Monday, November 5, 2007

DIALOGUE - The NeoRepublic 2007


Characters:
Socrates: Philosopher and gadfly
Georgias: President of the NeoRepublic
Cheneyus: Vice President of the NeoRepublic
Honorable Byrd: President ProTempore of the Senate

Scene: Socrates has been called before the Senate of the United States of America to question the President, and Vice President, concerning their request for additional funds to pursue the on-going war in Iraq.

Honorable Byrd: Gentlemen and ladies of the Senate, it is with a heavy heart that we address the request for additional funding to prosecute the war in Iraq. As you are all aware, the original estimate for the first year was just $50 billion U.S. dollars. Now, in the fifth year of the war, we have a further request for $200 billion for just this year! While the estimated cost for the first 10 years is nearly $2 trillion dollars! This comes at a time when the national debt is at an all time high, the economy is in ruins, and the value of the dollar against the euro at an all time low. The mood of the country has turned against the war. With elections coming next year we senators are unable to think clearly. We want to be fiscally responsible, but we do not want to lose any votes. We are aware that this is more money than we can responsibly spend without someone to blame. So, at your request, I have sought the wisdom of the great teacher, Socrates. He has come all the way from Ancient Greece to our great metropolis to help us deliberate whether or not we can grant the request of the President. And now, please welcome President Georgias and Vice President Cheneyus.

(With considerable pomp and ceremony, President Georgias enters the great hall of congress, followed by Cheneyus to the orchestral trumpets of “Hail to the Chief”! He is surrounded by a cloud of reporters and photographers, while all the politicians in the hall seem to be launching his direction in order to capture a photo opportunity shaking his hand. After an interminable wait they arrive at the front dais where 2 seats are arranged facing the entire hall of senators.)

Georgias: (Aside to Cheneyus.) They love me, don’t they?

Cheneyus: Yes your honor, they love you.
.
Georgias: We’ll get the money won’t we? They wouldn’t refuse me the money would they?

Cheneyus: No, Georgias….

Georgias: Call me Mr. President.

Cheneyus: Of course, No, Mr. President, they would not refuse to support the troops. They are afraid the people will think them weak.

Honorable Byrd: And now Gentlemen, and gentlewomen, I would like to introduce the wisest philosopher of all time, Socrates of Athens!

(Socrates enters the room wearing leather sandals and a simple plain toga with no embellishments, no fanfare. He walks quickly and efficiently to the podium that is placed to one side of the dais, between the supplicants and the great hall.)

Socrates: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Senate, I believe the most Honorable Byrd has misspoken for I am not the wisest philosopher of all time. I, in fact, know nothing. If I possess any wisdom at all, it is only in knowing that I know nothing. A man once told me that the oracle of Delphi said to him that Socrates was the wisest man in Athens. When this news was given to me I was completely at a loss as to what this could mean. So, I have devoted my life to a search for wisdom by questioning others about what they know so that I might improve myself, or, prove the oracle wrong. In this search I have questioned many, but found no truth with which to prove the oracle wrong. That is why I am excited to be here in America. I hope that here, in this great democracy, this giant world power, I shall at last find the truth that has eluded me for the last three millennia.

Georgias: (Aside to Cheneyus) Is this guy for real?

Cheneyus: (Aside) I’m afraid so Mr. President.

Georgias: (Aside) I’m not talking to him.

Cheneyus: (Aside) I’m afraid you will have to, if you want the money.

Honorable Byrd: Thank you Socrates for coming to our great Senate hall. I would like to present you to the President of the United States of America, President Georgias. (All rise and applaud.)

Socrates: (He bows) Mr. President.

Honorable Byrd: And seated on his right, the Vice President, Cheneyus.

Socrates: (He bows) Mr. Vice President. (The crowd is seated and Socrates turns to the crowd.) And now, before I begin, I beg you to be patient and allow me to speak in my own fashion. Knowing nothing myself, I must look to these great leaders for truth and enlightenment in this issue. My technique is very simple; I shall engage them in a dialogue so that we might, together, reach the true basis of this request so we can determine the best path forward for this great nation. (He turns to the President.) Mr. President, to expedite this discourse, might I call you Georgias?

Georgias: (Silence) Yes, ok, Georgias

Socrates: And Mr. Vice President, might I call you Cheneyus?

Cheneyus: As you wish.

Socrates: Then, perhaps I should ask the most obvious question first. You are the President, the Commander in Chief, and you need funds to prosecute the war. Is this correct Georgias?

