respond to the needs of the refugees. We as a nation can do better than admitting fewer than 6,000 refugees in five years. We can welcome in those who have been displaced by this war.
AND we must work to end the violence in Iraq. We need to build peace through international involvement. We must end the U.S. occupation, internationalize a peacekeeping force, and have a surge of diplomacy both internally in Iraq and in the region. Only by changing our policy and tactics will these victims of the war have any freedom to make their own solutions. We must act now.
Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby, is a religious leader, attorney, and poet with extensive experience in public policy and advocacy for systemic change. In Washington, she lobbies on issues of peace building and economic justice. In January, she was a member of a delegation of eight Catholic Sisters sponsored by Catholic Relief Services who traveled to Lebanon and Syria to meet with Iraqi refugees, Christian and Islamic leaders, representatives of religious and civil NGOs, U.S. diplomatic personnel, a Syrian Parliament Member, and UNHCR regional representatives.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Timely (relavant) article in BBC online today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7262658.stm
I remember hearing firsthand the wrenching experiences of a (now) friend of mine who survived the first Gulf war and lived in a refugee camp with her family for five years.
I wonder if the enthusiasm for war in some quarters would be dampened somewhat if only they knew what the experience of war is - rather than the videogame media coverage of "smart bombs" and surgical missile strikes that seem to characterize the public consciousness of what war is.
Posted by: splinterlog | February 25, 2008 5:32 PM
'I wonder if the enthusiasm for war in some quarters would be dampened somewhat if only they knew what the experience of war is -"
Maybe , but I missed being in any war , or have I served in any service , and I sure don't have any enthusiasm for it . I love John Wayne movies and books that show the 'historical" perspective .
I have heard of some soldiers enlisting just so they could go or go back to iraq also . Obviously the video game syndrome is not causing that. From what I understand an American soldier in Iraq is constantly under an anxiety state of being , I guess when they are in their base they can relax somewhat . This from talking with men who have been in situations where they were required to go out on patrols .
I can not imagin though being a parent and trying to take care of my family in an envirnoment like that . I hope I am wrong , but this appears to be a hopeless situation .
Posted by: Mick | February 25, 2008 7:47 PM
Aren't these some of the folks we've liberated and brought democracy to.
Posted by: George De Vries, Jr. | February 25, 2008 8:45 PM
I'll tell you, I repent for ever having believed that mixing up the logjam in the Middle East by throwing a little war on it, hoping that anything would be an improvement, and believing war would do it. That was the neo-con conceit.
HOW WRONG I WAS.
And how others have suffered immeasurably - while I and others who gave our approval to this "non-plan" live relatively unscathed, if in looming financial straits.
We made it worse instead of better.
If Iraq could hold a referendum on our nice little war, sort of like the 1980 election question, where Reagan asked Americans, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" the vote would be about like we're gonna see later this year as the financial situation for most of us deteriorates badly.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | February 25, 2008 9:38 PM
It always makes me cringe, when well meaning people who want to make a difference, get all fuzzy when it comes to "solutions" to problems. The proposed "solution" to Iraq's violence was to "internationalize" the "occupation". There isn't really an occupation. The coalition forces there are not there to subjugate the Iraqi people to an outside force. They are acting to defend tehm AGAINST that outside force.
What diplomacy can you possibly conduct to improve Iraq? Who would you negotiate with? What purpose does it serve to negotiate with someone who has no intention of agreeing to anything, and not honoring any convention or rule or treaty? And that someone is extra-state, extra-national, and has no cohesive organization? When the people who you would have to negotiate with are internationally wanted criminals?
Iran wants to continue Iraq's destabilization. Syria is determined to re-take Lebanon.
Two terrorist organizations are at war with each other to control the Palestinians, and nobody is even talking about getting rid of either... Instead, the moves seem to be confirming the legitemacy of two criminal terrorist organizations, and then allowing one to rule.
Of course NONE of this has any particular relevance to people who, for whatever particular reason, are refugees from Iraq. Nor does it address the millions who left Iraq before the war.
Sadly, it appears that Sister Simone Campbell has ended up with her strings being pulled by the very people who want the problems to continue - Syria, Iran, and the friendly lobbies in DC, and many of the charities are dancing to the tune of the people causing the very problems they are seeking to alleviate.
Again, none of this actually matters all that much... what really matters is what to DO. Sadly, it appears that the only real solution is to continue to win in Iraq, and right now, Iraq has almost no friends, everyone wanting failure there.
