Blog

  • Today is Not a Good Day for War

    Today is Not a Good Day for War

    Today is not a good day for war,
    Not when the sun is shining,
    And leaves are trembling in the breeze.

    Today is not a good day for bombs to fall,
    Not when clouds hang on the horizon
    And drift above the sea.

    Today is not a good day for young men to die,
    Not when they have so many dreams
    And so much still to do.

    Today is not a good day to send missiles flying,
    Not when the fog rolls in
    And the rain is falling hard.

    Today is not a good day for launching attacks,
    Not when families gather
    And hold on to one another.

    Today is not a good day for collateral damage,
    Not when children are restless
    Daydreaming of frogs and creeks.

    Today is not a good day for war,
    Not when birds are soaring,
    Filling the sky with grace.

    No matter what they tell us about the other,
    Nor how bold their patriotic calls,
    Today is not a good day for war.

  • Firing Squad

    Firing Squad

    Saddam Hussein is a bad man
    So let’s line up the children of Iraq
    And shoot them.

    Saddam is a very bad man
    So let’s line up the mothers of Iraq
    And shoot them.

    We know that Saddam is a bad man
    So let’s line up all the old people of Iraq
    And shoot them.

    Saddam is a very bad man
    And firing squads are old fashioned
    So let’s just bomb Baghdad.

    After we’ve bombed the Iraqis
    With our “shock and awe” two-day plan
    Surely they will welcome us as liberators.

    Surely the Iraqis will thank Allah
    That they have been so fortunate
    To have been bombed with such precision.

    Surely they will recognize
    That Saddam is a very bad man
    And their oil is better in our hands.

    Saddam Hussein is a very bad man
    So let’s line up the children of Iraq
    And shoot them.

  • Beastie Boys: In A World Gone Mad

    In a world gone mad it’s hard to think right
    So much violence hate and spite
    Murder going on all day and night
    Due time we fight the non-violent fight

    Mirrors, smokescreens and lies
    It’s not the politicians but their actions I despise
    You and Saddam should kick it like back in the day
    With the cocaine and Courvoisier
    But you build more bombs as you get more bold
    As your mid-life crisis war unfolds
    All you want to do is take control
    Now put that axis of evil bullshit on hold
    Citizen rule number 2080
    Politicians are shady
    So people watch your back ’cause I think they smoke crack
    I don’t doubt it look at how they act

    In a world gone mad it’s hard to think right
    So much violence hate and spite
    Murder going on all day and night
    Due time we fight the non-violent fight

    First the ‘War On Terror’ now war on Iraq
    We’re reaching a point where we can’t turn back
    Let’s lose the guns and let’s lose the bombs
    And stop the corporate contributions that they’re built upon
    Well I’ll be sleeping on your speeches ‘til I start to snore
    ‘Cause I won’t carry guns for an oil war
    As-Salamu alaikum, wa alaikum assalam
    Peace to the Middle East peace to Islam
    Now don’t get us wrong ‘cause we love America
    But that’s no reason to get hysterica
    They’re layin’ on the syrup thick
    We ain’t waffles we ain’t havin’ it

    In a world gone mad it’s hard to think right
    So much violence hate and spite
    Murder going on all day and night
    Due time we fight the non-violent fight

    Now how many people must get killed?
    For oil families pockets to get filled?
    How many oil families get killed?
    Not a damn one so what’s the deal?

    It’s time to lead the way and de-escalate
    Lose the weapons of mass destruction and the hate
    Say ooh ah what’s the White House doin’?
    Oh no! Say, what in tarnation have they got brewing??!!!!???!!
    Well I’m not pro Bush and I’m not pro Saddam
    We need these fools to remain calm
    George Bush you’re looking like Zoolander
    Trying to play tough for the camera
    What am I on crazy pills? We’ve got to stop it
    Get your hand out my grandma’s pocket
    We need health care more than going to war
    You think it’s democracy they’re fighting for?

    In a world gone mad it’s hard to think right
    So much violence hate and spite
    Murder going on all day and night
    Due time we fight the non-violent fight

  • Second US Diplomat Resigns in Protest

    Second US Diplomat Resigns in Protest

    A second American diplomat, John H. Brown, has resigned in protest, stating, “I cannot in good conscience support President Bush’s war plans against Iraq.” Brown, a longtime US Foreign Service Officer, who has served in London, Prague, Krakow, Kiev, Belgrade and Moscow, tendered his letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin Powell on March 10. He joined veteran diplomat John Brady Kiesling, who has also resigned from the State Department in protest of Bush’s plans for war.

