Longer Peaces

Zbigniew Brzezinski's Testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

SFRC Testimony -- Zbigniew Brzezinski
February 1, 2007

Mr. Chairman:

Your hearings come at a critical juncture in the U.S. war of choice in Iraq, and I commend you and Senator Lugar for scheduling them.

It is time for the White House to come to terms with two central realities:
1. The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic, and moral calamity. Undertaken under false assumptions, it is undermining America’s global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as some abuses are tarnishing America’s moral credentials. Driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability.

2. Only a political strategy that is historically relevant rather than reminiscent of colonial tutelage can provide the needed framework for a tolerable resolution of both the war in Iraq and the intensifying regional tensions.

If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD’s in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the “decisive ideological struggle” of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America’s involvement in World War II.

This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that Nazism was based on the military power of the industrially most advanced European state; and that Stalinism was able to mobilize not only the resources of the victorious and militarily powerful Soviet Union but also had worldwide appeal through its Marxist doctrine. In contrast, most Muslims are not embracing Islamic fundamentalism; al Qaeda is an isolated fundamentalist Islamist aberration; most Iraqis are engaged in strife because the American occupation of Iraq destroyed the Iraqi state; while Iran—though gaining in regional influence—is itself politically divided, economically and militarily weak. To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Deplorably, the Administration’s foreign policy in the Middle East region has lately relied almost entirely on such sloganeering. Vague and inflammatory talk about “a new strategic context” which is based on “clarity” and which prompts “the birth pangs of a new Middle East” is breeding intensifying anti-Americanism and is increasing the danger of a long-term collision between the United States and the Islamic world. Those in charge of U.S. diplomacy have also adopted a posture of moralistic self-ostracism toward Iran strongly reminiscent of John Foster Dulles’s attitude of the early 1950’s toward Chinese Communist leaders (resulting among other things in the well-known episode of the refused handshake). It took some two decades and a half before another Republican president was finally able to undo that legacy.

One should note here also that practically no country in the world shares the Manichean delusions that the Administration so passionately articulates. The result is growing political isolation of, and pervasive popular antagonism toward the U.S. global posture.
* * *
It is obvious by now that the American national interest calls for a significant change of direction. There is in fact a dominant consensus in favor of a change: American public opinion now holds that the war was a mistake; that it should not be escalated, that a regional political process should be explored; and that an Israeli-Palestinian accommodation is an essential element of the needed policy alteration and should be actively pursued. It is noteworthy that profound reservations regarding the Administration’s policy have been voiced by a number of leading Republicans. One need only invoke here the expressed views of the much admired President Gerald Ford, former Secretary of State James Baker, former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft and several leading Republican senators, John Warner, Chuck Hagel, and Gordon Smith among others.

The urgent need today is for a strategy that seeks to create a political framework for a resolution of the problems posed both by the US occupation of Iraq and by the ensuing civil and sectarian conflict. Ending the occupation and shaping a regional security dialogue should be the mutually reinforcing goals of such a strategy, but both goals will take time and require a genuinely serious U.S. commitment.

The quest for a political solution for the growing chaos in Iraq should involve four steps:

1. The United States should reaffirm explicitly and unambiguously its determination to leave Iraq in a reasonably short period of time.
Ambiguity regarding the duration of the occupation in fact encourages unwillingness to compromise and intensifies the on-going civil strife. Moreover, such a public declaration is needed to allay fears in the Middle East of a new and enduring American imperial hegemony. Right or wrong, many view the establishment of such a hegemony as the primary reason for the American intervention in a region only recently free of colonial domination. That perception should be discredited from the highest U.S. level. Perhaps the U.S. Congress could do so by a joint resolution.

2. The United States should announce that it is undertaking talks with the Iraqi leaders to jointly set with them a date by which U.S. military disengagement should be completed, and the resulting setting of such a date should be announced as a joint decision. In the meantime, the U.S. should avoid military escalation.
It is necessary to engage all Iraqi leaders—including those who do not reside within “the Green Zone”—in a serious discussion regarding the proposed and jointly defined date for U.S. military disengagement because the very dialogue itself will help identify the authentic Iraqi leaders with the self-confidence and capacity to stand on their own legs without U.S. military protection. Only Iraqi leaders who can exercise real power beyond “the Green Zone” can eventually reach a
genuine Iraqi accommodation. The painful reality is that much of the current Iraqi regime, characterized by the Bush administration as “representative of the Iraqi people,” defines itself largely by its physical location: the 4 sq. miles-large U.S. fortress within Baghdad, protected by a wall in places 15 feet thick, manned by heavily armed U.S. military, popularly known as “the Green Zone.”

3. The United States should issue jointly with appropriate Iraqi leaders, or perhaps let the Iraqi leaders issue, an invitation to all neighbors of Iraq (and perhaps some other Muslim countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, and Pakistan) to engage in a dialogue regarding how best to enhance stability in Iraq in conjunction with U.S. military disengagement and to participate eventually in a conference regarding regional stability.
The United States and the Iraqi leadership need to engage Iraq’s neighbors in serious discussion regarding the region’s security problems, but such discussions cannot be undertaken while the U.S. is perceived as an occupier for an indefinite duration. Iran and Syria have no reason to help the United States consolidate a permanent regional hegemony. It is ironic, however, that both Iran and Syria have lately called for a regional dialogue, exploiting thereby the self-defeating character of the largely passive – and mainly sloganeering – U.S. diplomacy.
A serious regional dialogue, promoted directly or indirectly by the U.S., could be buttressed at some point by a wider circle of consultations involving other powers with a stake in the region’s stability, such as the EU, China, Japan, India, and Russia. Members of this Committee might consider exploring informally with the states mentioned their potential interest in such a wider dialogue.

4. Concurrently, the United States should activate a credible and energetic effort to finally reach an Israeli-Palestinian peace, making it clear in the process as to what the basic parameters of such a final accommodation ought to involve.
The United States needs to convince the region that the U.S. is committed both to Israel’s enduring security and to fairness for the Palestinians who have waited for more than forty years now for their own separate state. Only an external and activist intervention can 4
promote the long-delayed settlement for the record shows that the Israelis and the Palestinians will never do so on their own. Without such a settlement, both nationalist and fundamentalist passions in the region will in the longer run doom any Arab regime which is perceived as supportive of U.S. regional hegemony.

After World War II, the United States prevailed in the defense of democracy in Europe because it successfully pursued a long-term political strategy of uniting its friends and dividing its enemies, of soberly deterring aggression without initiating hostilities, all the while also exploring the possibility of negotiated arrangements. Today, America’s global leadership is being tested in the Middle East. A similarly wise strategy of genuinely constructive political engagement is now urgently needed.

It is also time for the Congress to assert itself.

Eat the Other

That's me on the left, and my friend Tom Marks is in the middle, and we were guarding the keg last summer with some grumpy bald guy from New York. If I was better at PhotoShop, I would have airbrushed out some of my chest hair and one of my chins. But looks aren't important! The fact that we survived a wild and chaotic youth to emerge older, wiser, and in my case, heftier is a true blessing. This is an essay that Tom sent me recently, and I found it profoundly moving. Hope you will too.

A GLOBAL FEAST

By Tom Marks

The road to peace may begin at your nearest Chinese restaurant.

When was the first time that you ate “foreign” food? For me, I think I was about eight years old, when my Dad took me to a local Chinese restaurant and we had “chop suey.” I remember the tangy yellow mustard that would sting my nose, and how the flavors, aromas and décor were unlike anything I had seen before. I liked it – the newness and exoticness of it – and it made me want to go to Asia – which I did 20 years later, when I taught English in Japan for five years.

I have lived in a lot of countries and eaten many kinds of foods – not all delicious – but my motto was “try everything once.” However, not everyone who visited me felt this way. Sometimes, when friends and family came to visit me in Japan or Santa Fe, they’d complain that the food was too spicy or weird and head for the nearest McDonald’s. I always felt that it was a shame because they were missing out on a lot of good food, and I wondered what it was that made them afraid to try it.

