Thursday, February 22, 2007

The war in Iraq; the war at home

Readers will recall our previous discussion of the email from Bryant "Doc" Shurley, a medic in Iraq who supports the "surge." The erudite message received massive "viral" distribution, leading some to suspect a hoax, or a propaganda effort of some sort. I contacted Bryant's father Michael and determined that the message was real.

I was also interested to discover that Bryant was, like me, a graphic designer. Although he's probably quite good at what he does, competition never bothered me -- so if the war ends soon and he rejoins the field back here in the States, that'll be fine.

Bryant's position on the war angered some readers; obviously, it is not a position I share. Still, these words from his father deserve to be read:
I was in fact, thankful that someone would finally attempt to validate Bryant's letter as authentic. Most folks we've met who oppose the war had rather just slam the letter for being of contemptible and of shady "Republican" conspiratorial origin.... Your professionalism in the rebuttal presentation on your blog is important to me and very much appreciated. There are some out there who when faced with an opposing point of view, would rather just rip it, out of contempt and hatred, rather than attempting to discern in it any possible merit. You have offered studied rebuttal, without trying to defame or abuse in an attempt to change what is merely opinion. Why is it so hard for others on both sides of this issue, to do the same, without the hatred and derision on every issue?

As I had said, Bryant was not trying to write historical copy for some news machine, or a political document intended to cause polarization. Rather, it was a quick effort by him to explain to his parents that he was ok, and to share what he had gleaned in the short 2 months of daily "sapper" missions in Iraq. Neither was it my intent to fuel pockets of political division when I sent out those email copies of the letter to my classmates. I was just a father wanting to share my elation at finally hearing that his son, serving in harm's way, was ok after a long time of no communication.

The whole process of dealing with the "aftershock" of Bryant's letter has been quite educational for my family. His letter rose above normal internet correspondence, and took on a life of it's own. It seems to have been incredibly polarizing across the nation, for having started with such innocent intent.

Once again, thanks for being fair and for explaining the facts underlying your point of view. I am now more informed and equipped to make better decisions based on your information. Thank you also for your thoughtfulness in explaining the medic's work to others who might not want to give it the credit it deserves....
This message touched me, and to some extent, shamed me. Mike Shurley reminded me of how coarsened the discourse in this nation has become. We need not be this way. We used to be better.

I used to be better.

It's easy enough to point to the other side and to say: "Well, they started it." Year after year, Coulter, Malkin and Limbaugh have used words like "traitor" to describe anyone disagreeing with their positions. Not long ago, Sean Hannity came out with a book which, in its very subtitle, equated liberals with terrorists.

With accusatory titles facing us every time we wandered into a bookstore, with those sorts of attacks blaring out of every radio loudspeaker, many of us felt that this nation no longer had room or desire for reasoned debate. The time had come to "imitate the tiger," as Shakespeare once put it.

The result has been something akin to a civil war in this country.

(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)


We haven't actually started shooting at each other, but we've gotten used to screaming at our fellow citizens like howler monkeys each and every day. To tell the truth, some progressives have become so strident, I find them as repellent as I find Limbaugh.

After the last election, quite a few people "kidded on sly" about the need for a new civil war to get rid of the south. Even after the jokes ended, I made no secret of the fact that the idea of red state/blue state separation appealed to me. The culture, I felt, had fractured beyond repair. The "mystic chords of memory," as Lincoln put it, no longer possessed their power to bind.

But even in Lincoln's day, when cultural war gave way to an actual shooting war, far-sighted Confederates understood that the South and North would soon be trading partners, while far-sighted Northerners understood that the Union would be best preserved if a defeated South were treated with dignity. We should apply a similar understanding to our current conflicts.

Despite Bryant Shurley's words, we will, I think, lose in Iraq. That assessment stems from realism, not from a mindless defeatism, and I mean by it no disrespect for our soldiers. This administration went to war in a part of the world it did not understand -- Bush, according to reliable report, did not even know the difference between Sunnis and Shi'ites. We are not wanted there, even by the people we had hoped to aid. Moreover, and most importantly, American taxpayers are sick of funding this adventure.

We lost this war the moment it started.

But, as I've argued previously, nations tend to go a little mad after a loss. History is pretty clear on that point: Russia's defeat in the Russo-Japanese war led to the advance of Communism. Germany's humiliation after World War I aided the rise of Hitler. After France lost to the Prussians in 1870, that nation ruptured culturally in ways reminiscent of America's current red state/blue state divisions.

That's why I fear the post-war period even more than I fear the current war.

We cannot afford to go "a little mad" as those other nations did. America needs to be what it once was -- a nation in which citizens can have opposing viewpoints while still respecting opponents as fellow citizens.

I can't force the Ann Coulters of this world to moderate their tone. All I can do is to try to regain my best self -- and to apologize for the many times when I've stupidly let passion overwhelm civility.