Georgias: Yes, we need the funds to support our brave troops!

Socrates: And you, Mr. Byrd, can you speak on behalf of the Senate?

Honorable Byrd: I have been so empowered Socrates.

Socrates: Very good. Then I ask you Mr. Byrd, did the Senate approve the war?

Honorable Byrd: We did Socrates.

Socrates: Then why don’t you give him the money?

Georgias: (Aside to Cheneyus) I’m gonna like this guy.

Honorable Byrd: Well Socrates, that’s difficult to answer. (He clears his throat.) The war drags on…..the people are unhappy and believe that it must end. The request is very high at a time when there are other needed expenses….however some feel an obligation to Iraq…if we withdraw the government could collapse…there would be bloodshed, death, political turmoil…..and there is an election approaching. We do not know what is right, Socrates. We are divided. We are paralyzed with indecision.

Socrates: I see. To grant the funds is to continue the war. The real question then is not the funds, but the war itself. Can we all agree on that?

Honorable Byrd: We can Socrates.

Socrates: And who is the architect of this war?

Georgias: (Aside to Cheneyus) What did he say?

Cheneyus: (Aside) He is asking if it is your war.

Georgias: Yes sir, Mr. Socrates, my war. It was my idea. But they all went along with it. Every last one of 'em!

Socrates: Can you tell me why you wanted to go to war against Iraq?

Georgias: We were attacked! Bushwhacked! No pun intended. Attacked by the Forces of Evil!

Socrates: I know this is an emotional issue, but I must understand in more detail the cause of the war. So, you were attacked by Iraq?

Georgias: No, we were attacked by Terrorists! Muslim Terrorists! And now we are in a War on Terror!

Socrates: I am sorry Georgias, but I still do not understand. You were attacked by Muslim terrorists and these terrorists were from Iraq?

Georgias: What is the matter with you, don’t you read the papers? The Terrorists weren’t in Iraq, they were in Afghanistan. Now they are in Iraq! We are at War on Terror and now the Terrorists are in Iraq and we’re gonna get 'em!

Cheneyus: Excuse me Mr. President. Perhaps I can help explain our current situation. Socrates, we originally went to war against Afghanistan where the terrorists were hiding and training new recruits. We invaded and took over their country. We deposed their leaders, held new democratic elections and now support the new ruling regime. We then turned our attention to Iraq. Iraq was suspected of stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, we call them WMD’s, and we were afraid they might fall into the hands of the terrorists so we invaded, deposed and executed their leader, held democratic elections, and now support the ruling regime.

Socrates: Thank you Cheneyus, I am beginning to get a clearer picture of the situation. You invaded Iraq, took over the country and discovered the stockpiles of WMD’s.

Cheneyus: Well actually, there were no WMD’s.

Socrates: No WMD’s. Were there terrorists in Iraq?

Georgias: Of course there were Terrorists! They’re Terrorists everywhere. Everywhere I tell you.

Cheneyus: There were not terrorists at first. There were insurgents. These were people that were unhappy with the war. You see, Iraq was ruled by a small minority party called the Sunnis. Their president, Saddam, was a Sunni Muslim. The majority of the population is Shiite Muslim and in a general election Shiites were put in power. So, many of the Sunnis rebelled against the occupation.

Socrates: But surely the country’s military could keep the insurgents under control.

Cheneyus: Not actually, you see, we disbanded the military, they were all Sunnis and we thought they might take advantage of the situation. You see the Sunnis and the Shiites hate each other and have been fighting for centuries. Saddam had kept all this under control by cruel and repressive measures. He was an evil dictator.

Socrates: This really is quite complicated. And how do the terrorists that attacked the United States of America fit into all of this?

Georgias: They’re all there now. “Nature abhorse a vacuum.” We fight them here, or they follow us home.

Socrates: Forgive me Georgias, but it seems you have the cart before the horse, haven’t they already followed you home? Didn’t they attack first?

Georgias: Got me there.

Cheneyus: Socrates, in the beginning we were only fighting the insurgent population that resisted being ousted from power. However, the terrorists, seeing our plight, flocked to Iraq and began terrorist attacks against the Americans and against innocent civilians. We have already lost nearly 4,000 American lives.

Socrates: And how many Iraqis have been killed? How many displaced?

Cheneyus: The exact numbers are unknown some estimate nearly 1 million dead and 1 to 2 million displaced from their homes. The country is in chaos. The United States remains in Iraq to provide security forces to allow the new Iraq democracy to blossom.

Socrates: Did the Iraqis ask for democracy?