I suppose part of the problem was that the food was foreign and unfamiliar. Is it human nature to fear the unknown, or at least be uncomfortable with it? Whether it was the closet in your childhood bedroom at night, or tomorrow’s test, or a new job, or what’s hidden beneath the Muslim veil, we often fear what we don’t know.

One defense mechanism against our fear is humor – especially that comic cliché, “the dumb foreigner.” Borat may be the latest example of this, but Andy Kaufman, Jose Jimenez, Ricky Ricardo, the singing Chinese waiters in “A Christmas Story,” and others have all played the role of foreign clowns. If there is a custom, an accent, a gesture that seems strange, if there is a language that we don’t understand, then we can relieve our fears and assert our superiority by making fun of it. It’s so easy to “imitate” the Chinese language, and laugh at its funny singsong rhythms, yet what we are ridiculing is one of the oldest and most linguistically complex languages on Earth. But laughing at it makes not understanding it OK somehow; since it sounds so silly. After all, what could they possibly be saying that is worth knowing? Right?

This striving for cultural superiority may become even more acute if political tensions are involved. If there is a military crisis, how quickly those silly foreigners in their Middle Eastern garb transform into “towel heads” or “sand n******”, as we claim our dominance over them. Certainly, we seem to say, by reducing them to silly cartoon caricatures, we deserve to win against such inferior creatures. And the more violent the war, the sharper the distinctions become – the Japanese were frequently depicted as monkeys by U.S. propaganda, the Russians as subhumans by the Nazis, and the Jews, well…

And certainly, it is easier to kill a group of people who are not people, but subhumans, monkeys, or sand n******, than it is to kill civilized beings like us. After all, who cares about their lives? They are not “one of us,” so their lives do not matter as much as ours.

And so we read about “collateral damage” in Iraq, or starvation in Ethiopia, or ethnic cleansing in Darfur, and we may shrug, or yawn, or frown – but we turn the page.

And people die.

So how can we change this?

I remember when I was getting ready to go to Japan in the late 80s. It was during the big U.S. vs Japan trade rivalry, when many in the U.S. were angry at Japan for unfair trade practices, and for showy purchases of prime U.S. real estate like Rockefeller Center and the Pebble Beach golf course. Members of Congress were smashing Japanese products in front of the Capitol building, and my parents’ friends would say “You tell Hirohito to go to hell!” The Japanese, one and all, were seen by many as inscrutable schemers, bent on destroying our way of life through their devious business practices.

And yet, when I lived among the Japanese in Japan, I was surprised at how normal they all seemed, how much they were just like us: working all day, then going home, tired from work, to spend some time with their families, perhaps having a beer in front of the TV with their kids jumping around the living room, and finally collapsing in bed only to get up too soon afterwards to start the day all over again. And just like us, they looked forward to the weekends, when they could perhaps play some golf or go on a Sunday drive. They were banging the hammer every week just so they could have a little extra money for their retirement and their kids, and asking little more than that.

Not so devious, huh?

These were not global dominating monsters – these were the same people I had grown up with. They were like me. Many of them even considered their politicians to be fools and hypocrites, just like I did. So when I talked to my parents on the phone, and they asked if the Japanese were planning any more sneak attacks, I’d think of the mild-mannered student named Ken in my class, and how we’d tell jokes to each other, or trade stories about our families and friends, and feel that special “Friday glow” as we looked forward to relaxing on the weekend, and I’d wonder what all the fuss was about. This student was not some “strange inscrutable Other,” this was my friend, Ken, and many of the other people I met in Japan were just like him. And I thought how hard it would be for me, if god forbid there were ever a war between our two countries, to whip up any hatred against Ken and against all the other friends I had made in Japan.

Here’s another example: currently I live in Michigan and teach English to students from the Middle East. Most of them come from Saudi Arabia. What do you think they are like? Ultra-religious bomb-throwing zealots who hate Israel? No. Fist-shaking terrorists? Hardly. Most of them are scraggy-haired teenagers who are struggling with their English classes and doing what most college students do: listening to music, staying up late, and drinking lots and lots of coffee. In fact, the more Saudi students I teach, the more varieties of Saudis I find, to the point where I can say that there are as many types of Saudis as there are Americans. For example, some Saudis come from Jiddah, a beach resort in western Saudi Arabia, and they are almost indistinguishable from the surfer dudes who hang out at the beaches in California. I’ve also taught several Saudi women who not only refuse to wear the veil, but look as American as, well, Paula Abdul. So, with all of these types to choose from, how can I ever say something like “All Saudis are like this…” or “All Saudis believe that…” The truth is, I can’t.

So, perhaps the first step is to realize that people in other countries are often more like us than we realize. Then, what’s the second step? How do we become closer to them and reduce that sense of “Otherness” in our eyes?

Perhaps we can do this by making more of an effort to learn about them and their culture. I was always struck, when I lived in Japan, by how much they knew about our culture and how comparatively little I knew about theirs – or their language.  Learning about another culture doesn’t have to be hard or involve scholarship – it can be as easy as, say, eating at a Chinese restaurant, or perhaps learning how to say “hello” in Arabic (“salaam aleikum”). Or maybe reading a famous Peruvian writer or listening to Indian music. Chances are that your son or daughter has an international classmate at school – why not invite that classmate over for a play date? We did that – and made some great Korean friends as a result. You can never underestimate the power of gestures like these, or the feelings of pride and gratefulness that are created when someone else expresses an interest in one’s culture. For example, when you say “hello” to someone in their language, it shows them that you care – about their culture, their feelings, and about welcoming them to the community. Reading books about another culture not only shows that you value that culture by wanting to know more about it, it also shows that you think the other culture has something of value that you can benefit from, and it opens a window into that culture that may help you gain a deeper understanding of it. For example, whatever glimmer of understanding I have of deep Japanese culture came from the novels I read of Japanese life by Tanizaki and Kawabata. From them I learned the patterns that gave shape to Japanese life, and those books helped me understand what I saw around me in Japan more fully.  Finally, inviting someone from another culture to your house can begin a whole network of friendships, changing your guests from outsiders, to community members, to friends – and eating dinner with them can, well, introduce you to some really good food!

Obviously, this is not limited to Chinese, or Muslims, or “foreigners” – it is good to reach out to ANY group that is different from your own, be it rich or poor, white or black, even Republicans and Democrats. Reaching out is the antidote to fear.

Finally, it is true that hate does exist in the world, and we have a responsibility to protect ourselves from it. We have to protect our friends and family at home (3000 died on September 11) and our soldiers abroad (3100+ dead in Iraq as of February 2007). But I think we also have a responsibility to protect the innocent lives in other countries that are affected by war (35,000+ civilians killed in Iraq in 2006) because they are not some foreign other, they are humans, they are us, they are our friends. We need to recognize that all lives are valuable because there are shared traits and beliefs in all of us. Perhaps by reaching out, by identifying what we share, by identifying what unites us as humans rather than what divides us as factions, we can, in a small way, reduce some of the needless suffering, the loneliness and isolation, the deaths of civilians and innocents and friends that too often define our world.

And if we do, the taste of this dish will be sublime.

Barack Obama: Full Text of His Announcement Address

Let me begin by saying thanks to all you who've traveled, from far and wide, to brave the cold today.

      We all made this journey for a reason. It's humbling, but in my heart I know you didn't come here just for me, you came here because you believe in what this country can be. In the face of war, you believe there can be peace. In the face of despair, you believe there can be hope. In the face of a politics that's shut you out, that's told you to settle, that's divided us for too long, you believe we can be one people, reaching for what's possible, building that more perfect union.

