A Responsible Withdrawal From Iraq (by Andrew Wilkes)
Recently, I participated in a conference call based on a report from The Task Force For A Responsible Withdrawal From Iraq. The report argued that the United States can and should do the following: quickly withdraw American military forces from Iraq, "carefully pursue diplomatic remedies for the Iraq crisis," and "generously give to help rebuild Iraq in the long run." For the policy wonks, the report offers twenty-five proposals which are subdivided into five sections. For those desiring something more concise, there is also an executive summary.
I understood that the report would be the what, or the content of our conversation, but I also wondered: Why is yet another foreign policy discussion about Iraq important?
During the call, Congressman James McGovern, a Democrat representative from Massachusetts and influential voice in the discussion, provided a response. He stated, "people who have been consistently anti-war have a responsibility to lead the conversation on how to get out of Iraq." Although he did not direct his comments specifically to the faith community, his words nonetheless extend an urgent challenge to those who prophesy for peace.
Perhaps it is no longer enough to inquire about the coordinates of weapons of mass destruction and argue, as Steven Simon does in The Price of the Surge, that the surge reduced violence while also reducing the possibility of a "stable, unitary Iraq." Even as we emulate the prophet Jeremiah and weep for 4,000 dead American soldiers and 83,000 dead Iraqi non-combatants, Congressman McGovern reminds us that we can--and perhaps must--do more. Perhaps the prophetic task is not only to critique what went wrong, but to provide a vision of how things can go right, a vision of how we can responsibly withdraw from Iraq. Perhaps, to borrow an image from Jim Wallis, prophetic voices for peace can "change the winds" of foreign policy discussion and help create a climate for politicians to pursue sustainable peace in Iraq. Perhaps.
Andrew Wilkes is a policy and organizing intern at Sojourners. He is currently pursuing a Masters of Divinity degree at Princeton Theological Seminary.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
During the call, Congressman James McGovern, a Democrat representative from Massachusetts and influential voice in the discussion, provided a response. He stated, "people who have been consistently anti-war have a responsibility to lead the conversation on how to get out of Iraq." Although he did not direct his comments specifically to the faith community, his words nonetheless extend an urgent challenge to those who prophesy for peace.
I can recall saying similar things myself months ago on this very blog. The peace lobby has been making demands for an immediate pullout without bothering to say how that could be done without plunging Iraq into an even worse civil war.
I'm not saying I'm buying into this particular plan; I think it has some internal contradictions and serious problems, but at least somebody is trying to deal with the problems and put a proposal on the table.
This opens up a possibility for the debate over Iraq to move beyond prophetic posturing and evolve into a mature discussion of actual conditions in Iraq and how to improve them. It's about time.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | July 8, 2008 4:03 PM
I heard on the radio this morning that Iraqi prime minister Maliki is calling for the US to develop a timetable for withdrawing troops. Does anyone know anything about this?
Posted by: Don | July 8, 2008 4:15 PM
I saw a similar news report Don. I think this is one of the best possible solutions to the current situation. If the Iraqi government demands that the U.S. leave then 1) the U.S. will have to honor their request or lend credence to the "occuption" accusation and 2) what happens once the U.S. leaves will be the responsibility of the Iraqis and not the U.S.
I agree with Wilkes and Wolverine that it's good we're moving beyond the "Bush Lied; People Died" and "stay the course" phase of the Iraq War debate.
Posted by: Eric | July 8, 2008 4:50 PM
Honestly, there are no good solutions in the long run. "Stay the course" seems to result in things dragging on forever. A withdrawal would end up permitting a full-scale civil war among Iraqis. Whether that would happen or not, we don't really know. But a full withdrawal would at least deprive people there of a bogeyman to blame everything on. The Iraqis can and do have the responsibility for fixing up their own country.
Posted by: Ngchen | July 8, 2008 5:10 PM
I agree with Wilkes and Wolverine that it's good we're moving beyond the "Bush Lied; People Died" and "stay the course" phase of the Iraq War debate.
I also agree.
