Tired of "Chicken Hawks"

War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace.
- Thomas Mann

(German novelist and essayist whose early novels—Buddenbrooks (1900), Der Tod in Venedig (1912; Death in Venice), and Der Zauberberg (1924; The Magic Mountain)—earned him the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1929.)

I listened to a speech by our Congressman Steve King today at the dedication of our local Veteran's Memorial. To his credit, he drew attention to the nearly 510 service men and women who lose their lives every year during peace time training, who die unheralded as part of the cost of being prepared to defend our freedoms. I liked that part.

Unfortunately, mush of what he said was pretty typical pro-Bush, pro-War propaganda. He contends that you just can't solve some problems by talking and you may as well use your military as long as you have one. He mentioned how scary Iran is and even went so far as to quote Sun Tzu's "the Art of War."

I thought to myself that even heap big macho Republican god Ronald Reagan talked us into better relations with Russia, and Gary Sick, who served on the National Security Council under three presidents contends that Reagan's campaign met secretly to negotiate the release of the American hostages from Iran (but not until January 1980, so that Carter couldn't take credit). Every preschooler and kindergartener knows, to "always use your words, hitting never solves anything.".

Hello??? It's called "militarism," it's what Italy, Japan, and Germany were practicing in the 1930's. Our honored veterans of the "greatest generation" (God bless them) fought and died to defeat this viral, insidious philosophy! It seemed like Congressman King was trying to make himself sound smart by citing historical references. I think he needs to go back to school and brush up a little on both history and philosophy.

Whew! Thanks, now that I've got that out of my system, I can go write a nice, pleasant, innocuous, objective news story about the dedication of the memorial, which really is beautiful, solemn, and moving.

I always believed that America's founding fathers hoped that we would be a nation built on reason and intellect, not military might, like the great European empires that preceded and eventually spawned us. But alas, it looks like, as happens to almost all adolescents when they grow up, we have become our parents- the very thing we once held in such disdain.

This brings me to Thomas Mann's quote. I think of it as an antidote for Sun Tzu (and Machiavelli, for that matter). I think when I finish reading "Cannery Row," maybe I'll try to get my hands on some of his work. This is some of what Wikipedia says about him:

In 1930 Mann gave a public address in Berlin titled "An Appeal to Reason," in which he strongly denounced Nazism and encouraged resistance by the working class. This was followed by numerous essays and lectures in which he attacked the Nazis. At the same time, he expressed increasing sympathy for socialism and communism. In 1933 when the Nazis came to power, Mann and his wife were on holiday in Switzerland. Due to his very vociferous denunciations of Nazi policies, his son Klaus advised him not to return. However, Thomas Mann's books, in contrast to those of his brother Heinrich and his son Klaus, were not amongst the many burnt publicly by Hitler's regime in May 1933; apparently, since he was the literature Nobel laureate for 1929 (see below), they did not dare that so early. Finally in 1936 the Nazis denied officially his German citizenship.

"Images of Disorder", by social critic Michael Harrington in his collection The Accidental Century, is a highly literate account of Mann's political progression from the right to the left.

One last quick aside- at the pancake brunch before the ceremony, one member of the VFW, a retired Air Force General, called me a "reactionary liberal." I wasn't too offended because for one thing, in spite of George H. W. Bush's spin on the word back in 1988, I think that being liberal something to be proud of, even though I'm really pretty moderate to conservative on many issues. And because basically, anyone who writes about politics is reactionary, you're always reacting or responding to something. In this post, I'm reacting to what a dweeb I think my Congressman can be sometimes. The other reason I wasn't too offended, was that what he actually said was, "There's my favorite writer, of course I wish you weren't such a reactionary liberal, but you're still my favorite writer." How can you be offended by something like that? Thanks Doc.

Potent pictures

I didn't take these, one of my students who just returned from a school trip to Washington DC did. You know, when I was in high school and we were studying about the Vietnam war my best friend at the time (a girl named Dawn) and I went to see a movie in theatres called "Platoon" starring Charlie Sheen. We were both blown away, we were crying at how horrible and hellish war could be. (of course it may have been different if I'd seen it with a bunch of guys. One friend who was in ROTC thought it was a bitchin' cool fun action movie.) Dawn and I asked each other what we thought we would've done if we had been in high school or college during Vietnam. Would we support the Johnson and Nixon administrations, or would we have opposed the war. Would we have protested? What if I had been drafted?

Fortunately it was an abstract, academic exercise, since the most serious military involvement of the Reagan era was the invasion of a teensy, tiny island nation called Grenada. I really didn't know. I knew I'd be scared both to go and fight the Vietcong and to stay and fight the powers-that-be. I had two uncles who were great friends and could talk food and wine and local, municipal politics- but they never talked about the war. One went and served as a medic, the other went to Canada.

