On the Past Ten Years and Leaving Iraq

Hellenistic Bronze; Seated Boxer. Rome, Italy. Ca. 100-50 BCE. (Photo: museumsyndicate.com)Sunt lacrimae rerum et mentem mortalia tangent.

“These are the tears of things, and the stuff of our mortality cuts us to the heart.”

-Virgil

It has been a decade since the towers fell on 9/11 and the U.S. began its war on terror by entering Afghanistan.

A strange, sad decade of a so-far bewildering and uncertain century: ten continued strange years later, with domestic and economic quagmires that seem to match the foreign policy perpetual nightmares, we remember back. We entered the 2000s amped up over Y2K, which was a punchline well before the second day of 2000. And then, the year, the years, turned strange: the bombing of the Cole, the Gore/Bush election and month without an election result, and then 9/11. We didn’t see it coming. And we’ve been trying to make sense of it ever since.

And our ways of making sense of it seemed strange and bewildering, too. Magnetic U.S.A. ribbons on the vehicles of America, the Patriot Act and questions of security vs. rights. Freedom fries. Color-coded terror alerts. The Department of Homeland Security. Airport body searches, shoe-bomb plots and plastic explosives in underpants and a general impression that we should be watchful, suspicious, even, because whatever 9/11 was, it wasn’t done and there would be more to come.

But most of all, there was war. First in Afghanistan, then in Iraq. And now we strike in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan. And with this global War on Terror came things I would never have imagined my country would do, questions I never imagined I would have about liberty, morality– identity, even. Guantánamo Bay prisoners of war or “war” that we can neither try nor release and Abu Ghraib. Torture, rendition, the term “black site.” The use of contractors and mercenaries like Xe/Blackwater. So many U.S. troops repeatedly deployed, injured, and killed. So many wounded, terrified, and dead civilians in countries whose histories are longer and sadder than our own. Predator drones. Occupation and destruction. And the unparalleled discomfort at all of it, perhaps most recently signified by the deaths of Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, without trial but with the certainty that these were probably “good” things. But still, we, I, believed our principles mattered more than our safety; that they were worth sacrificing for. Besides, the risk, the potential price was too great. And so it has been this decade: rights and wrongs intermingled and a vague sense that we were doing our sorry best but the world had gone mad and there was pain all around. Life has always been ambiguous and complex, but the decade of war following 9/11 has made it viscerally so.

Ten years of war without American precedent. And we are finally, finally leaving Iraq. I would like to say that this is cause for unmitigated celebration. I was opposed to that invasion from the first garbled whispers of it. With every act of bravery in pursuit of an unspecified and uncertain goal, with every casualty, with every news cycle and power outage and civil unrest and coyly-named strategy, I supported the troops and hoped to god that something good might come to the Iraqi people. And I believed none of it. Iraq was euphemistically mixed in with the spectre of terrorism, the global game of Whack-a-Mole, the many-headed hydra. And all I have been able to see is, no matter how well intentioned, we were part of that hydra, too. I think we still are.

Saddam Hussein is gone. We helped that. Perhaps that saved lives. We stabilized (temporarily?) a violent war-torn country. But I don’t feel solace in any of those things. It is impossible to tell how many of the “problems solved” were caused by our actions (“war-torn Iraq” but didn’t we do a fair bit of that tearing?); impossible not to feel that for every good built, something else was destroyed. We invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with our immediate security. And we probably did some good along the way but what do we owe them for the well-intentioned and misguided bad? Electricity, clean water, stability, security, reparations?

Yes. But that’s not in our capabilities to provide, if we’re honest. So, we leave, which seems to me the next best thing to do since we cannot realistically leave with an Iraq that was better than we found it or an Iraq that is at some imaginary baseline of what it would have been had we never went in there in the first place. So we leave, I hope, with some honesty and integrity, some humility and apologies.

Already there are very loud voices in the political realm decrying our departure from Iraq on the basis of unrealized victory. Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN) this week even pulled out the “Iraq owes us repayment” card at the CNN GOP nomination debate.