      That's the journey we're on today. But let me tell you how I came to be here. As most of you know, I am not a native of this great state. I moved to Illinois over two decades ago. I was a young man then, just a year out of college; I knew no one in Chicago, was without money or family connections. But a group of churches had offered me a job as a community organizer for $13,000 a year. And I accepted the job, sight unseen, motivated then by a single, simple, powerful idea - that I might play a small part in building a better America.

      My work took me to some of Chicago's poorest neighborhoods. I joined with pastors and lay-people to deal with communities that had been ravaged by plant closings. I saw that the problems people faced weren't simply local in nature - that the decision to close a steel mill was made by distant executives; that the lack of textbooks and computers in schools could be traced to the skewed priorities of politicians a thousand miles away; and that when a child turns to violence, there's a hole in his heart no government could ever fill.

      It was in these neighborhoods that I received the best education I ever had, and where I learned the true meaning of my Christian faith.

      After three years of this work, I went to law school, because I wanted to understand how the law should work for those in need. I became a civil rights lawyer, and taught constitutional law, and after a time, I came to understand that our cherished rights of liberty and equality depend on the active participation of an awakened electorate. It was with these ideas in mind that I arrived in this capital city as a state Senator.

      It was here, in Springfield, where I saw all that is America converge - farmers and teachers, businessmen and laborers, all of them with a story to tell, all of them seeking a seat at the table, all of them clamoring to be heard. I made lasting friendships here - friends that I see in the audience today.

      It was here we learned to disagree without being disagreeable - that it's possible to compromise so long as you know those principles that can never be compromised; and that so long as we're willing to listen to each other, we can assume the best in people instead of the worst.

      That's why we were able to reform a death penalty system that was broken. That's why we were able to give health insurance to children in need. That's why we made the tax system more fair and just for working families, and that's why we passed ethics reforms that the cynics said could never, ever be passed.

      It was here, in Springfield, where North, South, East and West come together that I was reminded of the essential decency of the American people - where I came to believe that through this decency, we can build a more hopeful America.

      And that is why, in the shadow of the Old State Capitol, where Lincoln once called on a divided house to stand together, where common hopes and common dreams still, I stand before you today to announce my candidacy for President of the United States.

      I recognize there is a certain presumptuousness - a certain audacity - to this announcement. I know I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change.

      The genius of our founders is that they designed a system of government that can be changed. And we should take heart, because we've changed this country before. In the face of tyranny, a band of patriots brought an Empire to its knees. In the face of secession, we unified a nation and set the captives free. In the face of Depression, we put people back to work and lifted millions out of poverty. We welcomed immigrants to our shores, we opened railroads to the west, we landed a man on the moon, and we heard a King's call to let justice roll down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream.

      Each and every time, a new generation has risen up and done what's needed to be done. Today we are called once more - and it is time for our generation to answer that call.

      For that is our unyielding faith - that in the face of impossible odds, people who love their country can change it.

      That's what Abraham Lincoln understood. He had his doubts. He had his defeats. He had his setbacks. But through his will and his words, he moved a nation and helped free a people. It is because of the millions who rallied to his cause that we are no longer divided, North and South, slave and free. It is because men and women of every race, from every walk of life, continued to march for freedom long after Lincoln was laid to rest, that today we have the chance to face the challenges of this millennium together, as one people - as Americans.

      All of us know what those challenges are today - a war with no end, a dependence on oil that threatens our future, schools where too many children aren't learning, and families struggling paycheck to paycheck despite working as hard as they can. We know the challenges. We've heard them. We've talked about them for years.

      What's stopped us from meeting these challenges is not the absence of sound policies and sensible plans. What's stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics - the ease with which we're distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, our preference for scoring cheap political points instead of rolling up our sleeves and building a working consensus to tackle big problems.

      For the last six years we've been told that our mounting debts don't matter, we've been told that the anxiety Americans feel about rising health care costs and stagnant wages are an illusion, we've been told that climate change is a hoax, and that tough talk and an ill-conceived war can replace diplomacy, and strategy, and foresight. And when all else fails, when Katrina happens, or the death toll in Iraq mounts, we've been told that our crises are somebody else's fault. We're distracted from our real failures, and told to blame the other party, or gay people, or immigrants.

      And as people have looked away in disillusionment and frustration, we know what's filled the void. The cynics, and the lobbyists, and the special interests who've turned our government into a game only they can afford to play. They write the checks and you get stuck with the bills, they get the access while you get to write a letter, they think they own this government, but we're here today to take it back. The time for that politics is over. It's time to turn the page.

      We've made some progress already. I was proud to help lead the fight in Congress that led to the most sweeping ethics reform since Watergate.

      But Washington has a long way to go. And it won't be easy. That's why we'll have to set priorities. We'll have to make hard choices. And although government will play a crucial role in bringing about the changes we need, more money and programs alone will not get us where we need to go. Each of us, in our own lives, will have to accept responsibility - for instilling an ethic of achievement in our children, for adapting to a more competitive economy, for strengthening our communities, and sharing some measure of sacrifice. So let us begin. Let us begin this hard work together. Let us transform this nation.

      Let us be the generation that reshapes our economy to compete in the digital age. Let's set high standards for our schools and give them the resources they need to succeed. Let's recruit a new army of teachers, and give them better pay and more support in exchange for more accountability. Let's make college more affordable, and let's invest in scientific research, and let's lay down broadband lines through the heart of inner cities and rural towns all across America.

      And as our economy changes, let's be the generation that ensures our nation's workers are sharing in our prosperity. Let's protect the hard-earned benefits their companies have promised. Let's make it possible for hardworking Americans to save for retirement. And let's allow our unions and their organizers to lift up this country's middle-class again.

      Let's be the generation that ends poverty in America. Every single person willing to work should be able to get job training that leads to a job, and earn a living wage that can pay the bills, and afford child care so their kids have a safe place to go when they work. Let's do this.

      Let's be the generation that finally tackles our health care crisis. We can control costs by focusing on prevention, by providing better treatment to the chronically ill, and using technology to cut the bureaucracy. Let's be the generation that says right here, right now, that we will have universal health care in America by the end of the next president's first term.

      Let's be the generation that finally frees America from the tyranny of oil. We can harness homegrown, alternative fuels like ethanol and spur the production of more fuel-efficient cars. We can set up a system for capping greenhouse gases. We can turn this crisis of global warming into a moment of opportunity for innovation, and job creation, and an incentive for businesses that will serve as a model for the world. Let's be the generation that makes future generations proud of what we did here.

      Most of all, let's be the generation that never forgets what happened on that September day and confront the terrorists with everything we've got. Politics doesn't have to divide us on this anymore - we can work together to keep our country safe. I've worked with Republican Senator Dick Lugar to pass a law that will secure and destroy some of the world's deadliest, unguarded weapons. We can work together to track terrorists down with a stronger military, we can tighten the net around their finances, and we can improve our intelligence capabilities. But let us also understand that ultimate victory against our enemies will come only by rebuilding our alliances and exporting those ideals that bring hope and opportunity to millions around the globe.

      But all of this cannot come to pass until we bring an end to this war in Iraq. Most of you know I opposed this war from the start. I thought it was a tragic mistake. Today we grieve for the families who have lost loved ones, the hearts that have been broken, and the young lives that could have been. America, it's time to start bringing our troops home. It's time to admit that no amount of American lives can resolve the political disagreement that lies at the heart of someone else's civil war. That's why I have a plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008. Letting the Iraqis know that we will not be there forever is our last, best hope to pressure the Sunni and Shia to come to the table and find peace.

      Finally, there is one other thing that is not too late to get right about this war - and that is the homecoming of the men and women - our veterans - who have sacrificed the most. Let us honor their valor by providing the care they need and rebuilding the military they love. Let us be the generation that begins this work.