Something else could occur. Such a move beyond the accusation and finger-pointing phase might render the presidential candidates' views on Iraq academic. In other words, it could take the Iraq war away as a political issue. The economy, of course, is already doing this, so this effort might accelerate the move to domestic concerns as the central campaign issues.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | July 8, 2008 5:17 PM
Bush is a killer and must be tried as criminal. We did not (and do not) have a right to bomb another country. Iraq could not have been a threat to the U.S. as it couldn't even get by with an attack on Kuwait, right next door to Iraq. The U. S. has more weapons of mass destruction than the whole world combined. No one should blame Iran, or any other country, for wanting to develop weapons so as to defend themselves. We should get out of Iraq ASAP, as it is not our duty to provide police protection in Iraq!!!!!!!! By the way, we should be getting free oil from Iraq and Kuwait, and should not be providing any monies to either country.
Posted by: Just me | July 8, 2008 5:47 PM
Wolverine: "This opens up a possibility for the debate over Iraq to move beyond prophetic posturing and evolve into a mature discussion of actual conditions in Iraq and how to improve them.
Eric: "I agree with Wilkes and Wolverine that it's good we're moving beyond the "Bush Lied; People Died" and "stay the course" phase of the Iraq War debate."
Don: "I also agree."
Clearly there is some common ground to be found between disparate viewpoints on the war. Any ideas on how we, as citizens of both the U.S. and the Kingdom, might proceed?
Posted by: carl copas | July 8, 2008 5:47 PM
The report looks like a responsible enterprise and a good starting-point. (Though I'd have liked to see a couple of other things in there - voluntary reparations by the attacking nations, and in time an international truth and reconciliation commission)
meurig
Posted by: meurig | July 8, 2008 7:40 PM
Finding common ground between disparate viewpoints on the war is a good thing. Bush & Cheney are still war criminals, however, and this cannot be forgotten.
Posted by: Quetzal | July 8, 2008 9:11 PM
"generously give to help rebuild Iraq in the long run"
I believe that is currently being done. At least that is what the democratic commedian that is running for Senate in MN says. He is PO that we are spending money over there on rebuilding Iraq when the money should only be spent here. I guess he did get the memo. (lol)
people who have been consistently anti-war have a responsibility to lead the conversation on how to get out of Iraq."
Wouldn't that be like putting the people who only believe that God should be the 'great physician' and not go to doctors or hospitals incharge of health care? I believe for the most part those that have the best education should be the ones that call the shots. Those that have been involved in the situation should be the ones to bring it to closure.
It was only when Germany was brought to it's knees that the would community was able to come along side and help them rebuid a nation that could join in and make the world a better place. It was only after Japan's Warlords conceeded to surender that help from all around the world was able to rebuild them into a contributing partner. The worst thing that can be done is to exit too early and without finishing the job in Iraq. If we do we will be doomed to repeat it again.
When you go into armed conflict you have to go to win.
As I posted on a previous thread. More of our millitary and state dept personnel were killed and murdered during 8 years of Pres. Clinton than in the 7+ years of Pres. Bush. They were at war with US and the west - we just didn't know it or Pres Clinton refused to see or admit it.
Looks like we are safe at war with Radicals and to try to talk and apease them.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | July 8, 2008 9:17 PM
Posted by: Quetzal | July 8, 2008 9:11 PM
Bush & Cheney are still war criminals, however, and this cannot be forgotten.
Thanks for making sure that this issue was brought forward again. It would not be Sojo if it was for people like you who still wear their 'Bush Lied - People Died' buttons.
Let's us remember that the Congress had the same intel that the Pres had and even Hillary admitted that she did not take the time to read it.
The next 4 years could be very interesting
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | July 8, 2008 10:07 PM
Although I completely agree that the war in Iraq is unjustified, we must also understand that recently (as in our current year) the situation in Iraq has improven considerably. However, keep in mind that Iraq's state is still very delicate and the Iraqi people live in fear everyday for their lives. However, right now the tide is turning to the American side as many Muslims who are angry with Al-Qaeda (for killing several Muslims) have now switched over to the American side. The troop surge of General Petraeus has helped reduce violence of the insurgencies - although there is still lots more work to be done as Iraqi life is fragile and dangerous - but on a brighter note, the country will not be in anarchy forever. The new Iraqi president has a unique position for Iraq's autonomy, one that does not agree with the United States nor Iran - something that is very important.
Right now, it is important that we help maintain Iraq's stability due to the insurgency of Al-Qaeda forces who have established bases in Iraq after the U.S invasion. This is in no way used to support the 2003 invasion , but right now most of us conclude that the Invasion of Iraq will be one of the greatest blunder in American history. That's not important right now - what's important is that Iraq becomes a stable for their people.