    In his letter of resignation, Brown cited a number of failures by the Bush administration, including:

    “To explain clearly why our brave men and women in uniform should be ready to sacrifice their lives in a war on Iraq at the time:

    “To lay out the full ramifications of this war, including the extent of innocent civilian casualties;

    “To specify the economic costs of the war for ordinary Americans;

    “To clarify how the war would help rid the world of terror; [and]

    “To take international public opinion against the war into serious consideration.”

    Brown pointed out, “Throughout the globe the United States is becoming associated with the unjustified use of force. The president’s disregard for views in other nations, borne out by his neglect of public diplomacy, is giving birth to an anti-American century.”

    We should be very thankful that there are individuals like Brown and Kiesling, willing to place their conscience ahead of their careers when an administration’s policy becomes fundamentally opposed to deep-seated American values of fairness, decency and support for international law. We should also continue to hope that Secretary of State Colin Powell may be moved to act upon his own conscience in reading the letters of these courageous men. Powell should be encouraged to join them in resigning his position instead of continuing to serve as a front man for the clearly untenable and dangerous US war plans against Iraq.

    In concluding his letter of resignation, Brown wrote, “I joined the Foreign Service because I love our country. Respectfully, Mr. Secretary, I am now bringing this calling to a close, with a heavy heart but for the same reason that I embraced it.”

    Thank you, Mr. Brown, for loving your country enough to act for its future by taking this bold step. For all who love our country, this is a time for bold action, before Mr. Bush and the ideologues surrounding him drag our country into an untenable, immoral and illegal war that will disgrace our country and be a burden to it for all time.
    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. He is the editor of Hope in a Dark Time, Reflections on Humanity’s Future (Capra Press, 2003).

  • A Modest Proposal: Giving Bush and Blair a Deadline

    There comes a time when the prevarications and faulty logic of official policy become so extreme that only satire can shed light on the truth. We have reached such a point with respect to the warmongering of the United States and Britain in relation to Iraq’s alleged possession of a threatening stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.

    George Bush and Tony Blair are trying to impose a deadline of March 17th, just days away, for Saddam Hussein to prove that he does not have weapons of mass destruction. If Bush and Blair succeed in getting the support of the UN Security Council for this, they are prepared to proceed to war. From their pronouncements, they seem determined to proceed to war even without Security Council approval.

    But how can Hussein prove that he doesn’t have something? What would the proof be that something doesn’t exist? If he were asked to prove that he has something, he could simply provide it and that would be the proof. To prove that he doesn’t have something, however, is far more problematic. You can’t just say, “Here is what I don’t have.”

    Perhaps it is reasonable within the context of the continuing UN inspections to seek a fuller accounting of the stocks of chemical and biological weapons that Iraq claims to have destroyed in the early 1990s. Iraq may be in a position to give a more complete accounting or an explanation of whatever gaps exist in its record-keeping. Once this has been done, then to continue pressing Iraq to prove a negative is a deliberate ploy to make the inspection alternative to war fail.

    So what is Hussein to do? He has let the UN inspectors into his country. He has opened his palaces to the inspectors. He has been destroying missiles that are just marginally over the permitted range. He has allowed U-2 overflights of Iraq. He has permitted Iraqi scientists to be interrogated by inspectors in circumstances that protect the confidentiality of the communications. Each time that Iraq does more to cooperate with the inspectors, it is dismissed by Bush and Blair as insufficient, as some sort of insidious trick.

    It seems an utter impossibility under these circumstances that Hussein could prove his case to the satisfaction of Bush and Blair in a few days time, or ever, for that matter. It seems increasingly clear that the last thing that Bush and Blair seek is for Hussein to prove his case convincingly.

    Given the mindset of Bush and Blair and the impossible task they have given to Hussein to prove a negative, it seems apparent that they are simply setting a deadline to get on with the war they seek for a series of undisclosed reasons. If the Security Council supports such a deadline, they will be giving the UN stamp of approval to this criminal form of lunacy. Setting a deadline to go to war when the weapons inspections are succeeding, as Chief UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix and IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei agree they are, amounts to setting a timebomb under the United Nations itself.

    We would like to offer our own modest proposal. Why not set a deadline for Bush and Blair to demonstrate conclusively that Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction? Surely if such weaponry exists and could be found by means of war, it can be demonstrated to exist by peaceful means. Surely, the vast intelligence efforts devoted to Iraq over the course of the past decade, bolstered by defectors and by interviews with Iraqi scientists and engineers, would have established the existence of such weaponry if it exists.