      I know there are those who don't believe we can do all these things. I understand the skepticism. After all, every four years, candidates from both parties make similar promises, and I expect this year will be no different. All of us running for president will travel around the country offering ten-point plans and making grand speeches; all of us will trumpet those qualities we believe make us uniquely qualified to lead the country. But too many times, after the election is over, and the confetti is swept away, all those promises fade from memory, and the lobbyists and the special interests move in, and people turn away, disappointed as before, left to struggle on their own.

      That is why this campaign can't only be about me. It must be about us - it must be about what we can do together. This campaign must be the occasion, the vehicle, of your hopes, and your dreams. It will take your time, your energy, and your advice - to push us forward when we're doing right, and to let us know when we're not. This campaign has to be about reclaiming the meaning of citizenship, restoring our sense of common purpose, and realizing that few obstacles can withstand the power of millions of voices calling for change.

      By ourselves, this change will not happen. Divided, we are bound to fail.

      But the life of a tall, gangly, self-made Springfield lawyer tells us that a different future is possible.

      He tells us that there is power in words.

      He tells us that there is power in conviction.

      That beneath all the differences of race and region, faith and station, we are one people.

      He tells us that there is power in hope.

      As Lincoln organized the forces arrayed against slavery, he was heard to say: "Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought to battle through."

      That is our purpose here today.

      That's why I'm in this race.

      Not just to hold an office, but to gather with you to transform a nation.

      I want to win that next battle - for justice and opportunity.

      I want to win that next battle - for better schools, and better jobs, and health care for all.

      I want us to take up the unfinished business of perfecting our union, and building a better America.

      And if you will join me in this improbable quest, if you feel destiny calling, and see as I see, a future of endless possibility stretching before us; if you sense, as I sense, that the time is now to shake off our slumber, and slough off our fear, and make good on the debt we owe past and future generations, then I'm ready to take up the cause, and march with you, and work with you. Together, starting today, let us finish the work that needs to be done, and usher in a new birth of freedom on this Earth.
    *

Mystics in the Market Place

By Eileen Fleming

It has been said that evolution is being held up by fundamentalism and the surge of fundamentalism throughout all faith paths sends shivers through cynical atheists and mystics alike. The bumper sticker actually did get it right: "We are spiritual beings having a human experience."

According to the 1987 classic, The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace, Dr. Scott Peck defines the spiritual life as fluid and that one may pass back and forth repeatedly through any of the four-probably more-stages of the soul.

Stage one upon this journey -that begins from within-is essentially our infancy in the spiritual life. Like a wild child, a person in this stage reflects the inner chaotic and anti-social,
unregenerate soul that is interested only in its own self-satisfaction and ego, much like the stereotypical spoiled child. Stage one people may claim to love others, but their behavior reflects they love their own pleasure, money, power, prestige, and security above any other. For stage one people, it really is all about them.

The good news is that the vast majority of humanity responds to that inner tug which is God, for lack of a better word. Katherine of Sienna wrote that within us all is the divine diamond. But life and all our baggage dulls the flame of our divine brilliance. Stage two souls seek to "let their light shine" and will live virtuous lives and do many good works. They also can be judgmental of others, self-righteous, rigid of thought, cold of heart, legalistic concrete literal thinkers and may even be guilty of a lukewarm faith. They want to do right and they even may desire to love and please God, but have not yet fully opened up to the Inner Light, as Joan of Ark did when she challenged church and state and persisted that she had intuited God within even as she was fried.

Stage two souls have not yet been set fully free and prefer the security of a higher human authority than themselves for guidance. They submit to institutions, scripture, dogma, ritual, ministers, or gurus. This is the most appropriate stage for older children and most adults who live busy lives just trying to keep bread on the table and a dry roof above. The difference between a stage one and stage two soul, is that a one wouldn't even notice a neighbor in need, while the two has awoken to the fact that we are to be our neighbor's keepers and they will respond to a friend-and like the good Samaritan, even to a total stranger in need.

Most theologians would agree that the opposite of faith is not disbelief: the opposite of faith is fear. Stage three souls have not just fearlessly awoken, they have evolved! This evolution has led them to the realization of what Christ was really talking about in the Sermon of the Mount AKA:The Beatitudes which sound like crazy promises, but is the litmus test of how we will be judged, if we claim to be a Christian.

About 2,000 years ago, when Christ was about 33, he hiked up a hill and sat down under an olive tree and began to teach the people;
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven."
In other words: it is those who know their own spiritual poverty, their own limitations and sins honestly and trust God loves them in spite of themselves who already live in the Kingdom of God.

How comforted we will all be, when we see, we haven't got a clue, as to the depth and breadth of pure love and mercy of The Divine Mystery of The Universe. God's name in ancient Aramaic is Abba which means Daddy as much as Mommy and He/She: The Lord has said, "My ways are not your ways. My thoughts are not yours." -Isaiah 55:8

Christ proclaimed more: "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." The essence of meek is to be patient with ignorance, slow to anger and never hold a grudge. In other words: how happy you will be when you also know humility; when you know ourselves, the good and the bad, for both cut through every human heart.

"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, they will be filled." In other words: how happy you will be when your greatest desire is to do what "God requires, and he has already told you what that is; BE JUST, BE MERCIFUL and walk humbly with your Lord."-Micah 6:8

"Blessed are the merciful, they will be shown mercy." In other words: how happy you will all be when you choose to return only kindness to your 'enemy.' "For with the measure you measure against another, it will be measured back to you." Christ warns his disciples as he explains the law of karma in Luke 6:27-38.

"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they see God." In other words: how happy you will be when you WAKE UP and see God is already within you, within every man, every woman and every child. The Supreme Being is everywhere, the Alpha and Omega, beginning and end. Beyond The Universe -and yet so small; within the heart of every atom.

"Blessed are The Peacemakers: THEY shall be called the children of God." Oh how happy the WORLD will be when we all seek justice and pursue it, for there can be no peace without justice.

"Blessed are those who are persecuted because they do what God requires, theirs is The Kingdom of Heaven." And one fine day the lion will lie down with The Lamb and man will make war no more and that is the Kingdom of God.

Now, a stage three soul may well reject Christ as God, but often agree with the philosophy of Jesus, which Thomas Jefferson laid out when he weeded out the miracle stories from the gospels and clarified the teachings of Christ in:

THE PHILOSOPHY AND MORALS of JESUS of NAZARETH

1. Be just: justice comes from virtue which comes from the heart.
2. Treat people the way we want to be treated.
3. Always work for PEACEFUL resolutions, even to the point of returning violence with COMPASSION.
4. Consider valuable the things that have no material value.
5. Do not judge others.
6. Do not bear grudges.
7. Be modest and unpretentious.
8. Give out of true generosity, not because we expect to be repaid.
9. Being true to one's self in more important than being loyal to one's family...those who think they know the most are the most ignorant...

A stage three soul will see that a neighbor is everyone on the planet and not just those who think and look the same. Stages threes are seekers, doubters, skeptics, atheists, agnostics and frequently adults who grew up disenchanted with institutionalized religion. Their inherent intellectual curiosity leads them to seek their way towards the Mystery of the Divine through philosophy and the study of multiple faith paths choosing and discarding according to their "inner light." Stage three souls often become activists for social justice and reform and the new wave of philanthropy from the blessed trio of Warren Buffet, Linda and Bill Gates fills mystics -and maybe some cynics?- with hope for a future that honors the unique sacredness of every life.

It has been said we are all called to be mystics in the market place and a stage four, such as Thomas Merton and Rumi give voice to that experience of the curtain being lifted and seeing through the glass a bit less darkly. A mystic can best be understood as one who is in love with the divine mystery and is viscerally connected to the unity of all creation. Mystics are not navel gazers, they feel the pain of the world within their hearts and grieve at what humans do to the other when they have no clue that The Divine is within the other as much as within themselves. Mystics have detached from their concepts of God-not by their own efforts, but by the invitation and action of God upon a willing and simple soul in love with Pure Being, AKA:God.