Posted by: The Watcher | February 25, 2008 9:45 PM
they could go or go back to iraq also
I do as well. In fact I know a soldier who returned to Iraq as a contractor because he couldn't bear the thought of returning to civilian life as nobody minimum wage earner (untrained except for the military) when he could be making over 100,000K as a contractor. So it's a bit more complicated than that.
Btw I was speaking of the public here as opposed to soldiers over there, who are all too familiar with the reality of war.
Posted by: aplinterlog | February 25, 2008 10:24 PM
Dear Watcher,
in response to your paragraphs:
1. Partly right. Not formally an occupation, but in practice it might as well be.
2. Good point re who would you negotiate with. It is certain not to be easy, but unless your alternative is to kill everyone, then the difficult process of negotiation must be pursued.
3. Completely false.
4. Perceivably true, but only if you perceive them as terrorist organisations. It can be seen your way or Hamas etc can be recognised as legitimate political organisations (or they can be both).
5. True.
6. Most probably entirely false. I appreciate a good conspiracy theory as much as the next Grisham fan, but your claims are baseless.
7. Nonsensical statement. Circular logic makes your argument preposterous. If the only solution is to win, then return to your point early about whom would you negotiate with (from paragraph two) and ask instead, who would you win against? If the US are to win this war, who do they need to beat? Is there a clear enemy?
So you score maybe three out of seven. Better luck next time.
Posted by: Trent | February 25, 2008 11:13 PM
"...the only real solution is to continue to win in Iraq..."
Yeah, it was all good, it's all good and it will all be good.
Keep on keepin' on.
Stay the course.
As Good Ole Uncle Joe (so our propaganda posters told us and you know our government would never lie to us), our onetime ally liked to point out, "You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs."
Or revolutions without smashing heads.
Ka-boom, as War Jeeze likes to say, and I prey.
That's oil folks.
Posted by: Da Prez | February 26, 2008 1:38 AM
"So it's a bit more complicated than that. "
Oh I realize that , that is why I was bringing up the other view , people who give up making much money and go back their because they actually believe in the mission . I don't agree with them , but I respect them and their motives are not based in profit or will I say they are gullible pawns .
Aren't these some of the folks we've liberated and brought democracy to.
Posted by: George De Vries, Jr
Most of the folks who had decent jobs and means of making a living left iraq after the regime of Sadam fell . Interesting the media never showed us those pictures . Were they not doing their job or just out of the loop ?
Posted by: Mick | February 26, 2008 1:46 AM
Mick, many of the people who were "prosperous" at least in relative terms, in Iraq under Saddam were either party activists, or at least important to Saddam or the Baath party.
Many of them left due either fear of arrest, or fear of retaliation (whether they did anything to deserve it or not isn't the point) If you were Baath, you were personna non grata for quite a while.
Posted by: The Watcher | February 26, 2008 12:18 PM
Thanks Watcher . Which I guess made the transfer of power even worse . The folks set up with the good jobs left , leaving a gap .
One good thing happened is the information is more diverse the people get . My son's friend who served in Iraq told me it was really weird seeing all these old homes with these Direct Tv Satelites on top . Sadam was quite the censor and the people really grabbed at the chance for uncensored TV .
Anyway , who knows ,there is hope for the future , maybe a generation of Gigilian island reruns may help .
Posted by: Mick | February 26, 2008 1:24 PM
Watcher: "The coalition forces there are not there to subjugate the Iraqi people to an outside force. They are acting to defend tehm AGAINST that outside force."
Paul Newman in "Cool Hand Luke": "Wish you'd stop bein' so good to me, cap'n."
Posted by: carl copas | February 26, 2008 2:42 PM
"Aren't these some of the folks we've liberated and brought democracy to."
If only our brain-trust in Washington would have cared enough to know even the most recent history of Iraq. Like, didn't they ever wonder why those borders do not follow any natural boundaries - why so much of it is a straight line?
Britain and France carved up the Ottoman Empire into separate "nations" in such a way that there would always be dissent within their borders. So, Iraq contains a lot of Sunnis, a lot of Shiites, and a lot of Kurds. The inner turmoil would make it very difficult for that nation to ever rise to power again. The only way "peace" could exist would be if a strong-man were to rule.
And so it's no surprise we ended up with a guy like Saddam. Take him away and what to you get?
Posted by: Bud | February 26, 2008 5:06 PM
You know, some day some government somewhere might decide it wants to liberate us! From our militaristic government, from our sexual immorality, from our big old socialist welfare state, whatever. And I would imagine that the good citizens of that government will spend long hours debating whether or not they've made our lives better after killing us.