Both John McCain and Obama need to be flexible with their policies. Obama's weakness is that he is riding the wave of populism in that most of the American people are against the war and he has proposed a 16 month withdrawal plan - neither candidate should politicize the war nor propose time limits to appeal to their constituency. Perhaps 16 months will be appropriate if the situation continues to improve, but like I said, flexibility is the key. Although most of the world will be happy with us if we leave right now, when all hell breaks loose years down the road b/c we withdrew indefinitely, the U.S will be at fault again.
The title is true, we need a responsible withdrawal from Iraq - one that ensures stability for the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government.
We've failed once - we cannot fail twice.
Posted by: Drew | July 9, 2008 2:36 AM
Moderatelad said; "As I posted on a previous thread. More of our millitary and state dept personnel were killed and murdered during 8 years of Pres. Clinton than in the 7+ years of Pres. Bush."
I don't know where those numbers come from, but you are skipping the 1/2 million dead Iraqi citizens. Some say that number is less, some say more. Please let us know where those numbers come from. I'm not accusing you of anything, it's just that the more I read about Pres Clinton, the less I like him (or his wife).
And from Moderatelad; "Let's us remember that the Congress had the same intel that the Pres had and even Hillary admitted that she did not take the time to read it.
You mean the same "adjusted" intel that came from Cheneys Office of Special Plans? Cherry picked data with most of the truth, or at least any dissenting opinions taken out. Don't forget, it has been proven by the Freedom of Information Act that Dick C. and his oil exec. buddies planned how to divide up Iraq by the oil fields in the spring of 2001, BEFORE 9/11. Oh Yeah, the Office of Special Plans is still open for business. they are just going through their old documents about Iraq and changing the q to an N.
NGChen said; "Honestly, there are no good solutions in the long run. "Stay the course" seems to result in things dragging on forever. A withdrawal would end up permitting a full-scale civil war among Iraqis."
You are right on both counts, and it depends on who you ask. Since we have built the worlds largest embassy there, and roughly 40 other permenant bases, I would say the White House planned to stay. Personally I think Dick Cheney should be in Abu Grahib prison, but that's just me.
Posted by: Paul W. | July 9, 2008 7:50 AM
Paul W. - Are you saying that the only intelligence Congress had access to was that which was filtered through the White House? Do you mean they couldn't get intelligence estimates and information directly from inteliigence agencies?
Posted by: Eric | July 9, 2008 9:00 AM
Posted by: Paul W. | July 9, 2008 7:50 AM
As for the info about the people killed - that figure does not include the Iraqi people. That firgure has been so bastardized over the past few years it will be a long time before we know anything definite. All I know that the number of lives lost is far less than what Saddam murdered and at least now they have a hope for a better life in the future for them and their children that they never had under Saddam.
'...the same "adjusted" intel that...'
All intel is adjusted - you don't give out raw data. It always is looked and anaylized against other intel so that you have a better picture. As for your comments about the VP - have not heard that on CNN and Network News. If it was true I believe that we would still be making it news and Rather would be digging or creating more evidence for the story.
Just heard that several of our armed forces just returned from the Bulkins after their replacements arrived. Did't the Clinton Gore White House promised we would be out by Christmas of the year of invasion? We are still there - why? Can't the UN forces handle it?
Blessings -
.
Posted by: moderatelad | July 9, 2008 9:14 AM
the war is over. we won. our troops will start returning soon. oil production is already at prewar levels. and 550 tons of yellow cake have made it to canada from iraq. roger
Posted by: roger | July 9, 2008 11:02 AM
Oh, yeah. Those who were irresponsible by falsely getting us into this quagmire, now have no responsibility for getting us out.
Not. Their. Problem.
Only those who point out that the emperor has no clothes are somehow solely responsible for getting him dressed from the curb they were left behind at by his retinue of obsequious self-serving hangers-on.
Please.
It may be that the delusional may be incurably incapable of any change whatsoever - staying the course, as it were - but that doesn't mean they can relinquish their miserable responsibility for so many nakedly unmitigated disasters.
That said, those responsible for having failed so gloriously will needs be replaced by wiser souls with the capacity for pragmatism, a sheer necessity for the future survival of our nation.