The mystic fool, Saint Francis, the leper kisser of Assisi, was so head over heels in love with God in everyone and all of creation that most people of his time considered him crazed, or at least, extremely eccentric. One needn't be a mystic or move beyond stage two on the spiritual journey to do what is good and right just because it is good and right. On that foundation alone people of faith, atheists and agnostics can surely find something to agree upon. Or would only a mystic see that?

7/3/06
http://www.wearewideawake.org

Commentary on Michael Lerner's "Hope Is Back!"

Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun magazine and founder of the Network of Spiritual Progressives, has written an astounding essay connecting the current groundswell of concern for peace and compassion to the historical context of the progressive movement of the 1960's.

He begins by framing the internal struggle that each of us as humans goes through on a fairly constant basis, and that is the struggle between fear and hope, the latter being another expression for love. This appears as a tension between our desire for meaningful community (hope) balanced with our fears of protecting our self-interest. Some version of this dichotomy is experienced by all who wrestle with questions like: How can I help? What difference can I make? Is peace even possible? Who really cares?

At any moment when people go for their highest ideals and momentarily overcome their fears, those fears and tendencies toward narrow self-interest have not been eradicated, and are still there. In each of us there is a deep yearning for loving connection and mutual recognition, for a world of meaning and higher purpose, and for a morally and spiritually coherent life and a community within which to live such a life. But there is also a set of voices that tell us that these yearnings are purely our own, and may even represent some level of infantile or adolescent fantasy or even individual pathology, and that to be a realistic and rational adult these yearnings should be repressed and we should learn to be fearful of the others who surround us.

Within this context of people overcoming their own fears and doubts to finally take action, all of us who consider ourselves part of a "peace movement" must be tolerant, open, and accepting of all points of view and levels of commitment. Lerner describes how a lack of acceptance hurt the movement in the Sixties:

A smart and successful movement must make room for all of these, and take a compassionate attitude toward the various levels of ambivalence. Unfortunately, the movements of the 1960s and early 1970s were not smart in this sense, and allowed a “political correctness” dynamic to emerge in which people were constantly putting each other down for not being committed enough, not being willing to take enough risks, and still having within their own consciousness elements of ego, self-interest, racism, sexism, homophobia, “white-skin privilege,” and various other maladies. And, of course, the criticisms were often true. But the point is that they were delivered without compassion, and hence in an extremely destructive way that pushed millions of people away from these social change movements.

Knowing that anger, self-righteousness, bitterness, and violence, whether expressed verbally, emotionally, or physically, have no place in a peace movement, we must be ever vigilant in our own internal experience to observe these negative emotions and surrender them. Only in this way can we keep them from poisoning and fragmenting any sort of unity the movement might otherwise build. For those that have been reading my series on Father Keating's guideposts for Christian transformation, his ideas on the false self vs. the true self resonate with what Rabbi Lerner is saying here. We all have a higher self that wants to transcend the strife, bitterness, and divisiveness we see in our society, and we have to get in touch with that higher self, cultivate it, and remember it in our daily lives if we are truly going to work for peace.

The truth is that when Americans are informed about something that is hurting others unnecessarily, and there is something that can be done, they want to do something to end the pain. In short, the abiding secret that is the major foundation for progressive politics is this: Americans have a strong ethical instinct, a fundamental goodness and caring and generosity, that can be tapped whenever they feel safe to show it. Usually that takes a natural disaster like a hurricane or flood or earthquake or mass starvation, but in 2006 they showed it by insisting that their elected representatives end the killing in Iraq.

Rabbi Lerner points out that we are now in the very heart of an axial moment as a society; a groundswell of compassion has risen to the surface and acted as a catalyst for change. Now, what will we do with the catalyst? Judging by the timid actions of our newly elected Congress, it looks as if, at least politically, this energy may be squandered. As Lerner puts it:

So instead of Democrats acting like they have a mandate for a new vision of politics, they instead talk as if their mandate is for “bipartisanship” and “governing from the Center” and a bunch of other empty ideas that will squelch the moment of hope and disarm the idealism that made this victory possible.

And wait, it may get worse before it gets better:

Bush and Cheney may be setting up the country for an even more reactionary regime in the not-too-distant-future. Imagining that it can keep a military presence of some sort in Iraq until the next president takes over, the Bush/Cheney wing of the political Right may be able to then blame “the loss of Iraq” on a liberal/progressive movement that has “stabbed America and democracy in the back.” It was this kind of rhetoric that accompanied the rise of fascism in Germany after the defeat of German troops in World War I, and it is conceivable that the same path might be followed here by people who are unwilling to go down in history as having lost yet another American war.

All the more reason why we should insist that the end of the war happen under Bush’s presidency, rather than under the presidency of a liberal or progressive who succeeds him in office. But to win that battle, the anti-war movement needs to change from a movement that is against the status quo, to a movement that has a positive vision of what it is actually for.

I put that last phrase in bold print, because as faithful Peace Meme readers will know, that's what I've been trying to say all along. The peace movement cannot afford to define itself narrowly as an "anti-war movement." In fact, I don't believe we should frame ourselves as anti-anything. What are we for? What's the alternate vision to this, "if we stop fighting and killing, others will fight and kill us?" Surely at this late date in human evolution we can find better ways of being in the world than this.

I believe the problem lies in our unwillingness to end our collective state of denial about the way our American way of life affects the rest of the world. When it comes right down to it, I believe that's what the war in Iraq is all about. If you read Rebuilding America's Defenses, with all its talk of "global hegemony" and "Pax Americana," that's really what we're fighting for: another source of cheap oil so we don't have to face the hard facts that our way of life isn't sustainable forever. Until each of us, as individuals, takes a good hard look at our own lives to see where they might be out of balance, takes action to correct the imbalances, and then warmly, lovingly, and compassionately invites others to do the same, we are butting our heads against a brick wall. So, where to begin? I'm glad you asked. Rabbi Lerner has a plan, a positive vision of what a more peaceful world could look like:

We must demand of the anti-war movement and of the pro-peace forces inside the Congress that they move beyond “Out Now” and include as equally central to their public discourse the insistence on the Global Marshall Plan (point No. 7 of our Spiritual Covenant with America, detailed in my book The Left Hand of God). Simply stated, our demand is that the U.S. take the lead (by example, actually doing this ourselves) in taking 5 percent of the GDP for each of the next twenty years and dedicate it to a sophisticated plan (i.e. not just dumping the money into dictatorships or give-aways, but a plan that would work to build the capacities of each society) to end global poverty, homelessness, hunger, inadequate education, inadequate health care, and repair the damage done to the earth’s environment by 150 years of irresponsible industrialization by both capitalist and socialist nations).

As a first step in bringing this to the attention of the American people, we will be asking people in the spiritual and religious communities to dedicate Saturday, April 28 and Sunday, April 29 to the creation of a Peace Demonstration, Peace Teach-In, or Peace Sabbath dedicated to advocacy for the Global Marshall Plan. We may call it Generosity Sunday. Instead of having demonstrations led by angry people who spew words of hatred against the government, we need to have spiritually infused demonstrations in every community in our country, led by people who say not only Out Now, but Global Marshall Plan Now, that is, who have a positive vision of what we are for rather than a purely negative vision of what we are against.

It is my hope that more folks will take an interest in Rabbi Lerner's ideas, because they resonate with truth and spiritual conviction that I find lacking in many other "progressive" voices. This must be a revolution of spirit, not just economics or politics. This is the only way to lasting peace, the only way to access our higher selves, the only way to change.