The last time a race riot broke out in my city, the man at the center of the storm, Rodney King, asked his fellow Angelenos to "get along" -- and he added a few words that should be better remembered: "Ain't nobody going anywhere." People made fun of him, but he was right.

Ain't nobody going anywhere.

So we're going to have to find a way to talk to each other.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

This post is exactly why you should not quit. I may not always agree with you but I always look forward to hearing your opinions. You are just to valuable to walk away.

Anonymous said...

Joseph,

I want to thank you for your wise words of caution and moderation in your request for dialogue and your willingness to entertain the thoughts of those with whom you disagree. I have tried with some small success to bridge the hate gap that has so divided this country. I think that what is most needed in our attempts to communicate with our “opponents” and detractors is the quality of love. We do not have to agree with the other, but we must love him/her. I must admit to often failing in my attempts to remember this. We must constantly remind each other of the necessity of holding to the principle of love as both end and strategy. I was most moved by Brant’s father’s letter. His response was one of dignity, respect and thanks to you – a man with whom he may have disagreed and yet appreciated. For me, the greatest danger is that we may become so full of ourselves that we blindly assert our rightness and refuse even to consider contrary opinions.

For me, the greatest proponent of this principle was the late Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. I was privileged to observe him at close range in his Chicago campaign in the late 60’s. If there was ever a man who had a justified cause to hate, it was King. Yet he realized not only that hate was a self defeating strategy, but that hate always ultimately defeated both the victor and the vanquished.

Peace,

Bob Boldt

Anonymous said...

Since the troops are there due to multiple acts of fraud in the first place holding anyone but Republicans accountable for the failure is contemptible.

Anonymous said...

"We are not wanted there, even by the people we had hoped to aid."

Is that why the U.S. invaded? To be helpful?

Anonymous said...

wow, and not even an apology for all the name calling cannon engages in!

Anonymous said...

"....Mike Shurley reminded me of how coarsened the discourse in this nation has become. We need not be this way. We used to be better.

I used to be better....

......All I can do is to try to regain my best self -- and to apologize for the many times when I've stupidly let passion overwhelm civility...."

Sounds like an apolgy to me.

Anonymous said...

you are right Dan,
My apology to Cannon.

Anonymous said...

sofla said...

I'm reminded of a standup bit by Chris Rock, in which he advises men not to argue with women, because men are handicapped by a need to make sense, and women are not, making it an uneven battlefield upon which men cannot win.

While I laughed at the stereotype, it may not be true in every instance of men vs. women.

However, it is an apt description of the right wing propagandists versus their rhetorical opponents, in the main.

The right comes with their focus group-tested sloganeering of difficult policy questions, using pithy phrases that can fit on a bumper sticker. 'It's YOUR MONEY!!!,' as Bush memorably shucked and jived the people, comes to mind.

And the answer is a lengthy discourse on the social compact and deferred but real liabilities that have been solemnly promised, and such a half-hour rebuttal can be rebutted instantaneously by simply shouting 'It's YOUR MONEY!!!' more loudly.

A recent op-ed article asked, and announced it to be true at the same time, why it was that the phony e-mail propaganda materials were almost always from the right wing side (as is true in my experience as well).

You know, the 'scandals' of the sale of John Edwards' home, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's real estate profit, Obama's supposed radical jihadist madrass training, and etc. (The Clinton list alone probably has a couple of dozen false stories of this variety: their supposed charging the Secret Service protection detail 'rent' sufficient to cover their mortgage payment, Hillary's refusal to meet with the Gold Star mothers, etc. Snopes has a section dedicated to this subtopic, which see).

I receive these from right wing friends, and I'd always previously kept my replies factual and dispassionate, citing the evidence that showed the claims to be exaggerated beyond reason and/or wholly false. Finally, I'd had enough, and replied back that I wondered what was wrong with his mind to so uncritically accept such transparent propaganda as even possibly true (given the normal lack of substantiation or checkable sources to back up the claims), asked him what happened to his bs detector, and said he and his fellow right wing friends appeared to have pygmy brains.

He was offended and replied to that effect, and certainly, my response was not the endlessly charitable and patient road that may be what is advocated here in this thread.

But I'd already been doing that tactic, to no apparent lasting effect. Not being insane, I tried a different tactic to get a different result. And I have to say, it seems to have worked so far.

When dealing with an ass, sometimes a smack with a rhetorical 2 by 4 can get it moving in the right direction.

So I'm torn on this question. If ignorant people are moved by the apparent passion with which a case is presented, maybe more passionate case-making is called for, and that could include name-calling, perhaps. (Although calling people 'sewer snoids' will only ring a few bells so late after the day).

Anonymous said...

Joe, as a redneck mississippi mfin'leacher i accept your apology. but it was unnecessary - JUST DON'T QUIT YER BLOG! but seriously i've long realized we all can be better understood if we turn the volumn down a little. trouble with that,tho, ya may not get as many listeners. there's no way limbawl or handitty would be as popular as they are if their shows were presented as, say, buckley's "firing line". keep on truckin' joe!