Georgias: We gave it to them Socrates, whether they wanted it or not.

Cheneyus: In America we believe democracy is a god given right. It is a goal toward which all people aspire. Since we had deposed their leader, it seemed like the best thing we could do for them.

Socrates: Let me summarize, just for clarity, before we proceed further. You invaded the country because you thought they had WMD’s that they might give to the terrorists. After you invaded you discovered that they didn’t have WMD’s but you continued to depose and execute their president. Then, you ousted a minority religious sect that was in power, disbanded their military, and held a free election that put the majority, from another religion, in power. These actions unleashed a civil war, attracted terrorists from all over the world, and now this democracy can only exist if you remain in the country as an occupying force. Is this correct Honorable Byrd?

Honorable Byrd: I believe that is correct Socrates.

Socrates: So now the question becomes, do you stay, or go. Is that correct Georgias?

Georgias: Nobody’s going anywhere. We ain’t leaving till we win! You hear me, WE’LL LEAVE OVER MY DEAD BODY!”

Socrates: Yes, well that is part of the dilemma, isn’t it, the question of “winning.” Honorable Byrd, I trust you are familiar with the Constitution of the United States.

Honorable Byrd: I am Socrates

Socrates: Is it safe to say that the Constitution grants all of its citizens equal rights under the law?

Honorable Byrd: It is Socrates.

Socrates: Further, do you believe that one of the rights afforded your citizens is the presumption of innocence before the law. That is, every citizen is to be considered innocent until proven guilty of any offence.

Honorable Byrd: I do believe that is true Socrates.

Socrates: Would it be fair to assume that this could be considered a universal principle in any truly democratic state?

Honorable Byrd: Again, I believe this is a fair assumption.

Socrates: Would it also be safe to say that when dealing with other nations this same principle, since it is universal, should also apply?

Honorable Byrd: I do not understand the question.

Socrates: You have stated that you believe the presumption of innocence should be considered a universal principle, I am asking whether or not you believe this principle should apply when dealing with other nations.

Honorable Byrd: I believe this is correct.

Socrates: And do you Georgias also concur with this?

Georgias: I do not. Only our citizens have rights under our laws.

Socrates: I’m not sure that is correct. Your constitution requires you to uphold any agreements, or treaties, you have made with other countries. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” Are you suggesting that in dealing with foreign citizens, or nations, that you have the right to assume they are guilty until proven innocent?

Georgias: Whoa there! You’re putting words in my mouth. I’m saying our laws only apply to our citizens.

Socrates: Do you agree with this Cheneyus?

Cheneyus: I believe the President is saying that it is sometimes necessary, in order to protect the interests of the United States, to act preemptively against a foreign power.

Socrates: By this you mean that you have the right to assume them guilty, without a trial, and to take actions against them accordingly?

Cheneyus: I believe that is what we are saying Socrates.

Socrates: And you Honorable Byrd, did you not just tell me that you, representing the Senate, believe the presumption of innocence to be a universal right?

Honorable Byrd: I did Socrates.

Socrates: Is it true that the Senate voted to approve the invasion of Iraq?

Honorable Byrd: It did Socrates.

Socrates: Was the invasion based on the assumption that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction?

Honorable Byrd: It was Socrates.

Socrates: Did the Senate attempt to verify that such weapons existed?

Honorable Byrd: It did Socrates. The United Nations had posted weapons inspectors inside Iraq.

Socrates: Oh, this is an interesting development. And did these inspectors find WMD’s inside of Iraq?

Honorable Byrd: They did not Socrates.

Socrates: Then you proceeded to sanction a war against Iraq without presumption of innocence, without fair representation?

Honorable Byrd: That is correct Socrates.

Socrates: And after the invasion you discovered your assumptions were incorrect?

Honorable Byrd: That is correct Socrates.

Socrates: Since you stated that you believe that the presumption of innocence is a universal right, and since you did not extend this right to another nation, it seems to me that you have violated the basic principles of your own constitution.

Honorable Byrd: I believe you are correct Socrates.

Socrates: Do you, Honorable Byrd believe in basic principles of moral responsibility?

Honorable Byrd: I do not know what these are Socrates.

Socrates: Do you believe we are responsible for our actions?

Honorable Byrd: I believe that is an excellent principle Socrates.

Socrates: And do you believe in this Georgias?

Georgias: I’m a Christian Socrates and I answer only to God!

Socrates: I’m not sure what that means. What about you, Cheneyus, do you believe we are responsible for our actions?