A New Paradigm of Peace

The staples of the modern peace event were all in place: big signs, slogans, flags, banners, beards, gray hair, glasses, multi-hued clothing melding into a psychedelic pastiche of memes and messages: Support Peace, Bush is Insane, No Escalation, Bush Lied: 653,000 Died, End the War in Iraq, No More War, Refuse Illegal War. I scampered around downtown Austin, taking pictures (two new albums posted), spreading ribbons, and talking with a lot of different people. The vibe at these events is generally cheerful, probably because there is a recognition and a relief at finding that no, apparently I’m not the only soul that feels my individual will is not being represented by my government. There are a lot of smiles, and it’s not hard to strike up conversations with people; there’s a very sort of Woodstockish vibe that I felt a lot in my youth (and again, I suspect I’m not alone in that).

 However, over the past two days, I've done a lot of reflecting on those events and those conversations, and as exhilarating as it was to participate in a social demonstration, I was left with a nagging disquietude about the way things are unfolding. There is a palpable undercurrent of anger at these events, and I have to confess that it’s in large part a reflection of the undercurrent of anger in myself. And as right as it feels to be angry at the way things are going, I have to ask myself, is there a place for anger in one seeking peace? I refer again to Thich Nhat Hanh’s statement,

 

"To work for peace, you must have a peaceful heart. When you do, you are the child of God. But many who work for peace are not at peace. They still have anger   and frustration, and their work  is not really peaceful. We cannot say that they are touching the Kingdom of God.     To preserve peace, our hearts must be at peace with the world, with our brothers and our sisters. When we try to overcome evil with evil, we are not working for peace.”

                                   

This guy asked the question, “Sometimes I wonder, what the hell are we doing? I mean, carry another sign, sign another petition, how come we’re not doing anything? We ought to be out in the streets, stopping traffic, getting in people’s faces!” It was true that there were a bunch of different people promoting a bunch of different causes: going to Crawford; protesting at the trial of Ehren K. Watada; joining the Green Party; joining the Socialist Party; demanding impeachment; planning the next protest, the next march, the next, the next, the next . . . but you know, I thought about that getting out in the street thing, and that just doesn’t seem like the right response. See, most people driving by were either honking and waving in support, or at least passively ignoring us. Only a handful reacted angrily. So why provoke anger in others? Why tell others they are wrong because they don’t think like us or believe the same things as us? Is that what it looks like to seek peace? 

Many parallels are being drawn between Iraq and Vietnam, and we watch in horror as the president leads us down a road that looks very, very familiar. And yet, the thought struck me, has the peace movement, if there is such a thing, learned anything since the Sixties? Can we use the same methods and make any sort of discernable progress or difference? Are we being progressive in the truest sense of the word, or are we always acting in reaction to those in power? I think it’s time for a new paradigm of peace, and I offer some initial, tentative, and exploratory ideas on the topic. Dialogue and debate are heartily invited; one thing I need we all need to be doing is listening to people with opposing viewpoints, I mean really listening, not just plotting our next point in the argument while they’re talking. OK, so on with it.

Here’s one of the problems with the whole concept of a peace movement, as pointed out in an interesting article on Wikipedia: 

There is much confusion over what "peace" is (or should be), which results in a plurality of movements seeking diverse ideals of peace. Particularly, "anti-war" movements often have ill-defined goals.

It is often not clear whether a movement or a particular protest is against war in general, as in pacifism, or against one side's participation in a war (but not the other's). Indeed, some observers feel that this unclarity has represented a key part of the propaganda strategy of those seeking victory in, e.g., the Vietnam War.

So, if our peace movement doesn’t have any clearly defined, well-articulated principles, it’s going to be easy to fragment it. And my feeling is that if our events are always protests AGAINST something, then it’s time to ask ourselves, what are we FOR?

In reference to the point about the government using the “unclarity” of the movement in its propaganda strategy, I submit this from Time:

President Bush on Saturday challenged lawmakers skeptical of his new Iraq plan to propose their own strategy for stopping the violence in Baghdad.

"To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible," Bush said.

 I’m not saying this is propaganda, either. In fact, I have to say that the president has a very valid point here. I agree that opposing everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible. And this is a point that the “peace movement” needs to address if we’re going to reach deeper into the hearts of the millions of Americans who probably agree with our sentiments but have little to no interest in our methods.

I offer here some modest proposals for how those of us who yearn for peace might use our attention, intention, and actions in more productive and truly progressive ways. It is my wish to implement these proposals in my own life, and I invite others to consider them, experiment with them and observe the results, and share ideas in an effort to find common ground and guiding principles.

All of this is built upon a foundation of my belief that true Peace Work is really inner work first. Am I holding my own values, beliefs and actions up to the same intense scrutiny that I turn on Bush and his colleagues and supporters? Do I know what my defining values and beliefs are? Have I considered how they affect my actions? Can I objectively observe where I am out of integrity before I level that charge at anyone else? What am I doing to bring peace into the lives of my family, my co-workers, my fellow Austinites, the people I interact with on the Internet? Am I listening only to voices that agree with my positions, or am I peacefully listening to opposing viewpoints, all the while respecting the speaker as a human being and staying tolerant even when I can’t understand why they seem so wrong? 

I want to be an active participant in the burgeoning peace movement, and here are a few ideas that I’d like to implement as things get busier: 

1) Spiritual Practice: I have a Centering Prayer (silent meditation) practice that sustains me when I do it, but often gets put aside when more “important” things seem to take precedence. So I renew my commitment to practicing twice a day, 20 minutes each time. It doesn’t matter if you do yoga, Zen meditation, hike in nature, or howl at the moon at midnight, as long as you connect with Spirit. Because in the world of Spirit, all human beings are connected as One. I know that sounds like a platitude, but to me, that seems like the essential starting point. Unity is elusive, but it’s the fundamental truth, and the separation and alienation that seem so real are, at the deepest level, illusory. Drop into silence, remember the big picture. 

2) Service: How am I helping the people in my immediate circle of contact? Am I getting too wrapped up in busy-ness to notice that my wife needs my love and respect, and my daughter needs my to drop everything and give her my full attention while we read books, play with trains, or kick the soccer ball around? Am I practicing what I preach when I’m with my students? Am I taking any actions to volunteer my time and efforts in service of others? Again, this is crucial to peace. 

3) Positive Message: When I go out to a peace event, am I clear about why I’m there? Can I articulate a clear, positive message if I’m asked? If I could say three sentences to President Bush, would I waste them telling him what a lousy job I think he’s doing? Or would I ask him to imagine the compassionate and peaceful good will we could create in the world if we immediately stopped funding the war, invested that money in health care, alternative energy technology, feeding the hungry, and rebuilding a sustainable culture at home and in the places we’ve destroyed? We need to establish a positive, peaceful vision of what this world could be like without war. That’s far more powerful than angrily complaining about the way things are. 

4) Deep Listening: Find someone whose views are different from your own, and practice listening to what they say. If you really work at this, they might even do the same for you. Keep the idea of creative resolution in mind. Believe it or not, conservatives don’t like this war much more than we do, but they see it as necessary to achieve peace. At some deep, distant level, most of us do all want the same things. How can we change the nature of discourse in this country? If we were to listen deeply and treat others fairly, a lot of the venom and vitriol from our “opponents” would be completely neutralized. Easy? Hell no. We all want to be right, and we all think we are. But let’s practice the kind of diplomacy on our level that we wish to see at the highest levels of government. 

To sum this up, if I can, what I’m trying to say is that we need to build and strengthen and nurture and cultivate this vision of a peaceful world instead of trying to tear down the other side, whom we perceive to be the problem. To paraphrase Ram Dass, peace is an inside job. When we find it on the inside, I believe we’ll see a lot more of it on the outside.

 

 

Obama On Escalation

"As the New Year approaches, we are told that the President is
considering the deployment of tens of thousands of additional
troops to Iraq in the desperate hope of subduing the burgeoning
civil war there.

This is a chilling prospect that threatens to compound the
tragic mistakes he has already made over the last four years.

In 2002, I strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq because I felt
it was an ill-conceived venture which I warned would "require a
U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undermined cost, with
undetermined consequences." I said then that an invasion without
strong international support could drain our military, distract
us from the war with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and further
destabilize the Middle East.