    This proposal does not contain the logical fallacy of demanding the proof of a negative. If the US and Britain cannot prove that Saddam is hiding weapons of mass destruction, then the United Nations should immediately remove its sanctions on Iraq, sanctions that have caused terrible suffering and death to the Iraqi people for more than ten years. The US and Britain should also drop their intrusions of Iraqi sovereignty that have included almost daily bombings. Such a course would make far more sense than accepting the Bush/Blair proposal. To be fair we propose to give Washington and London until the end of March to prove this positive!

    The burden of proof should be on those who propose the use of force, not on those who oppose it. Most members of the Security Council understand this. If Bush and Blair do not meet this burden of proof within a reasonable time period, their calls and planning for war should cease.

    The UN inspections in Iraq can and should continue, and in fact they should be used as a model for inspecting all countries that have or are suspected of having weapons of mass destruction, including the five permanent members of the Security Council. This would be an important step in moving the world toward transparency and recognition that weapons of mass destruction are not suitable instruments in the hands of the leaders of any country, including those presided over by Bush and Blair. If we want to remove the menace of weapons of mass destruction, we need to establish a reliable regime of prohibition that applies to all countries and does not single out a few non-western states.
    * Richard Falk is chairman and David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. They are co-editors of The Iraq Crisis and International Law.

  • Thank You, Dear President Bush

    Thank you, President Bush;

    For creating an atmosphere proper to develop again the perils and Apocalyptic Doomsday of the Cold War.

    For taking decisions unilaterally or coaxing other countries to accept aggression instead of diplomacy.

    For dividing the nation and bringing feuds, bias and hatred among our citizens.

    For saying that your administration disregards the opinion of the world like you did with world opinion opposed to war against Iraq.

    For alienating billions of people worldwide who see the US as the a bully nation that acts for the sake of its own interests only.

    For leaving me speechless when trying to explain to my sobbing young daughter why humans are acting like cavemen in what you have called “the First War of the 21st Century.”

    For letting us know that the use of “tactical nuclear weapons” are possible and that Hiroshima and Nagasaki could be reenacted again.

    For bringing xenophobia to the “land of the free.”

    For making us act like imperialists who still want to rule the world.

    Thank you, thank you so much!
    *Ruben Arvizu is Director for Latin America of Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Text of Resignation Letter from the Second U.S. Diplomat to Resign in Protest

    John H. Brown, a Princeton PhD, joined the Foreign Service in 1981 and has served in London, Prague, Krakow, Kiev, Belgrade and, most recently, Moscow. A senior member of the Foreign Service since 1997, he has focused his diplomatic work on press and cultural affairs. Under a State Department program, he has, up to now, been an Associate at the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University, where he was assigned in August 2001. He resigned in protest of the Bush administration’s war against Iraq. The text of his resignation letter is as follows:

    To: Secretary of State Colin Powell

    March 10, 2003

    Dear Mr. Secretary:

    I am joining my colleague John Brady Kiesling in submitting my resignation from the Foreign Service (effective immediately) because I cannot in good conscience support President Bush’s war plans against Iraq.

    The president has failed:

    –To explain clearly why our brave men and women in uniform should be ready to sacrifice their lives in a war on Iraq at this time;

    –To lay out the full ramifications of this war, including the extent of innocent civilian casualties;

    –To specify the economic costs of the war for ordinary Americans;

    –To clarify how the war would help rid the world of terror;

    –To take international public opinion against the war into serious consideration.

    Throughout the globe the United States is becoming associated with the unjustified use of force. The president’s disregard for views in other nations, borne out by his neglect of public diplomacy, is giving birth to an anti-American century.

    I joined the Foreign Service because I love our country. Respectfully, Mr. Secretary, I am now bringing this calling to a close, with a heavy heart but for the same reason that I embraced it.

    Sincerely,

    John H. Brown
    Foreign Service Officer

  • Wake America from Its Bloodless Trance

    America has two options to disarm and contain Iraq. One option war involves killing people. The other option more and tougher inspections does not.

    Americans, who overwhelmingly oppose the Iraq war if high numbers of casualties result, haven’t heard enough about the deaths that are sure to be caused by the war option. That’s why I created a television advertisement, featuring hip-hop artist Russell Simmons, that includes video footage of actual war of wounded civilians and of American soldiers dragging the bodies of their comrades out of harm’s way.