You can't lead, you can't follow logic, so pleaee, get out of the way.
Posted by: Pragmatic Conservative | July 9, 2008 12:21 PM
Here is the web address for the Congressional Research Service's report on American War and Military Operations and Casualties (as of May 14, 2008: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
The report provides the numbers of military personnel killed/injured/missing in various wars and under various presidencies.
Posted by: judithod | July 9, 2008 3:22 PM
A couple of thoughts:
I worry about the idea that "those who are anti-war have a responsibility to lead the conversation on how we get out of Iraq." That's like saying people who are against gun ownership have to be able to perform surgery to save gunshot victims before their stance can be considered "consistent" or "responsible." It's a false dilemma. You can be anti-war without being able to constantly get pro-war folks out of the messes they get themselves into because they ignored you in the first place. When I tell you not to drink and drive, that doesn't mean I know how to save you when you wrap yourself around a tree at 80 MPH.
Because those who have no moral problem with the use of violence did things their way, those of us who are against violence in all forms have to be crystal clear about the fact that our ways of "getting out of Iraq" have something in common with the pro-violence (sorry, I can't think of a way to say "someone who is not against violence" in a succinct way without it sounding inflamatory, apologies for the caricature) methods: people are probably going to get killed in the process, and the irony is that *that* will be used by pro-violence folks to try to discredit any solution offered up by us anti-war folks.
This doesn't mean the nonviolent shouldn't do their best to offer solutions to the current crisis...it's just a commentary on the way those suggestions will be received and judged.
Posted by: DC | July 9, 2008 6:54 PM
'Responsible'? We went in irresponsibly. In the day of Vietnam I was asked 'How can we leave Vietnam?'I answered 'Get a whole bunch of ships and planes together,load the troops on, and bring them home.' In fact this was how we did leave Vietnam. I predict this is ultimately, sooner or later, leave Iraq– in 2012, or 2016… Unfortunately I have a really good record on this sort of prediction…
Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | July 9, 2008 7:54 PM
Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | July 9, 2008 7:54 PM
We had no other choice than to turn tail and run from V.N.
Teddy Kennedy and Co. and so dismantled the Paris Agreement and taken the funding away from our responsibility to South V.N. - we had no other choice. Teddy took the candy away from the baby and then slapped the mother for the baby not having any candy. You got to love a liberal like that - they can steal the money from the collection plate and blame the congregation for not giving enought money.
America is the last great hope - but I believe in the future we will sit on our back-sides and let the world go to hell. I know that I am going to support that because that is what Harry and Nancy adovacate. Love those two - poster children for any cause that will make conservatives look back, even if it is not true.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | July 9, 2008 8:03 PM
Everybody thinks they're the indispensable one, l'etat c'est moi.
Calling yourself "the last best hope" is just self-serving tripe about Manifest Destiny, the prideful stars'n'stripes version of "The White Man's Burden."
My Wall Street friends told me it didn't matter if we didn't make anything anymore because we had the financial markets so gamed that the foreigners would always have to come to us and we'd take our profits off the top.
I guess that was their last best hope.
As for Viet Nam, revisionism is fun whether it's the Holocaust you're forgetting or just about any inconvenient truth, including the colonial domination of French Indochina. The Vietnamese thought they were going to be free from French colonialism after World War II and even cloned their own Declaration of Independence from Tom Jefferson's.
They believed that America would be their ally for all that. What they failed to realise is that America was never freed from colonialism - the Declaration was one of civil war by Britons against Britons over who would hold control of what had been seized from the indigenous. And as Samuel Johnson questioned at the time, "Why do we hear the loudest yelps for liberty from slave drivers?"
America's poltical elites found European blood thicker than watering freedom for gooks. Thus, with colonialism faltering all over, as MArtin Luther King put it, America came down on the wrong side of history and created yet another of its own enemies.
If only someone had been truer even to our flawed founders' admonishment not to become involved in foreign entanglements nor allow the executive to trample over Congress' war making powers as has occurred ever since then.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | July 10, 2008 1:01 AM
the last best hope
it is from Bennets book and he atributes it to Lincoln.
VN was a French problem from the begining. When WWII broke out and they had to pull back to protect the homeland - the French refused to join the allies unless it was agree upon they could return to indochina after the war. France is a 2nd rate country with a 3rd rate mentality in my book.