Sadly, all of those concerns have been borne out.

Today, nearly three thousand brave young Americans are dead, and
tens of thousands more have been wounded. Rather than welcomed
"liberators," our troops have become targets of the exploding
sectarian violence in Iraq. Our military has been strained to
the limits. The cost to American taxpayers is approaching $400
billion.

Now we are faced with a quagmire to which there are no good
answers. But the one that makes very little sense is to put tens
of thousands more young Americans in harm's way without changing
a strategy that has failed by almost every imaginable account.

In escalating this war with a so-called "surge" of troops, the
President would be overriding the expressed concerns of Generals
on the ground, Secretary Powell, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group
and the American people. Colin Powell has said that placing more
troops in the crossfire of a civil war simply will not work.
General John Abizaid, our top commander in the Middle East, said
just last month that, "I believe that more American forces
prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more
responsibility for their own future." Even the Joint Chiefs of
Staff have expressed concern, saying that a surge in troop
levels "could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda" and "provide
more targets for Sunni insurgents." Once again, the President is
defying good counsel and common sense.

As I said more than a month ago, while some have proposed
escalating this war by adding thousands of more troops, there is
little reason to believe that this will achieve these results
either. It's not clear that these troop levels are sustainable
for a significant period of time, and according to our
commanders on the ground, adding American forces will only
relieve the Iraqis from doing more on their own. Moreover,
without a coherent strategy or better cooperation from the
Iraqis, we would only be putting more of our soldiers in the
crossfire of a civil war.

There is no military solution to this war. Our troops can help
suppress the violence, but they cannot solve its root causes.
And all the troops in the world won't be able to force Shia,
Sunni, and Kurd to sit down at a table, resolve their
differences, and forge a lasting peace. In fact, adding more
troops will only push this political settlement further and
further into the future, as it tells the Iraqis that no matter
how much of a mess they make, the American military will always
be there to clean it up.

That is why I believe we must begin a phased redeployment of
American troops to signal to the government and people of Iraq,
and others who have a stake in stabilizing the country - that
ours is not an open-ended commitment. They must step up. The
status quo cannot hold.

In November, the American people sent a resounding message of
change to the President. But apparently that message wasn't
clear enough.

I urge all Americans who share my grave concerns over this
looming decision to call, write or email the President, and make
your voices heard. I urge you to tell them that our soldiers are
not numbers to add just because someone couldn't think of a
better idea, they are our sons and daughters, our brothers and
sisters, our neighbors and friends who are willing to wave
goodbye to everything they've ever known just for the chance to
serve their country. Our men and women in uniform are doing a
terrific job under extremely difficult conditions. But our
government has failed them so many times over the last few
years, and we simply cannot afford to do it again. We must not
multiply the mistakes of yesterday, we must end them today.

http://ga3.org/ct/Td3_B6M1xRkd/

May this New Year bring a turn in our policy away from the
stubborn repetition of our mistakes, so we can begin to chart a
conclusion to this painful chapter in our history and bring our
troops home.

Sincerely,

U.S. Senator Barack Obama"

Back to God & Pacifism

"A couple of weeks back I read Carter Phipps's article in What Is Enlightenment?, and it threw me for a loop. Indeed, once I launched myself out there in the blogosphere as some sort of peace evangelist, I started to wonder what peace truly meant in my own belief system, the system that I rely on to inform and guide my day-to-day, and hopefully moment-to-moment, decisions. So I've been digesting the impressions from that article, and tonight I sit at my keyboard and begin the arduous task of crafting a response.

The article (which you've hopefully read!) is titled, Is God A Pacifist? My first challenge came from an old pagan buddy of mine from my Tavern Rogue days in a small, colonial village somewhere in the bogs of Tidewater Virginia, who harangued me about the article's premise being flawed since there is no god. We quibbled a bit, and it seemed to me we were arguing semantics. If we were to frame the debate around the question of the existence of this separate Being who, clad in beard, white robes, and golden scepter and seated on some massive throne in the clouds from whence harsh judgment and insider tickets were dispensed according to one's deeds, then yes, Calvin the Younger, I concur that there is no god. But the problem with this argument is this; to "prove" the non-existence of God based upon the fact that humans have historically misconceived the nature of the Divine is no proof at all that there is no such thing as God. God is Love, the creative force and organizing principle behind all manifestation, and it's only a matter of time before quantum physics gives us perhaps a better name for this vast intelligence.

OK, but quibbling over operational definitions aside, let's get back to the question of whether or not God is a pacifist. In his article, Phipps begins by relating a conversation with a peace protester in those strange, twilight days between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. Once the sense of national unity began to fray, two opposing views on God's stance emerged. As Phipps frames the dialectic, on the one hand were

    "the more conservative, or neoconservative, faction—a majority if you believe the polls—who    were gradually coming to accept a more interventionist role for America in the world. They        believed in the use of military force and were ready and willing to head into the minefield of Middle East politics to rid the world of a dangerous dictator. In the name of democratic values, the argument went, we must be willing to break the back of tyranny in a part of the world that has often been the seedbed for terrorism. On this end of the spectrum were much of the traditional religious community—mainstream Christians, Evangelicals, American Baptists, conservative Jews, and so forth. And the implication of the position, whether stated directly by the Pat Robertsons of the world or simply suggested by Bush's “axis of evil” doctrine, was that God was on the side of America in this particular confrontation—that God was a supporter of freedom and of democracy and would like nothing more than to see the American eagle triumphant in the unfortunate but fundamentally good war on the globally destabilizing reality of rogue states and international terrorism."

So that's the side my mom and grandmother (with her pictures of W festooning the walls of her stuffy little bedroom, God bless her!) came down on. That's the old-time religion, the fire and brimstone, bring on the apocalypse style of Christianity under which so many of my pagan friends tend to lump anyone who professes to be a Christian. Why it never occurs to any of them that this view seems to leave out the entire New Testament is beyond me. After all, isn't that the part of the Bible that made Christianity possible? OK, so,

"On the other side of the fence was the more liberal cross-section of the country, including parts of the Democratic Party, which staunchly opposed the idea of war and roundly denounced the administration. This faction included the more liberal, ecumenical members of the mainstream religious community, and they were joined by a number of other spiritual or pseudo-spiritual movements, including American Buddhism, the self-help movement, the New Age, New Thought Christianity, et cetera. They took a resolutely pacifist stance, criticizing all talk of war. And the strong implication was unavoidable: that God, the spirit, or at least the moral and spiritual high ground, was in fact on their side—the side of pluralism and tolerance, the side of peace and reconciliation, the side that would not so easily kill in the name of a dubious American agenda to unilaterally order the world as we saw fit. “God is on the side of peace,” read the man's sign in Vermont."

If I'm reading the Gospels correctly, this end of the spectrum seems a lot closer to the teachings of the guy named Jesus. OK, so what's bugging Phipps?

As he says in the article, and this thought has crossed my mind on many occasions, there is nothing wrong with the concept of peace, but somehow, the way it's bandied about in protests and anti-war lingo, it seems "inadequate." Peace just doesn't seem like a realistic option in the current insanity in which we find ourselves embroiled; there are too many people, too many conflicting ideologies, too many "fevered egos" (as Bill Hicks used to say), and too few resources to simply ask everyone to stop fighting. So where does this leave us?