    I think most of you would want to see my advertisement and decide for yourself whether you agree with an aging ice cream guy or think I am crazy, misinformed, stoned, stupid, or much worse.

    Unfortunately, most of you will never see my anti-war commercial. Why? Because the major network news outlets refused to accept it, claiming that the imagery was too graphic. Trouble is, the imagery in my ad was far less graphic than what you see on prime time entertainment shows, like “ER” or even on mayhem-crazed local TV news shows.

    So what’s the real reason that the TV networks rejected my ad?

    Ironically, linking death to war seems to be taboo at a time when the connection should be on the top of our minds. Few in the major media are talking about casualties in the Iraq war, and it seems our nation does not want to confront the reality that the war will result in casualties, anywhere from a few thousand dead and wounded (itself a horrific number) to tens of thousands, according to international experts. Let’s be clear that’s thousands of dead or wounded people, at a minimum.

    Not surprisingly, the Bush Administration is doing little or nothing to break us out of our bloodless trance about the war. It has not released official information about expected causalities, although surely this information has been developed by the White House. Congress isn’t demanding this information.

    In the real world, outside of Washington DC, citizens seem to be expecting war without death, partly because the topic isn’t on TV and partly because recent wars have been presented to us as death-free which they were not, of course.

    Thousands of innocent Iraqis died in the last war not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children who died in the war’s aftermath due to its impact on water, electricity, medical care, and more.

    Even wars like the one in Afghanistan, which had fewer civilian deaths, cause soldiers to die. And soldiers, it needs to be said, are people too, often innocently caught in political turmoil outside their control, whose lives have value. Their deaths leave families and friends grieving forever.

    So, it’s an inexcusable omission for the Bush Administration to sell the Iraq war to us and the international community without acknowledging its human toll, not only on our soldiers but on the Iraqis.

    It’s really an outrageous situation, which we have come to accept as normal fare in the war business. But it actually represents deceptive spin at its ugliest. Talking about war without addressing casualties is like discussing the benefits of nuclear power and ignoring nuclear waste. The two go hand-in-hand.

    To break through the denial, my ad depicted dead and wounded people, both soldiers and civilians. And that’s precisely why the networks should air it. More debate about the war’s potential casualties would help our nation make an informed decision about Iraq.

    But network TV executives don’t think you should see our commercial.

    We hope they will reconsider their decision. Until they do, you can see our ad at Win Without War.

    And, even if you don’t want to see our anti-war commercial, ask the President and your representatives in Congress to spell out all the potential consequences of the Iraq war before America invades.
    *Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben and Jerry’s, is president of TrueMajority.org, which enables citizens to fax their members of Congress about critical issues like the Iraq war. His views do not reflect those of Ben and Jerry’s Homemade, Inc. Cause Communications www.causecommunications.com

  • Just War — Or A Just War?

    Originally published in the New York Times

    Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises.

    As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology.

    For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria.

    The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist. These options — previously proposed by our own leaders and approved by the United Nations — were outlined again by the Security Council on Friday. But now, with our own national security not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations. The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment.

    The war’s weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably results in “collateral damage.” Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, has expressed concern about many of the military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes.

    Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered. Despite Saddam Hussein’s other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing.

    The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent. The unanimous vote of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade. For these objectives, we do not have international authority. Other members of the Security Council have so far resisted the enormous economic and political influence that is being exerted from Washington, and we are faced with the possibility of either a failure to get the necessary votes or else a veto from Russia, France and China. Although Turkey may still be enticed into helping us by enormous financial rewards and partial future control of the Kurds and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic Parliament has at least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of concern.

    The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists. Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home. Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.

    What about America’s world standing if we don’t go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region? The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory. American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations. But to use the presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq’s compliance with all United Nations resolutions — with war as a final option — will enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice.
    *Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, is chairman of the Carter Center in Atlanta and winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.

  • International Women’s Day: Women and War

    Two great principles govern all interaction on earth: the male principle of competition and the female principle of cooperation. The judicious balance between these opposing forces functions both as a means of perceiving the world as well as guidance for getting along in it.

    In our contemporary perspective, these polarities assume a hierarchical position, with corresponding values assigned to the superior and inferior roles. War and peace are often interchangeably substituted for what we identify as the male and female principles. Put another way, many people observing and trying to ameliorate global problems posit that the male principle, war, is wrong and the female one, peace, is right. Patriarchy seems to subjugate, quantify, label and differentiate, while matriarchy seeks to incorporate, include and envelop.