So after the French in the south fighting the Communist in the north pulled out. Ike sent advisors over to 'advise' them on keeping the south free from communist rule. Ike told Kennedy not to get involved any further than just advising - guess he lost that memo.
So - John Kennedy was the first to put troups on the ground. Johnson escalated the war to the point of 1 million us troups and refused to attack in stratgic areas in the north that would have shortened the war. Johnson and the Dem. Congress faught the war based on 'proportional response' that only caused the war to linger on and on.
Nixon ended the war - he took too long but he did end it. Then the Dem controled congress lead by Teddy Kennedy and Co. stripped the Paris accords of all that the US was responsible for so that when the north broke the agreement and I believe that even Teddy knew that they would. The US had nothing they could do because the congress had made it so that we couldn't.
Now for some reason VN is the fault of the Rep. - I am not sure how that works but again I think the major networks were very 'Ratherized' even back then.
Congress had more to do with VN than any war in the history of the US - what a failure.
Gulf War I - we were in and out in record time and Congress was on the sidelines and that pissed them off.
This was is nothing like any war prior but the Dems still feel that it should be faught conventionally - it can not.
Some of the most ardent voices for peace come from career military people as they totally understand the cost. I that regard Code Pink is clueless.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | July 10, 2008 8:04 AM
Johnson lied to get Congress to pass the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, so the escalation was built upon deceit.
Insanity is repeating the same behavior over and over again and expecting a differing outcome nevertheless.
It doesn't matter at all whether it's liberals or neocons or Republicans or Democrats doing it - the results will still be fatal.
America is NOT "the last best hope of mankind" - that is idolatry.
Neither Coca Cola, Wall Street or General Motors can save the world.
The sooner we get over our "Manifest Destiny" nonsense and accept that we are made up of human beings who are no more saints than any others in the world, the sooner we will begin to act responsibly.
The only "army of one" to place our trust in is Jesus.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | July 10, 2008 9:05 AM
Posted by: N.M. Rod | July 10, 2008 9:05 AM
The only "army of one" to place our trust in is Jesus.
No argument on this one.
So - we should never deploye our military regardless of the situation?
Gulf War I went well as far as I can tell. We followed the UN madedate to get Saddam out of Kuait and we did.
WWII - I believe we made the world a better place for being involved.
Should we just bring all our military home and only protect the homeland and the rest of the world can fight all they want and we will not get involved? I can work with that.
Diplomacy - sure, just as long as those we send out are safe in the country they go to because we will not have a military presence off our shores. I guess we could work the rest through the UN - they do so well on other issues around the world - don't they?
I am speaking tongue in cheek a little - but this could be different.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | July 10, 2008 10:00 AM
Posted by: N.M. Rod | July 10, 2008 9:05 AM
Johnson lied to get Congress to pass the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, so the escalation was built upon deceit.
I never read this in the books. My accessment is that Johnson was working under a poor paradyme - proportional response - which makes no sence. Although I think that Nancy and Harry still believe that this is the way to wage war.
My perspective is that if the situation has so deteriorated that they only option left is armed conflict. You go out and 'win' the was. Hit them fast and hard and eliminate their ability to counter attack. Take out their airforce - navy - ability to produce and supply their military. The faster you do that the least ammount of lives on both sides are lost. Proportional just causes the war to last longer and has a greater loss of life on both sides as well as civilian.
Goldwater - if memory serves told the American people that he was going to put 250,000 troups in VN, advance the war and fight it in the north. Johnson and the dems call him a hawk, war monger etc. Years later - almost a million troups involved in VN under Pres Johnson and the war was still waging when Pres Nixon took office.
Johnson did over time what Goldwater wanted to do from the get-go. I believe had Goldwater been Pres. the war would have been over within a few years - not a decade later and the loss of American lives would have been far less than it was.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | July 10, 2008 10:20 AM
Moderatelad said;
"This was is nothing like any war prior...
very true.
"...but the Dems still feel that it should be faught conventionally - it can not."
True, this should not have been a conventionally fought war in Iraq, but maybe in Afghanistan. However, I don't get how the Dems had anything to do with getting us into this war in the first place, other than being the spineless lapdogs to the repubs that they are. In my view, Iraq was a Repub war since they started writing about invading Iraq in the mid 90s at newamericancentury.org, or the project for a new american century. They have since taken that site down, which provides them with deniability of what they said on there (search "rebuilding americas defences" written by then Sec. of Defense Dick Cheney under bush 1."