Phipps goes on to deliver one of the most cogent, articulate explorations of what "peace" means on many different levels. He talks about how it has gone from being the exclusive domain of countercultural freaks and hippies and into the sober world of academia and learned think tanks. He also takes a lighthearted poke at one manifestation of the peace movement that tickled me for obvious reasons:

"Judging by the back bumpers of our nation's cars, we seem to be busy either building peace, creating peace, thinking peace, teaching peace, giving peace a chance, waging peace, or visualizing world peace. We have books that promise “forty more ways to be a peaceful person” and “108 steps to create a more peaceful world.” And in a society where The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Iraq was recently published, I imagine that Peace for Dummies can't be that far behind. What do Miss America contestants want to work for? World peace. In a time when war and conflict are still so prevalent around the globe, sometimes it seems that the only place peace has broken out consistently is on the bumper stickers, key chains, and T-shirts of countercultural chic. Peace, it seems, has become a commodity of cool."

Peace for Dummies! Why didn't I think of that!

So when we speak of peace, do we mean some hippy-dippy notion of a beautiful green world where Arab and Jew, Iraqi and American, Christian and Moslem, black and white, man and woman, lion and lamb can all frolic together in some blissed-out utopia? Because I have to agree with Phipps, it seems that this version is what a lot of people have in mind. I also have to agree that it's not realistic.

Some of the other versions of peace explored:

• Pacifism -- generally regarded as the absolute avoidance of war and violence. "Pacifism is generally understood to be a rejection of violence—usually, as Michael Nagler points out, a rejection of war. It is often called 'nonresistance,' a term derived from the biblical phrase, 'Resist not him that is evil' (Matthew 5:39), presumed to mean that Christians should uphold Jesus's example of not fighting back against injustice. "

• Active Resistance -- often confused with pacifism, but not the same thing! This is often what happens at "protests;" people use violent methods to "fight" for peace. I remember before the invasion of Iraq, there was a protest in Austin where hundreds of people lined both sides of the Congress Avenue bridge. We were waving at people driving across, and they were waving back, smiling, flashing peace signs. Most of the signs carried peaceful messages (mine was a simple "Pray for Peace"), but some compared Bush to Hitler, others called him a murderer, others showed oil morphing into blood. And then a handful of folks started trotting up and down the sidewalk, saying that in 15 minutes, "We're going into the street, man! We gotta block traffic!" That just made no sense to me. Because as soon as you start to interfere with somebody else's peaceful drive home, you are no longer creating peace! The tone of the demonstration changed dramatically when people began running into the street. The drivers of stopped cars honked angrily, and the police, who had been peaceful observers up to this point, quickly stepped in, made a bunch of arrests, and broke up the whole gathering. Remember the words of Thich Nhat Hanh!

• Nonviolence -- perhaps a subtle distinction from pacifism, but this insight from Phipps really opened my eyes to the nature of nonviolence: "The term 'nonviolence' entered the English vocabulary in 1923 as a translation of ahimsa, a Sanskrit word adopted from Hindu scripture by Mohandas Gandhi. Ahimsa means 'the force that comes into play when every vestige of the desire to harm is eliminated,' says Michael Nagler. And force is probably a good word to use because nonviolent resistance is hardly passive."

So it seems nonviolence, in this instance, is a synthesis of pacifism and active resistance. Phipps goes on to show how Ghandi, though nonviolent, was hardly passive! In fact, nonviolence is often confrontational, but always intentional. Now here's where an important shift in the argument comes into play:

Peace has always had a strained relationship with nonviolence. The focus of nonviolent resistance, from Gandhi to King to Walesa to Mandela, has really been on change, on the evolution and transformation of an unjust society. And all of those individuals have been concerned with that transformation over and above the maintenance of any state of peace or quiet social harmony. “Look at Martin Luther King. He was going throughout the South during the civil rights movement getting arrested,” says Jim Garrison, cofounder and president of the State of the World Forum. “Look at Jesus. Jesus said to love one another, but he was so confrontational with the Orthodox leaders that they killed him. They wouldn't have killed him if he was just sitting there in the temple saying, 'Let's sit here and pray.' ”

This sheds light on my motivation and aim of the whole Peace Meme project: I'm not so concerned with achieving some pie-in-the-sky peaceful utopia, but what I really want is to see society change. (Of course, this leads back to another of my fundamental beliefs, drawn from  Franklin, Emerson, and a host of mystics throughout the ages, that the only way to see society change is to change myself. But you can read about that in any number of other posts on my blog.) Let's go back for a moment to Dialectics 101, in which change (synthesis) always emerges out of the conflict between a thesis and an antithesis. Follow me for a moment as we backtrack to the beginning of the argument:

Thesis: Life in America before 9/11

Antithesis: Arab extremists destroy World Trade Center and 3000 lives.

Synthesis: That brief period of shared grief, unity, and solidarity that emerged post-9/11. What happens to a synthesis? It morphs into a new thesis, of course, and if we look at that image of "God Bless America" and let's go get the bad guys (even if we not-so-subtly pull the old bait-and-switch on who the bad guy is), this becomes the new thesis.

New thesis: "War on Terror"

Antithesis: 2006 Midterm Elections -- i.e., this isn't working! This growing wish for peace, or more accurately, for change, is part of the emerging zeitgeist at the close of 2006.

Synthesis: Who knows? While the utopian ideal of global peace is not realistically going to emerge in the immediate future, what might happen if we all realize the dynamic, volatile cycles of world events were not worth getting attached to? What if the violent nature of world events never changes, and the only thing we can change is our response to this violence? Hmmm, perhaps we're finding a leverage point here.

So back to the whole God angle for a moment; Phipps explores the many conflicting messages in all the major religions about the roles of peace and violence in human interaction. The early Christians were intense pacifists of the "turn the other cheek" variety, often offering themselves gladly to the gladiators and the lions . . . right up to the point, that is, that the Roman Empire became a Christian state, and then it was quite all right to use violence in the name of the Lord. Other religions have similar paradoxical relationships to teachings about peace and violence. One of the more compelling instances cited by Phipps is Dietrich Bonhoeffer's assassination attempt on Hitler; hard to fault a guy for that! So what are we to make of all these contradictions? If we look back at our original dialectical struggle between conservative Christians and progressive Christians, it seems a strong case for either side can be constructed. So, are we stuck?

Not necessarily. When Phipps turns his lens away from religion and points it at nature, the argument becomes even more engrossing:

Evolutionary biologists like to tell us that, in nature, external stress is what forces an organism to change and adapt to new conditions of life. “Stress is the only thing that creates evolution in living systems,” biologist and author Elisabet Sahtouris emphasizes. And much the same could be said of human culture. Gandhi may not have been a biologist, but he applied this principle well, and the power of his movement increased the stress on the British colonialists to the point that it became intolerable for them to continue their unjust occupation.

Stress is necessary for change. If we were in a homeostatic, perfectly balanced, peaceful state, nothing would change. In fact, probably nothing would even happen! And since we're all fairly convinced of the old adage that nothing is constant but change, it seems that this is the human condition, at least for the time being. How do we live in a world of constant flux? And what is God's will in all of this? Why is this the natural state of things?

So if we cannot condemn religious terrorism merely on the grounds that it is violent, where does that leave us? Are we destined to live in this fragile global society with religious actors running around the world stage committing spiritually “justified” acts of violence based on some very dubious interpretations of the sacred? At the very least, it is important to understand, as Appleby points out, that one can have authentic religious devotion and still manage to draw some extremely dangerous conclusions about the “will of God.” As he puts it, “The numinous power of the sacred—conveyed through the imperfect channels of intellect, will, and emotion—does not come accompanied by a moral compass.”

Not only is it difficult at best to discern the "will of God," but if we look at the natural world around us, there is very little evidence that God is a pacifist. On every level of existence, from the subatomic to the galactic, something is eating something else, and the processes of creation and destruction are in a constant, violent, cataclysmic dance. If we are looking to man for a way to stop this cosmic dance, we are indeed barking up the wrong tree! This is the way things evolve:

“Phenomenal existence itself seems to be a violent mode of being,” writes eco-theologian Thomas Berry. Simply put, we don't live in a Leave-It-to-Beaver universe. It's violent, it's wild, it's out of control, but it does have one extraordinary thing going for it. It's ev