Peace and War 2

Opinions, Observations, Odds & Ends: Peace and War 

Our own little United Nations in Iraq (Aug. 12, 2003)

An August 10, 2003 Boston Globe article describes how Polish troops and others will provide relief for some U.S. forces in Iraq. Excerpts follow:

: 

: 

"Three hundred Polish officers are already here, and a total of 2,300 Polish troops are scheduled to arrive soon in south central Iraq to help relieve the US First Marine Expeditionary Force, which seized this ground during the war and has watched this heavily Shi'ite region south of Baghdad become relatively stable." 

: 

: 

"The main Polish contingent will begin arriving this week, supplemented by troops from Hungary, Nicaragua, Bulgaria, Latvia, Fiji, Lithuania, the Philippines, Spain, Ukraine, Honduras, Mongolia, Thailand, Slovakia, the Dominican Republic, Kazakhstan, El Salvador, and Romania." 

: 

:

This must be a contribution from the Bush administration's much-hyped Coalition of the Willing. So how many are troops are they each going to send, about seventeen? And how are they all going to communicate with each other, to say nothing of the Iraquis? Simultaneous translation, as at the U.N. General Assembly? It should be a lot of fun seeing Fiji talk with Kazahstan, or Latvia with the Dominican Republic, or Thailand with Hungary. 

"Top Gun" says : "Bring 'em on" (July 21, 2003)

Just about every day brings news of another American soldier killed. Killed in action? But our foolish President said the combat part of the war was over. Doesn't that mean that the soldiers can come back home? No, many have already stayed past their expected tour of duty, and are being told that they'll need to stay indefinitely. And they're trying to do a job they weren't trained for. Why? 

Because the "flowers for the liberators" phase is over, and our leadership had no plans for Iraq after the fighting-war. 

Because our foolish President annoyed powerful allies so much with his unilateralism that they won't contribute money or soldiers except under the aegis of the Bush-despised United Nations. 

Because our new-found buddies in the "Coalition of the Willing" (Poland, Spain, Romania, Bulgaria, etc.) don't have or can't find the resources to help. 

And so we bleed money ($3.9 billion per month) and soldier blood because our foolish President wanted his war. 

Meanwhile, that same President had his "Top Gun" moment in the stage-managed flight to the carrier off the U.S. coast. The very same man that somehow got lost for about a year of his National Guard service taunted the enemy by saying, on July 3: "Bring 'em on". Meanwhile, real soldiers in real fatigues are dying for their blue-suited CiC's blunders. 

How much longer will the soldiers tolerate this? 

How much longer will their families back home tolerate this? 

How much longer will the American public tolerate this? 

How much longer will the Democratic "leaders" tolerate this? 

And what is "supporting the troops" supposed to mean any more other than bringing them home? 

Oh, yes, those Democratic "leaders", the ones who would be our next president. 

The ones who didn't get to vote for or against the war because they gave our foolish President carte-blanche for using military force in Iraq. 

There were those of us that knew it was wrong to sign away Congress' constitutional responsility to declare war. 

There were those of us who knew that it was a mistake to give the President who would have his war a blank check. 

There were those of us who knew that the supposed ties to Al Qaeda and Saddam's WoMDs were highly exaggerated at best. 

There were those of us who knew what it would cost in lives and dollars to conduct the war. 

There were those of us who knew the administration, based on their record in Afghanistan, would make a mess of the peace after the war. 

But our Democratic "leaders" didn't seem to know that at the time. 

So why exactly do they consider themselves leaders?

Rumsfeld Rumblings (April 14, 2003)

If Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld didn't exist, he would have to be invented. What a character! 

We can't forget his previous gaffes, about "Old Europe" and not really needing Great Britain's help for the Iraq war. The last few days have given us new Rumsfeld Rumblings. 