I sometimes wonder whether Jesus would consider the United States leadership a good Christian based government, or one more like Sodom or Gomorrah.
Posted by: Paul W. | July 10, 2008 10:55 AM
Posted by: Paul W. | July 10, 2008 10:55 AM
I know that I am not the brightest bulb on the tree, and that will be carved on my headstone with I die. (lol)
The war in Afganistan - can anyone tell be how we would have been able to get in there and even look for UBL much less take on the Teleban when if I remember my geography - Afganistan is land locked?
By taking on Iraq and getting rid of Saddam we gave the colition troups an area to stage their military and get the job done. Saddam had blown off what 17 UN resolutions and kicked out the inspection people - it was a power-kegg waiting to explode again.
Personally I would not have allowed the imbedded news personnel - in looking back I believe that they were counter productive for the allied forces and ended up giving the enemy more info than we though.
This is why I will not be Pres - I would have bombed the $%^& out of Iraq's military and defense system. In many cases our military were being shot at from Masques in several cities and towns all around Iraq. I would have bombed these structures the first time they let a bullet fly - but that is just me. The UN looks down on bombing holy sites around the world and I agree. But the minute they start shooting from them - they loose the holy status and because compative in my book. (Nancy and Harry would have had a field day with the bombing of the first Mosque)
This is just my opinion - but I believe that Rep/Conservatives do more of what I call the 'what ifs' than Dems/liberals. When it comes to national defense conservatives are more proactive for the most part over Dem/liberals. If I were Pres - and everyone is happy that I am not. I would have put together a plan that it Saddam did this - we would do that. I have said that I would have put together a list of all the various groups causing terror around the world that had direct connections to UBL and his groups. I would have put them in order of who I thought were the worst to the really bad. I would also publish the list and say that whenever an act of terror was executed anywhere in the world - the retaliation would be to the group on the top of the list. The next action - we would hit group number two. After the second attack - I believe that they would be fighting between each other so much to keep themselves from causing anymore trouble - the would might have been a more peaceful place.
That is why I will never be Pres. Thank you Lord!
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | July 10, 2008 11:25 AM
N.M. Rod: "Johnson lied to get Congress to pass the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, so the escalation was built upon deceit."
Mod'lad: "I never read this in the books."
A good starting point for anyone interested is Edwin Moise, Tonkin Gulf and the Escalation of the Vietnam War. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996. But Johnson's deceit re: Tonkin Gulf is well-known. As Johnson put it after reports of the U.S. Navy being fired on in the Gulf of Tonkin in Aug. 1964: "Hell, for all I know they [the North Vietnamese] were shooting at whales out there."
Posted by: carl copas | July 10, 2008 11:27 AM
Posted by: carl copas | July 10, 2008 11:27 AM
Thanks Carl - I will add that one to my list.
One of my farovite Pres. Johnson quotes
'I would rather have that SOB on the inside pissing out than on the outside pissing in'
Blessings -
.
Posted by: moderatelad | July 10, 2008 11:42 AM
Hi all, I'm a little late in the conversation, but here are my two cents on how not only to withdraw but also to make peace.
Let's go beyond the fighting: We need to publicize peaceful American-Iraqi efforts between individuals and groups. We need to get interested in each others' arts scenes. We should find out what makes us different, what makes us similar, and experience sharing with each other on a thousand little individual levels. We have to find out how our cuisines are different. People who eat together tend to not make so much war with each other. We have to form spaces to interact with each other as Americans and Iraqis, and we have to do that on a mass scale so that we all eventually get a story to tell and people with hearts hardened to the theoretical Iraqi individual slowly become able to start hearing those stories leaking out.
We need to tell personal stories. Do you have an Iraqi neighbor? Tell their story. Or find an Iraqi penpal and start there. It can't be so hard these days in our internet age. I've got an Iraqi neighbor; he's nice, he owns a falafel shop here in Berlin (Germany), he's Sunni, and he used be an Olympic runner for Iraq. I've told him how much I miss the Israeli hummus in New York and he wants me to make it for him sometime.
I hope this idea plants a good, Christlike seed that is watered in at least one person's mind! :)
Posted by: solagratia | July 14, 2008 11:34 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?