Frankly, I think that a lot of us kids of the eighties had unrealistic stereotypes of war opponents. We figured to stand up for peace would turn you into something like the fellow in the picture above, who, I was told, has been protesting for nuclear disarmament six hours a day since 1982. Well, today someone who's opposed to war, looks like a middle-aged, overweight, middle-class, Midwestern, white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant male. Married, father of three, active in his church. Laundered clothes, not too old or ragged. Showered and shaved, doesn't use drugs, has never even tried marijuana. It looks like someone who loves Jesus, loves his family, loves his country, appreciates civility and a certain amount of "law and order," and who does not hate, resent, or blame the troops who are fighting for us.

You can say that I'm lucky or spoiled that I never had to face a draft or that I'm not as much of a real man because I haven't served in the military voluntarily. And maybe you're right. Maybe as a Gen-Xer, I have it too easy. Maybe it's safer to be opposed to this war than it would've been to protest that last one. Frankly, we should all be thanking God that Iraq isn't tearing our families and society apart the way Iraq did. We may disagree, even vehemently, but we just change the subject or avoid the subject. No one is screaming in (or spitting) in faces.

But I guess that if I knew that the government lied and covered it up, if they were unclear or even obtuse about the causes and reasons for entering and staying in the war. If I heard that they were secretly invading and bombing Cambodia (practicing war games, hoping to provoke Iran)... yeah, I'd have a hard time sitting on the fence, even if it could get me in trouble.

Some say, "My country, love it or leave it!!! MY COUNTRY, RIGHT OR WRONG!!!"
I say, more calmly and quietly, "My country, love it enough to tell it that it has a problem instead of enabling it. My country, when it's wrong, speak up and try to get it right."

Who stole my freedom of speech?

I had this magnet on my truck, but someone took it.

Hey, I support the troops, I just happen to remember that Jesus is the "Prince of Peace," so I oppose the current administrations' foreign policy which includes an unnecessary war under the guise of fighting terrorism.

Stealing a magnet of someone's car is a small thing. There have been incidents where veterans and parents who've lost children in the war have put up memorials of white crosses representing each of the Americans killed in Iraq, only to have "war-hawks" drive over them to mow them down with their cars. That's anger. I guess I don't understand how that's pro-American or pro-troops, pro-veterans, or pro-Christian. Isn't it, in fact irreverent, and sacreligeous?

Anyway, if you want your own "Support Peace" sticker, pin, or magnet, click here: http://www.support-peace.com/about.php

VAIW :: Veterans Against The Iraq War

VAIW :: Veterans Against The Iraq War: "Veterans Against Iraq War is a coalition of American veterans who support our troops but oppose war with Iraq or any other nation that does not pose a clear and present danger to our people and nation.

Until and unless the current U.S. Administration provides evidence which clearly demonstrates that Iraq or any other nation poses a clear, direct and immediate danger to our country, we oppose all of this Administration's pre-emptive and unilateral military activities in Iraq. Furthermore, we cannot support any war that is initiated without a formal Declaration of War by Congress, as our Constitution requires.

Although we detested the dictatorial policies of Saddam Hussein and sympathized with the tragic plight of the Iraqi people, we opposed unilateral and pre-emptive U.S. military intervention on the grounds that it established a dangerous precedent in the conduct of international affairs, that it could easily lead to an increase of violent regional instability and the spread of much wider conflicts, that it places needless and unacceptable financial burdens on the American people, that it diverts us from addressing critical domestic priorities, and that it distracts us from our goals of tracking down and destroying international terrorists and their lairs.

Furthermore, we do not believe that the American military can or should be used as the police force of the world by any administration, Republican or Democrat. Consequently, we believe that the lives and well being of our nation's soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines should not be squandered or sacrificed for causes other than in the direct defense of our people and nation."

Operation Truth

Operation Truth: "We are the voice of the troops, a non-partisan group created to help them share stories of life on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are also working to help veterans get the support they need."

These are Iraq Vets who hope to be considered non-partisan. They're not as onto pulling out immediately as IVAW. Op Truth is more about the day to day needs of troops and vets. I'd say they were the "stand up at Sec. Rumsfeld's press conference and ask why they don't have enough armor and supplies" kind of guys.

Look, if you won't listen to a Dove like me on this stuff, please visit one of these three websites to get the points of view of the people who've been there, fighting the Bush family's war.