Posted by: I and I | February 26, 2008 5:45 PM
You know, some day some government somewhere might decide it wants to liberate us! From our militaristic government, from our sexual immorality, from our big old socialist welfare state, whatever. And I would imagine that the good citizens of that government will spend long hours debating whether or not they've made our lives better after killing us.
We're already so deeply mired and enslaved to state support and redistribution, that it may not be possible to free ourselves by any other means than revolution. Sadly, there's lots of decent and fine people who see dedendency and slavery to government as the defnition of Christian politics, and the the height of morality. Lots of them are posting here. They continue to state that we must return to "christian" political values, which they then define as the welfare state - which is gauranteed to further enslave us.
Posted by: The Watcher | February 26, 2008 10:11 PM
Paul Newman in "Cool Hand Luke": "Wish you'd stop bein' so good to me, cap'n."
The vast majority of Iraqis now realize who is their enemy, and it was never us.
Polls tend to reflect people's emotions... And Iraqis tend to poll wishing that we were gone. I suspect they far more wish that the reason for our presence was gone - the terrorism that plagues them.
This will be a long road. There's no panacea for teaching self government and wise decisionmaking. Heck, this country has lots of liberals... proving that some just never learn wisdom and use emotion instead for thier whole lives.
Posted by: The Watcher | February 26, 2008 10:16 PM
"This will be a long road."
Long Road Out of Eden
Posted by: I said it, I believe it, that oughta settle it | February 26, 2008 10:32 PM
"The vast majority of Iraqis now realize who is their enemy, and it was never us." The Watcher a/k/a Mark
That statement is about on par with John McCain's statement of how secure he felt on his trip to Baghdad. Sure he felt secure with many armed guards around and helicopters buzzing overhead.
Posted by: JamesMartin | February 26, 2008 11:49 PM
Britain and France carved up the Ottoman Empire into separate "nations" in such a way that there would always be dissent within their borders. So, Iraq contains a lot of Sunnis, a lot of Shiites, and a lot of Kurds. The inner turmoil would make it very difficult for that nation to ever rise to power again. The only way "peace" could exist would be if a strong-man were to rule.
Peace? That's not peace. There has been NO peace anywhere in the Middle East for a LONG time.
Peace requires the rule of just law, justice, and freedom of conscience. Take anyway any of those, and peace simply doesn't exist.
Peace it is not the absence of organized military conflict, there was no peace under Saddam. The silly chanters reciting "Give peace a chance" failed to grasp that it absolutely requires not a lack of military conflict, but the presence of freedom, justice, and a sense of security by the individual.
Posted by: The Watcher | February 27, 2008 12:27 AM
I wonder if the enthusiasm for war in some quarters would be dampened somewhat if only they knew what the experience of war is - rather than the videogame media coverage of "smart bombs" and surgical missile strikes that seem to characterize the public consciousness of what war is.
The only "enthusiasm" for war ever shown by anyone comes from the terrorists themselves.
Posted by: The Watcher | February 27, 2008 12:30 AM
"You know, some day some government somewhere might decide it wants to liberate us! From our militaristic government, from our sexual immorality, from our big old socialist welfare state, whatever. And I would imagine that the good citizens of that government will spend long hours debating whether or not they've made our lives better after killing us."
Posted by: I and I | February 26, 2008 5:45 PM
_________________________________________________
This is an awesome insight into the possibilities that exist for our future, and a rare look at what others may precieve our situation to be.
This hypothetical is interlaced with a tremendous amount of truth. Way to go I and I.
Maybe the best quote I've seen on this site!
Posted by: Doug | February 27, 2008 9:24 AM
Watcher: "The only "enthusiasm" for war ever shown by anyone comes from the terrorists themselves."
And I in turn will give Watcher credit for an insightful statement. I agree with this indictment of thousands of Americans.
Posted by: I and I | February 27, 2008 1:02 PM
And I in turn will give Watcher credit for an insightful statement. I agree with this indictment of thousands of Americans.
And I in turn will note that I and I is unable to grasp what a "terrorist" is, and that the terrorists in Iraq are not wearing a US Military uniform.
Posted by: The Watcher | February 28, 2008 3:53 AM
And in reciprocation I will note that Watcher must be engaging in willful blindness or shameless disingenuity when he writes that no Americans whatsoever have shown any enthusiasm for this war.
Posted by: I and I | February 28, 2008 8:51 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?