Hilary Moon Murphy

Rebuttals

Well, it finally happened. I received an e-mail from someone who disagrees with my pacifist stance. I was beginning to think that there were either no war supporters reading this journal (had I scared them all away?) or that I had everyone too cowed to disagree with me. After all, how do you argue with someone who claims that their pacifism is a message from God?

This message comes from Jason Wittman, my co-author for Tile Chess and an old friend of mine.

Hi Hilary,

I was just browsing through your website, and I read your journal entry, No More Mrs. Nice Guy), and you made some quite valid points. I read your letter to President Bush, and I thought it showed a lot more restraint that other such letters of protest I've read.

However, I respectfully disagree with some of your points, and would like to voice a rebuttal.

To explain my view of things: this is probably not the first time Sept. 11th has been compared to Pearl Harbor, but it's not an entirely inaccurate comparison. Both were events that changed things drastically. Both woke the sleeping giant that is the United States (an entity of admittedly frightening power) and motivated it to take sides in a world situation to which it had previously been indifferent (relatively speaking at least). The things that happened after Pearl Harbor, while not all to the good, at least rid the world of a genuine evil that had been ignored (and not just by the US) for far too long. I think Sept. 11th falls in the same category.

I think the current war is a regrettable but necessary response to what happened in NYC. 3000+ innocent human beings were murdered. I think a clear and unmistakable response to that is required, not for purposes of vengeance, but to make sure such a thing doesn't happen again.

Now you may think the response that is being given is overly harsh. Well, I will concede that the response wouldn't have had to be this harsh if something had been done about the situation earlier. This is not the first time terrorists have committed murder. There were the suicide bombings in Beirut, the airline explosion over Lockerbie, Scotland, and a number of other incidents. If something had been done about the situation then (maybe military in nature, maybe not, but *something*) then maybe Sept. 11th would not have occured. But nothing was done, nothing that would make the terrorists reconsider their actions, and I think a big reason for that is indifference on part of the people back home. To John Q. Public, Lockerbie Scotland was something that happened *over there*, the Beirut bombings were something that happened to *them*, not *us* (people previously didn't identify with those in the military. Or with policemen or firefighters for that matter), and it was because of that indifference that there was no decisive military response to those acts of terrorism *or* significant humanitarian aid sent to those whom the terrorists oppressed (again, totalitarian domination was something that happened to *other* people).

Then Sept. 11th occured and...well, the Americans aren't indifferent anymore. As in Shirley Jackson's story "The Lottery," they found a bad situation acceptable until they got the piece of paper with the black dot.

You also took exception to President Bush's choice of words in his State of the Union address. I have to admit, I found them a bit melodramatic. But I also saw they were somewhat vague; he did not lay down any specific course of action. You have to remember that there is a lot of anger around after Sept. 11th, and a great demand for something to be done. (and shouldn't Iraq, North Korea, etc. be held accountable for what they do?) But Bush didn't specifically say what would be done. This past week I heard that US military intervention in Iraq qas being contemplated, but so was lending assistance to Iraqi resistance forces. Yes, Bush spoke of a "war on terrorism, but other presidents have spoken of a "war on drugs," or a "war against poverty."

And as for Bush using the war to distract people from the economy--well, again, people right now are focused on the war anyway. And the economy situation will be solved more by people spending money again after recovering from Sept. 11th (not to mention the dot-com crash) than by anything Bush can do. But I think Bush remembers what happened to his father, and I think he will try to avoid the same mistake.

As I said earlier, I think this war is a necessary response to a situation that was let go for too long. And some good has come of this. The Taliban are no longer in power, and people in Afghanistan are getting humanitarian aid they would not otherwise have gotten. This a sad situation, but I think we'll get out of it.

Jason

Jason's letter came at a time when I had quietly decided to drop the pacifism rants from this journal. By now, all of you know how I feel. I've made my point. It was time and past time to address my frustration to my political representatives, and let my readership have a break.

Then Jason wrote, and I realized that it would be the ultimate in hypocrisy to fail to print his letter when I had already printed so many letters that supported my point of view.

Jase, if you are reading this, I am glad that you had the courage to let me know your opinions. I also know that neither of us has very much chance of changing the other person's mind.

That said, this is my journal and I find that I must respond to you. Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech horrified me. I did not find it melodramatic, but arrogant and incredibly short-sighted. He managed to offend just about every ally we have, and stirred up anti-American sentiment across the globe.

I get the sense from your message (and this may be wrong) that you are saying, "Yeah, the rhetoric may be a bit heavy, but don't worry about it. He's unlikely to act on it."

Perhaps you are right. After most of our asian allies (and our own State Department) decried the inclusion of North Korea in that speech, Bush appears to be back-pedaling from his stance on that country.

Likewise, Iran has many supporters in Europe. It has a moderate president; its government has been trying earnestly to introduce reform. I think the chances of Bush launching an immediate attack against Iran are low. However, his speech was disastrous, even if the threat of war is withdrawn. Bush's speech undermined the power of Iran's moderate faction and fueled the determination of the Islamic conservatives. At a time when we should have been building bridges, we have been tearing them down instead.

That leaves Iraq. No one likes Saddam Hussein. I confess, I don't either. I think that Bush wants to win the battle that his father lost, and get Hussein ousted from power once and for all.

Why do I worry about the rhetoric? I worry because rhetoric is the first battle line of war. Governments jockey for the moral highground and try to portray war an inevitable solution for the problems at hand. Bush spent almost a month talking about fighting terrorists before we dropped the first bombs on Afghanistan.

Once the bombs are dropping, it is too late.

You want to hold Iran, Iraq and North Korea accountable for what they do. But they are not the only nations that support and train terrorists. Our School of the Americas is still in operation. If we were going to go on a single-minded campaign to eradicate terrorism from the globe, why didn't we start at home?

Three thousand innocent lives were lost on September 11. But keep in mind that UN statistics show that 500,000 children under the age of five have died in Iraq as a result of our sanctions.

Who is holding us accountable?

If we don't speak up, if we don't question what our government does, I fear that it will be the terrorists. Violence breeds more violence. This is not the world that I wish for my daughter, so I feel obligated to try to change it.

This may be overly idealistic or misguided, but it is the only way that I can go.

Hmm