First, on Friday, April 11, he compared the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime to the fall of the Berlin Wall, and also compared Saddam Hussein to Hitler, Stalin, Lenin and Nicolai Ceausescu. The differences with the fall of the Berlin Wall are stark, and prompted another (unpublished) letter to the New York Times on my part. On the dictator comparison, Hitler and Stalin are of a different magnitude, although Ceausescu might fit. But why not build up your enemy if it makes you look bigger. 

Letter to NY Times (4/11/03): Comparison to the fall of the Berlin Wall

To the Editors, 

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's self-congratulatory comparison of "the toppling of Saddam Hussein's government to the fall of the Berlin Wall" (New York Times, April 10, 2003) deserves some comment. Mr. Rumsfeld should note that in Berlin there was no invasion of one country by another, there was no "collateral damage" of civilians killed, maimed and injured, there were no enemy corpses littering battlefields, there were no deaths of coalition soldiers, there were no missile and bomb attacks, there were no piles of rubble from blasted buildings and shops, there were no tanks in the streets, there was no looting. In short, the only destruction was of the Berlin Wall itself! 

But if Mr. Rumsfeld would like to use history as an example, he should also note that the integration of East Germany with West has taken much longer than expected, that unemployment there is still twice what it is in the West, and that some resentment lingers after almost fifteen years. Perhaps it would be wise not to expect quick fixes in Iraq. 

Sincerely, 

Peter E. Schmidt

Then, as looting and chaos in Baghdad continued, he had this to say, according to the 4/11 New York Times: "It's untidy. And freedom's untidy. And free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes." 

So, along with freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religious expression, we now have freedom to make mistakes and freedom to commit crimes!?! Presumably that includes freedom to loot hospitals and museums, all of them untidy. And perhaps that explains our own other freedoms - freedom to exploit, freedom to despoil, freedom of arrogance (to do as we damn well please). I think our great founders had pointed out that responsibility goes along with freedom. 

But say what one will, Rumsfeld at least speaks what's on his mind, a refreshing change from the secretive administration and its spinmeisters. 

Now that there has been such military success, I wonder if he'll want to reclaim the war plan as being his idea; after all, he had credited it to General Franks when things weren't going well.

Mark Twain's "War Prayer" (April 9, 2003)

The New York Times Magazine of March 30, 2003, carried an article by Garry Wills titled "With God On His Side" with sub-text "Throughout America's history, there has been one ally presidents have invoked about all others". It consists of an exploration of the role of religion in this and other administrations, as well as in military ventures. Besides the content of the article, I'm indebted for its reference to Mark Twain's "War Prayer", which I had not known of before. 

A direct quote from the article gives a good sense of Mark Twain's sentiments, in a response

... when Andrew Carnegie quoted the assertion that America is a Christian country: "Why, Andrew, so is hell ... but we don't brag of this." Twain's tone deepened in bitterness as he watched America waging another of its pre-emptive wars, this one in the Philippines. He reminded us exactly what we are praying for when we ask God to take sides in war and accomplish the destruction of our foe.

The actual Prayer is embedded in a powerful short story by Twain, one which is available at many sites.

One example of the War Prayer is at Swans web site. The site itself looks interesting, although I haven't looked it over carefully or in detail. Certainly there's a lot to think about what's said there. 

Another interesting site with the War Prayer is http://www.libertystory.net. As with the Swan site, I haven't looked at this one in detail, but suspect that some of the thoughts expressed there don't quite match mine. There seem to be some references to advocates of Darwinian free-market capitalism (Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman), which in my opinion is just as flawed as total government-run socialism.

Boston March for Peace (April 3, 2003)

Last Saturday there was a significant peace march in Boston; estimates reported by the Boston Globe said 25,000 people. Although small by standards of more activist cities like New York, Washington and San Francisco, tyo say nothing of international protests, it still made one proud of this city. 

After assembling on the Common, protesters marched along Beacon Street, then Hereford, then back to the Common on Boylston. There was police presence, but it was all very calm and peaceful. 

