COLUMN: A dove’s perspective on Iraq
To begin, I want to thank David Joseph Neville for his letter and use of the freedom of speech in voicing his opinions regarding the play produced by Fusion in the Oct. 13th edition of The Statesman. The democratic process is vital to maintaining the American ideal, and is especially vital during times of war, in which the criticism of our government and its policies open up important questions, awareness and concern. Just as David’s ideological beliefs provide him with the motivation to speak out, my own legitimate trepidation regarding the direction the Iraq War and my country is taking gives me, and my fellow “doves,” the basis for producing an artistic interpretation of commentary about the greatest loss of war: humanity.
David points out that although the play is focused on humanity (or the absence thereof) in war, it should nonetheless be viewed as an anti-war statement. This is legitimate. If there is any reason to object to war it should be based on the highest price: more than 2,766 dead American soldiers, an incomprehensible number of dead Iraqi civilians (shamefully labeled as “collateral damage”), the amputation of uncountable limbs (both American and Iraqi) and the psychological damage caused by combat. If someone considers this play a piece of protest based on his/her principles, then it is. However, if anyone is interested in seeing a staged depiction of a slice of humanity that only asks for thought about loss, then “Scope” is exactly that. I can definitively say that individuals in the group behind the production have many different views and passions driving their involvement. Those different perspectives will be portrayed.
The very least we as a society can do is give attention to all sides of humanity obliterated in Iraq and beyond. No other method serves this goal more effectively than art, which already sustains an emotional and humanistic connection to its subject. All the play asks is an increase in awareness and a focus on humanity. I hope “Scope” will serve this purpose.
The argument over political factors can be carried out indefinitely, and without a major shift in public awareness, most arguments are moot. Without public and governmental acceptance of criticism of the Iraq War in traditional venues, other modes of commentary must be sought. The Department of Defense has recently admitted to maintaining information on anti-war demonstrations. If I consider making an anti-war statement or raising questions about policy, I am labeled as unpatriotic or even as an Islamofascist. How can democracy function while maintaining the idea that monitoring peaceful activities by American citizens is vital to homeland security? Why risk speaking out when I know I will be tagged with supporting terrorism? With a new bill signaling the continuation of the once-secret program to question suspected terrorists, the right to habeas corpus, a core element in American law, has been weakened. Current actions ring similar to those adopted to thwart paranoia of Communism that swept over the country during the McCarthy era.
In his letter, David Neville wrote, “War was the action taken; by focusing on it instead of the broader social issues of women and children’s rights to not be mass exterminated, literacy of all people, and the freedom to think, the play might be more liberal, more biased than they would like you to believe.” By focusing on this aspect of war – the loss of humanity – are we not addressing all these broad social issues? There is currently a need in our country to initiate discussion about “broader social issues.” We could even discuss those issues in the context of home. Racial tensions from Katrina have not simply receded with the floodwaters. What about immigration? Denials of entry into the U.S. are based on the Patriot Act’s broad definition of a threat to national security, which is anyone who is guilty of “irresponsible expressions of opinions.” This includes experts on Islam, such as the Swiss-Egyptian would-be Notre Dame professor Tariq Ramadan, who was willing to offer significant assistance in our efforts in the Middle East.
“Nobody wanted the war,” David wrote. Why then the hurried entry into Iraq without the support of the United Nations or without substantial reasons? Obviously, the “bulletproof” evidence Donald Rumsfeld and his colleagues attempted to show regarding WMD and the link between terrorism and Iraq fell short, and the fight for Iraqi “enduring freedom” seems to be wearing thin. With more concrete investigation and patience to hear other perspectives, support from other nations could have been developed. Most Americans still don’t know why we entered Iraq. If you know for sure, then I would love to have some insight.
David asserts that “The current war in Iraq will provide a safer region, ensure domestic tranquility within America, and help establish the USA as a partner in World Affairs.” Diverting from the subject of “Scope” and humanity, I will say that I am unsure about this comment. A report by all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies revealed that we are not safer from terrorism, and in fact, the war has created an atmosphere of more anti-American sentiment among Jiihadists, who see the war as a “cause celebre.” We should have learned a lesson from Greek mythology and Jason and the Argonauts. Jason killed the dragon, but as soon as the slain creature fell, each of its teeth germinated and grew into a new enemy. Medea, the woman who loved Jason, gave him a simple truth to save his life: Hatred dies only when turned on itself. Sometimes the enemy is made more powerful by killing and violence. The entire Iraq region is in a civil war, and another 83 civilians died on Saturday as a result of sectarian violence. Our nation is divided and animosity from this subject continues to drive a wedge between Americans.
It seems that, with his referral to Rwanda, David believes we should intervene in every conflict. Is this possible, and how do we do realistically accomplish the task? History has shown that America is in a position to pick and choose when and where to pursue intervention according to its best interests. Only after we move beyond this exclusion based on political and economic pressures will we be able to act as a partner in world affairs. How do we choose and why? Are we going to be involved in Darfur? What about the ethnic wars in Sri Lanka? How involved were we in Northern Ireland? The question should be, what are our intentions?
I want to believe that my country, the country I do love, is helping. We may claim to be learning from our past mistakes, like those of Rwanda as David points out, but we are not truly taking advantage of wisdom gained from our past. Vietnam still haunts us, as parallels between Southeast Asia and Iraq continue to be drawn. Even the president himself has admitted that the two conflicts warrant comparison. A minimum 43,937 civilians in Iraq are dead. This month alone, 3.5 American soldiers per day have been killed. On Wednesday, 10 soldiers died. Our failure to intervene in the Israel/Palestine conflict does not portray our foreign policy in a positive light, especially to those we are – according to our leaders – attempting to liberate. Since June, 200 Palestinians have died and two Israeli soldiers have lost their lives. This is still happening, and it seems we have not learned.
Please do not interpret my comments negatively. I am proud to be an American, and I am grateful for the rights and responsibilities I have in this country. This includes voicing concern and maintaining awareness of events shaping policy and action. Two of my uncles served in Vietnam and my grandfather in WWII. I honor the men and women who serve and have the utmost reverence for what they must do. I am tired of reading about the losses suffered for promised, yet un-realized progress, safety and peace. I also pray for your little brother David, along with the other soldiers in harm’s way. I pray they all return with honor. I also pray for everyone in the middle of this conflict. I pray for the honor of my country. I pray for peace.
I hope you see “Scope,” David, and I would love to hear your thoughts then.
Jeremy Gordon is a graduate student in the journalism and communications department. His play, “Scope,” will debut at the Caine Lyric Theatre.