Cheneyus: It does not seem logical to assume otherwise Socrates.

Socrates: Honorable Byrd, do you believe that the same principle applies to the actions of groups as well as the actions of individuals?

Honorable Byrd: I do Socrates.

Socrates: Then, would it be fair to assume that you believe that the Senate of the United States, in approving the President’s request to invade Iraq, is responsible for the results of these actions?

Honorable Byrd: This is correct Socrates, we are responsible.

Socrates: Is it then fair to conclude that because you acted preemptively, without presumption of innocence, without adequate proof of your assumptions, that you are all responsible for the results of your actions.

Honorable Byrd: Yes Socrates, this is the source of our dilemma, we are guilty of not following our own principles.

Socrates: It would then follow you are also guilty for the results of your actions including millions of deaths, displacements, political upheaval, and general havoc caused by your unjustified occupation of another country.

Honorable Byrd: We are guilty Socrates.

Georgias: Jesus Christ! Are you crazy! We are at War with Terror! We can take any damn action we like if our nation is threatened!

Socrates: I do not believe that your Senate agrees with you. But regardless, even if you believe that you have the right to act preemptively, which your senate does not, you have stated that you believe you are to be held responsible for your actions. Further, having invaded Iraq on the basis of having WMD’s and then finding they did not exist, you persisted in your plans to change the government, execute their leader, and put in place your form of government. Is that not correct?

Georgias: (Aside to Cheneyus) I hate this guy.

Cheneyus: (Aside) Mr. President, you must answer his question.

Georgias: (Grumbling) Yes, yes…We are responsible!

Socrates: And what do you believe your responsibility is in this instance?

Georgias: To win the war!

Socrates: What war?

Georgias: The War on Terror, you idiot!

Cheneyus: I believe that Georgias means that it is our responsibility to bring stability back to the region.

Socrates: Let me ask you a question Cheneyus. Let us assume for the moment that you thought your neighbor’s house had been invaded by criminals. You have no proof of this other than perhaps you saw something unusual. Say a light was turned on that had previously been turned off. Based on this you act preemptively and invade the house expecting to catch the criminal in the act. Instead you find the house empty and the light on an automatic switch. What would be your first action?

Cheneyus: Why, to leave the house and return home Socrates.

Socrates: Let me ask you Cheneyus, what was the reason you invaded Iraq?

Cheneyus: We have already told you Socrates, because we suspected that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Socrates: And when you discovered that there were no weapons of mass destruction shouldn’t your immediate reaction have been to admit you were wrong and return home?

Cheneyus: There were extenuating circumstances.

Socrates: I would suggest that all extenuating circumstances were a direct result of your invasion and the primary responsibility to correct your mistake remains the same and that is to leave. Would you agree Honorable Byrd, that if the invasion, based on your own laws, was illegal and, assuming you are responsible for your actions, your primary responsibility should be to leave this country as quickly as you possibly can?

Honorable Byrd: I believe that is correct Socrates.

Socrates: Is this not the case, even if your President does not agree?

Honorable Byrd: That is correct Socrates.

Socrates: Then, regardless of the President’s demands, the Senate cannot act but to assume responsibility for your actions and make preparations to leave as soon as possible.

Honorable Byrd: It seems you are correct Socrates.

Socrates: Would it also not follow that the Senate can not approve any funds that do not further the end of removing their presence from the region while addressing the wrongs done to the people under false pretenses?

Honorable Byrd: It seems that is correct Socrates.

Socrates: Does this answer the dilemma of how to vote on the further approval of funds to prosecute the war?

Honorable Byrd: I believe it does Socrates

Georgias: Now just you wait a minute! This is fucking bullshit! We are not leaving – YOU HEAR ME! These bastards are out to get us! We are not going home with our tail between our legs. Why, if we would leave now, the entire country would collapse!

Honorable Byrd: Yes Socrates, what do you say to that? Now that we are there, how do we just leave?

Socrates: What we concluded is that you should not approve any more funds to prosecute the war. We also concluded that you have to assume responsibility for the actions you have taken. Do you agree with this?

Honorable Byrd: We agree Socrates.

Socrates: Did you not tell me that you have instituted a new government that is a democracy?

Honorable Byrd: We have Socrates.

Socrates: Have you asked the people of Iraq to vote in a free and open election on whether or not they want you to remain?

Honorable Byrd: We have not Socrates.

Socrates: It seems like that should be your first order of business.

Cheneyus: Just a minute Socrates. The United States cannot put such critical decisions in the hands of the Iraqis people. Who knows what they might decide?