IVAW-Iraq Veterans Against the War

Mission - Iraq Veterans Against the War"Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) is a group of veterans who have served since September 11th, 2001 including Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. We are committed to saving lives and ending the violence in Iraq by an immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces. We also believe that the governments that sponsored these wars are indebted to the men and women who were forced to fight them and must give their Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, and Airmen the benefits that are owed to them upon their return home."

These are Servicemen and women who have served (and a few who are currently serving) in the current U.S.-Iraq War

Support the Troops, Oppose the Policy

Mission - Iraq Veterans Against the War

Mission - Iraq Veterans Against the War
Interesting, soldiers serving now are standing up, doing the patriotic thing and opposing this war just like men like John Kerry opposed Vietnam after they came home from their tours of duty.

Pacifism & Christianity?

Confessing Christ in a World of Violence
From Sojourner's Magazine
Our world is wracked with violence and war. But Jesus said: 'Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God' (Matt. 5:9). Innocent people, at home and abroad, are increasingly threatened by terrorist attacks. But Jesus said: 'Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you' (Matt. 5:44). These words, which have never been easy, seem all the more difficult today.

Nevertheless, a time comes when silence is betrayal. How many churches have heard sermons on these texts since the terrorist atrocities of September 11? Where is the serious debate about what it means to confess Christ in a world of violence? Does Christian 'realism' mean resigning ourselves to an endless future of 'pre-emptive wars'? Does it mean turning a blind eye to torture and massive civilian casualties? Does it mean acting out of fear and resentment rather than intelligence and restraint?

Faithfully confessing Christ is the church's task, and never more so than when its confession is co-opted by militarism and nationalism.

- A 'theology of war,' emanating from the highest circles of American government, is seeping into our churches as well.

- The language of 'righteous empire' is employed with growing frequency.

- The roles of God, church, and nation are confused by talk of an American 'mission' and 'divine appointment' to 'rid the world of evil.'

The security issues before our nation allow no easy solutions. No one has a monopoly on the truth. But a policy that rejects the wisdom of international consultation should not be baptized by religiosity. The danger today is political idolatry exacerbated by the political idolatry exacerbated by the politics of fear.


In this time of crisis, we need a new confession of Christ.


1. Jesus Christ, as attested in Holy Scripture, knows no national boundaries. Those who confess his name are found throughout the earth. Our allegiance to Christ takes priority over national identity. Whenever Christianity compromises with empire, the gospel of Christ is discredited.


We reject the false teaching that any nation-state can ever be described with the words, "the light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it." These words, used in scripture, apply only to Christ. No political or religious leader has the right to twist them in the service of war.


2. Christ commits Christians to a strong presumption against war. The wanton destructiveness of modern warfare strengthens this obligation. Standing in the shadow of the Cross, Christians have a responsibility to count the cost, speak out for the victims, and explore every alternative before a nation goes to war. We are committed to international cooperation rather than unilateral policies.


We reject the false teaching that a war on terrorism takes precedence over ethical and legal norms. Some things ought never be done - torture, the deliberate bombing of civilians, the use of indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction - regardless of the consequences.


3. Christ commands us to see not only the splinter in our adversary's eye, but also the beam in our own. The distinction between good and evil does not run between one nation and another, or one group and another. It runs straight through every human heart.


We reject the false teaching that America is a "Christian nation," representing only virtue, while its adversaries are nothing but vicious. We reject the belief that America has nothing to repent of, even as we reject that it represents most of the world's evil. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23).



4. Christ shows us that enemy-love is the heart of the gospel. While we were yet enemies, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8, 10). We are to show love to our enemies even as we believe God in Christ has shown love to us and the whole world. Enemy-love does not mean capitulating to hostile agendas or domination. It does mean refusing to demonize any human being created in God's image.


We reject the false teaching that any human being can be defined as outside the law's protection. We reject the demonization of perceived enemies, which only paves the way to abuse; and we reject the mistreatment of prisoners, regardless of supposed benefits to their captors.


5. Christ teaches us that humility is the virtue befitting forgiven sinners. It tempers all political disagreements, and it allows that our own political perceptions, in a complex world, may be wrong.


We reject the false teaching that those who are not for the United States politically are against it or that those who fundamentally question American policies must be with the "evil-doers." Such crude distinctions, especially when used by Christians, are expressions of the Manichaean heresy, in which the world is divided into forces of absolute good and absolute evil.


The Lord Jesus Christ is either authoritative for Christians, or he is not. His Lordship cannot be set aside by any earthly power. His words may not be distorted for propagandistic purposes. No nation-state may usurp the place of God.


We believe that acknowledging these truths is indispensable for followers of Christ. We urge them to remember these principles in making their decisions as citizens. Peacemaking is central to our vocation in a troubled world where Christ is Lord.