There was surprisingly little pro-war presence along the march route. When I left the march itself but stayed around to see the end of it, I saw a very small group of pro-war advocates marching behind. Of course they had co-opted the American flag as their banner, and their arrogance contrasted with the calm of the peace marchers. It was hard not to laugh at them so I did. 

I'll probably post a few pictures of the march at a later time. 

Random Thoughts (April 3, 2003)

Will the God that said 

"Blessed are the peacemakers" 

still bless America? 

"Embedded" reporters in the military have been a great success in the Iraq war. 

Maybe we could extend the concept to the Bush administration and embed reporters in it. 

Think of all the grief that the secrecy of Dick Cheney's Energy Policy meetings caused; what if embedded reporters had been there? 

So what does God say in the bible about tax cuts, Mr. President?

Peace, and War in Iraq (March 19, 2003)

As spring moves closer, as days get longer and warmer, as the snow melts, why do I feel depressed instead of uplifted? 

The foolish war on Iraq is now all but inevitable. The lone Texas Ranger has given the outlaw Saddam 48 hours to get out of Dodge City. Soon he and his faithful British friend Tony will ride into town with sixguns blazing. What a dreadful mistake for America. 

Most dispiriting has been the lack of opposition from public figures, especially Democrats. Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank been some of the few speaking out, and that does honor to Massachusetts; John Kerry does not. So far I've let three Democatic campaigns for president know that they will not have our support:

Gephart in response to a phone solicitation for a contribution, 

Email to Kerry (3/13/05) and 

Email to Friends of Joe Lieberman (3/18/03)

in response to their letters. But I also sent a "thank you" in an Email to Kennedy (3/18/03). 

Let's hope that many others will do likewise to get the Democrats away from "politics as usual". But talk about naiveté and wishful thinking - I even sent a message on the theme of "peace" in an Email to President Bush (3/15/03). 

March 15, 2003 

Dear President Bush, 

In your press conference of March 6, 2003, you said more than once that "I pray for peace". But as the leader of the most powerful nation on earth, you have the capability of doing much more than praying, namely actively working for peace. Prayer is what we ordinary citizens might have to resort to because we as individuals don't have that kind of power. 

On the other hand, if you are seeking spiritual guidance, your prayers have already been answered in Matthew 5:9, which says that "Blessed are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the children of God". And God's voice is certainly speaking to you in the multitudes all over this earth, the millions that are raising their voices, and demonstrating, against the impending war. 

In fact, many of the very same people that had held heartfelt vigils of solidarity with our suffering on September 11 are now protesting against our war. This should be a very strong message to us, and to you. 

Mr. President, I can only hope and pray that you have a deep understanding of this precious word "peace"; that, for example, when you called Mr. Sharon "a man of peace" you were expressing a wish rather than a misconception of what the word means. 

Mr. President, I would like to be proud of this nation as a shining example of leadership toward peace, and of uniting nations rather than dividing them. 

Sincerely, 

Peter E. Schmidt 

Email Response from "Autoresponder@WhiteHouse.GOV":

Thank you for emailing President Bush. Your ideas and comments are very important to him. 

For up-to-date information about the President and his policies, please check the White House web site at www.whitehouse.gov. 

Unfortunately, because of the large volume of email received, the President cannot personally respond to each message. However, the White House staff considers and reports citizen ideas and concerns. 

Again, thank you for your email. Your interest in the work of President Bush and his administration is appreciated. 

Sincerely, 

The White House Office of E-Correspondence 

_________________________ 

Please Note: 

If the subject of your email was a request for a Presidential greeting, please note that all greeting requests must be submitted in writing to the following address: 

The White House 

Attn: Greetings Office 

Room 39 

Washington, D.C. 20502-0039 

Please review the guidelines carefully before mailing your request to the White House. The guidelines are accessible at: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/greeting/

On the positive side, there was a 3/19/03 speech by Senator Robert C. Byrd (taken from his web site), in which the senator contrasts the America he knows and loves with the administration's march toward war: "But, today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. "

Peace and War continued .....