Socrates: Is it not your stated goal that they become a Democracy?

Cheneyus: That is correct….but it is not the Democracy we anticipated. It is dominated by Shiite extremists who may join forces with Iran.

Socrates: This is all supposition. If they are a Democracy, do you believe they have the right of self determination?

Cheneyus: I cannot help but agree with this.

Socrates: Then, by your own constitution, you have no other right but to allow them the right of free determination and abide by their decision concerning your presence in their country.

Georgias: Idiots! What about their OIL? We are not leaving without the OIL!

Socrates: And what does the issue of continued funding of the war have to do with oil?

Cheneyus: Our economy, our entire civilization, is built upon a continuous supply of oil from this region. Without oil, our entire way of life would be at stake. We had assumed that once Iraq became a democracy, in return for the sacrifices of our young men and women, we could work with them to secure a continuous supply of inexpensive oil that our economy needs to survive and flourish.

Socrates: I must confess, I do not understand. You have stated your purpose in invading Iraq was to protect yourself from the proliferation of WMD’s. Not finding WMD’s, and after destroying their existing government, you decided you would help them set up a new democratic government. Are you now suggesting that your goal is other than stated? That your real goal was to obtain control of their oil?

Georgias: You bet your ass! Try putting diplomacy in your gas tank.

Socrates: Honorable Byrd, does your Constitution allow you to attack other countries in order to secure control of their resources?

Honorable Byrd: It does not Socrates.

Socrates: Then securing a supply of Iraqis oil should not be an issue under consideration in deciding whether or not to fund the war. Do you agree Honorable Byrd?

Honorable Byrd: The Senate agrees with your conclusion Socrates.

Socrates: I believe my work here is done. Before leaving I would like to make the following observations based on what I have learned here today. It appears that you have taught me that we are all responsible for our actions and the results of those actions. The same applies to governments. And when these governments are democracies the entire population is responsible for the actions of the country, whether or not they agree with the decision. It appears you have acted in a way that is in violation of the principles of your own Constitution. You have attacked a sovereign nation for reasons other than those stated and, in doing so, you have broken your own laws and are responsible for all of the death and destruction that has occurred as a result of these actions. Even if you are not held accountable in a world court of law for your crimes, you are morally responsible to rectify the wrongs you have done in the name of greed and hubris. To continue your present course of action is wrong and no further good of any kind can be obtained from your illegal occupation of another nation. I suggest you admit your mistakes, appeal to your victims for mercy, and put all of your energy, and resources, into redressing these wrongs.

(Despite the above dialogue, the Congress and the Senate voted to ratify continued funding of the war. The Iraqis people have yet to vote on whether the United States should remain in occupation of their country. The death toll continues to rise while the United States government is building a new embassy in Iraq which will become the largest U.S. embassy in the world. The embassy will comprise more than 104 acres and employ nearly 5000 people. It appears as if we plan to stay!)

Sunday, October 14, 2007

Political Hoax - "War on Terror"


The America I believe in is a democracy built on freedom. Not just freedom for some, but freedom for all. It applies the “rule of law” uniformly in all its dealings both domestic and foreign. It does not invade countries, depose leaders, torture citizens, and set itself up as the oppressor of third world nations for its own self interest. Yet America, with the sanction of its legislative bodies and by extension the American people, has done all of the above. How do we as thinking, moral beings justify this course of action? Perhaps, before defining a path forward, we need to open a dialogue on how we got here, trapped between Iraq and a hard decision to leave.

I am certainly not alone in believing that the war against Iraq was one of the single biggest policy mistakes in the history of the United States. The cost in money and human life, if you include the Iraqis, is rapidly becoming incalculable. The further loss in international stature, credibility, and moral leadership is perhaps irreparable. As much as I love this country I am often sad to be an American in today’s world. Although, it is my general impression that most of the public is now against the war and would like us to leave, our political leadership on both sides seems to lack the moral courage to do anything but continue. There seems to be some vague, pervasive idea that somehow we might still “win” something, but no one can describe in any meaningful way what this might be. The general consensus seems to be, “We should not be there, we cannot win, we cannot leave, and so we will just do nothing but stay the course.” Does this make any sense?