    So patriarchy is wrong, right?

    The hierarchical superpositioning of masculinity over femininity is inextricably connected to the nature of the problem itself. Fritjof Capra, in The Web of Life, describes the problem as a “crisis of perception” where problems are viewed as distinct, unlinked entities. In reality, the interconnected male and female principles play a tug of war with each other, balancing each other’s creative and destructive powers, a natural system of checks and balances. In Eastern philosophy, the yin and yang cannot exist independently. An ongoing intimate dance between yang, the male principle, and yin, the female principle, governs the seasons, the transformation from daylight into darkness and the relationships between human beings. The Egyptian ankh symbolizes the male and female union; its name in Arabic means simply, “life.”

    Thus, the nature of the problem lies not in stratifying the principles into a “better or worse” paradigm, but rather realizing that the problems of the world, at the individual, local, national and global levels, result from the imbalance between the principles of cooperation and competition. The Western dominant culture has distorted its values to place more worth in competition and aggression, and the mysterious feminine principle of integration and synthesis is summarily dismissed as witchery or weakness.

    Yet most importantly, inherent in this disproportionate attention to the male principle is the unchecked capacity for destruction and objectification.

    Perhaps this is why it is so troubling to see primarily males occupying the vast majority of seats at the United Nations and serving as heads of state for the majority of countries. Perhaps this is why it is disturbing that the purportedly balanced and accurate news programs boast a majority of males in the roles of interviewer and interviewee. Perhaps this is why the theater of war, comprised of a cast of mainly men, is the ultimate assault on femininity.

    Liberation, the act of rescuing the damsel in distress, the art of war to free people seen as incapable of carving out their own destiny, is a patriarchal fallacy. The idea of liberating Iraq by force represents the systematic domination of male over female, the forcible rape and ensuing grief and shame of disempowerment that women have historically encountered as victims of male-perpetrated violence.

    Human nature, incorporating the experience of both men and women, has a predisposition for conflict. People inherently perceive the world from different perspectives and have an inclination to disagree. War, however, is a different case entirely. Its entire existence rests on the premise of otherness and separation, of a definitive right and wrong, of intensive training and preparation for battle, of desensitization to that which makes us uniquely and more deeply human: conscience.

    Embodied in the female experience is this notion of conscience. It is the intuitive, secret voice that whispers the directions for following a higher path. It is the dreamlike symbolism revealed through humility and introspection. Turning inward requires reflection and self-knowledge, faith in the unseen. It is the root system which takes hold beneath the soil before peering upward into the light. First we must go deep before emerging into the world.

    Iraq, the religious and historical cradle of civilization, is a potent metaphor for femininity. It is the Fertile Crescent, the great mother womb which gave birth to inventions like the wheel, the art of writing and three of the world’s far-reaching religions, Islam, Judaism and Christianity which share a common Abrahamic lineage. It is the home of archaeological treasures buried deep in the vast desert sands. It is the home of unheard weeping, suffering borne disproportionately by grandmothers, mothers and children.

    The invasion of Iraq is a crime against all women, against all that is feminine and sacred.

    Around the world, countries amass arsenals of weapons like the testosterone buildup in prepubescent males. Bombs and missiles gather tension as they lie in wait of evacuation from planes which vanish from their targets quicker than absentee fathers evading child support. Barbara Hope, in her essay “Patriarchy: A State of War” recounts the U.S. Army basic training jingle, “This is my rifle (slaps rifle). This is my gun (slaps crotch). One is for killing, the other for fun.”

    The decision to go to war with Iraq is one which will impact all members of Iraqi society, of American society and of people across the globe. A democratic process of hearing concerns from all involved has been systematically avoided and effectually discounted. The experiences of women and children, of students and elders, of those who will be on the receiving end of bombing campaigns and labeled ‘collateral damage’ have been given zero space in a credible, public dialogue.

    An egregious disparity gapes between whose narrative matters and whose does not.

    The runaway train of male competitiveness has flattened in its tracks the female experience, leaving a perpetual state of war and chaos where brute force is the law of the land. The feminine principles of cooperation, dialogue and diplomacy have been disregarded as ineffectual and powerless.

    We have long outgrown the Roman motto, “If you want peace, prepare for war.” Men on either side of the battle lines may declare a victory, but the women on both sides declare losses.
    *Leah C. Wells serves as the Peace Education Coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.