In this blog I would like to address the basis of the argument that was used to sell the invasion of Iraq to the American people. The provocation, as everyone knows, was the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. It was a horrific and immoral event. But when George Bush spoke publicly of his plans for retribution he used the phrase, “War on terror.” Now “war” as opposed to “aggression” is a term generally used to refer to conflicts between nation states. “Terror” or “terrorism” on the other hand, is the action of lone individuals and/or organizations. (I am specifically excluding nationally sponsored terrorism as this could form a just basis for warlike behavior.) To declare “war on terror” seems to me to be a relatively meaningless statement, although it does serve conveniently to raise the conflict to a higher level than would be justified by a terrorist attack. That is, unless the purpose of the phrase was to justify an attack on nation states. In hindsight, this seems to be the case. This topic is covered nicely in a paper by the philosopher Noam Chomsky entitled “War on Terror” delivered at the Amnesty International Lecture hosted by Trinity College in January 2006. (http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20060118.pdf)

What troubles me is the lack of critical thinking which occurred shortly after the attack and persists even to this day, regarding the basis of the argument used to justify the attack on Afghanistan and then later Iraq. I understand the nation was grieving over the events of 9/11, but “war” is not the rational response to “terrorism.” The intelligent response to terrorism is to find the perpetrators and bring them to justice. In fact, to attack nation states is to play into the hands of the terrorists by justifying their claims to the communities amongst which they hide. And what have we achieved in the name of “War on Terror”? We have failed to arrest the architect of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center; we have invaded several countries creating complete chaos; and we have participated in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people and the displacement of over one million! This was all in the name of “War on Terror,” a kind of westernized version of “Jihad.” Why didn’t the Senate, or the Congress, or the press, or the people say, “George, this doesn’t make sense, what are you saying? What is a ‘War on Terror’? Who are you fighting? To whom does ‘Terror’ refer?”

OK, I know what you are thinking. This is politics, and not a skeptical issue. I’m not sure I agree with that position. This is a hoax! And it is a cleverly designed hoax that we, the American people, should have detected and stopped at the onset. The specific language, “War on Terror”, was intended to fool us into thinking the government could take actions beyond the scope of the event which provoked it. It allowed the government to wage war and bypass civil liberties that are at the core of our Constitution, such as freedom of speech, assumption of innocence, and trial without representation. The Bush Administration even interpreted “War on Terror” to mean they had the right to ignore the rules of the Geneva Convention relating to detention and torture of prisoners whose guilt had not been determined. In effect, this was not a war until we made it one.

The "War on Terror" was an intentional hoax of gigantic proportion! This is a hoax on which millions of lives depended. Shouldn’t the rules of skeptical thinking inform us about statements like this? Shouldn’t legislators and the media question our use of language when the language doesn’t make sense? If the president had declared “War on Terror” against the perpetrators of the Oklahoma City bombing, wouldn’t we have thought he was daft? But we said nothing. The phrase “War on Terror” became the basis for an argument for the justification of the government’s actions. It was an argument from consequences; we were attacked by terrorists so we are going to war on terror. It was a straw man in that it simplified what is a very complex historical, social, and political situation into something simple and easy to deal with. “Let’s get ‘em!” But it was not simple and we find ourselves enmeshed in a quagmire from which we cannot easily extricate ourselves. If we have any hope of getting out of this, we need to go back to the beginning and try to understand how we were duped into getting there in the first place.

Caught up in the hurt and anger over 9/11 we suspended our disbelief. We naively assumed the Bush Administration would seek out justice by bringing the terrorists to trial, and attempt to reduce the threat of terrorism instead of increasing it by aggressive and unjustified actions. If we are to end the war and help redress the wrongs we have committed in the name of “War on Terror” we must first change our rhetoric. We need to drop the “War on Terror” and re-define our position. Our entire understanding of the world is through the use of language. The language we use in framing our ideas is important. If we seek "war" we will find it. I'd prefer we seek "justice" instead, as this is consistent with our national charter. "Justice for terrorists" is a far better goal than "War on Terrorism." If justice, not war, is our goal, we need to work through international organizations like the United Nations to bring international terrorists to justice. We must change direction, tone down our rhetoric and address a comprehensive strategy to engage the world in our struggle to bring peace, and not war, to the Middle East.

In the midst of the Iraq war I often find myself drifting back to thoughts of the 60s during the Vietnam War, when the phrase “Make love, not war” came into vogue. You don’t hear much about peace and love anymore in the rhetoric of today’s world. Are we to abandon such thoughts and live forever in fear and terror? It’s not a world I’m interested in. We can seek justice and peace at the same time. They are not incompatible. But it will take a new language, a new dialogue, between America and the world. It’s time for those of us seeking a new direction to speak out. Let us hope, “We won’t be fooled again.”