There was never the chance of victory in this. Historian Simon Schama once likened the Iraq invasion to the U.S. taking a hammer to a bead of mercury. And that seems pretty much right to me: no victory in that action, just a million beads of toxicity to stop before it harms too many people and an act that can never really be undone, only accommodated, mitigated, apologized for, and learned from. And, to take a different view, there is to me a small nobility, a small and unconventional victory in finally standing up honestly and saying good-bye to one part of this madness by leaving Iraq.

I’ve tried before to express my feelings about these wars, the soldiers, the events of the past decade. It’s always excruciating. It always falls short. It seems, in fact, the stupidest act in the face of things; an insult to the bravery of our soldiers and diplomats and the memory of all the lost and injured. I feel the attempts to express thoughts about all these things cheapens and degrades the realities of all those closer to 9/11, to the wars, to life and death in the Middle East. It feels, in fact, like cowardice to write amateurishly instead of getting my hands dirty by making an actual sacrifice and taking a real action. Because no matter how I feel about the wars or what we’ve done to respond to terrorism, I am an American so I’m responsible too. And prissy little blog posts and a decade of morose contemplation don’t help satisfy that responsibility.

Still, I write it anyway. It’s my response to the endless asides in the media and political worlds that say the American people haven’t been involved in the wars and don’t pay attention to them after all this time and/or during economic troubles. I disagree. I think the American people are better than that. I think they’ve been aware. I think they’ve felt helpless and guilty and sometimes scared. And maybe that’s just me. The U.S., my country, went to war and I did nothing. But I did pay attention. And, even though the government didn’t really pay for it (yet) and the public wasn’t asked to, I sent a small donation to the U.S. Treasury to acknowledge that we should have been asked, that it’s part of all of our debt, that the responsibilities we have to our soldiers will cost money, and that even wars I never wanted need to be paid for when they’re rightly or wrongly fought in my name.

A small act like that is insignificant, of course, and just as cheap as blogging about disaster. But we’ve passed the decade anniversaries of 9/11 and Afghanistan. We’re leaving Iraq. I dropped a token to help pay for it, which is well-intentioned but probably meaningless. Still, it’s what I’ve got, I guess. And until I can find a better way to make sense from the senseless, I’ll have to go with that.

Here’s to a better decade for all of us.

About these ads

Mad World

Whence Comes This Rush of Wings?

The year began strangely. Remember? Mass animal die-offs in the ocean, in the sky, around the world.

The year continues strangely.

When the world shook in New Zealand, my mental eye saw birds falling from the sky. Each uprising in the Middle East, for good or for ill, the birds kept raining down. The earthquake and tsunami in Japan and its ongoing nuclear crisis, I still see birds falling, or worse, on the ground.

I don’t believe in augury. The birds (and the fish) were not omens, no matter how unsettling the feeling at the news of their sudden collective passing. But what they’ve become to me is the perfect, inescapable companion image, the essential visual metaphor for things that I can’t quite understand.

And today, with things ratcheting up in Libya, with bad news from the Ivory Coast, with more casualties in Pakistan from drone attacks…

More birds.

Before There Was Blog, October 2009

Pakistan. A rough estimate of “about half” of the top twenty Qaeda operatives taken out by drones. A rough estimate of “750 to 1000”* (funny how financial accounting would never accept such a wide margin of error but counting lives does) civilians lost to same. I have never understood the calculation that says even one “bad guy” is worth one “good guy.” How does that square with our general assumption that good is more valuable than bad? Further, if the point of the drone assassinations is to save innocent lives, how do we excuse, explain or justify the loss of innocent lives? (Because they are not American innocent lives?) And, while I am appalled at NATO/UN assessments which accept 3.5 civilian casualties in exchange for a “target,” I understand that with war, with military action, it is better that such things are thought about, however horrifying and desensitizing as that may be. That said, 75 to 100 civilians lost for every suspected bad actor: this nine-fold increase of the acceptable collateral damage (what a deplorable euphemism) is a whole new level of paramilitary calculus that I find inconceivable.

I believe in our country. I love my country. I love the men and women who protect us and support them. Civilian casualties are inevitable, but at what point do we lose the ability to distinguish good from bad when we’re willing to destroy them both as if they were the same? At what point do we admit that, frankly, we’ve lost our mind? At what point do we at least just ask: what are we doing? What have we become?

I don’t have the answer. I will never know the answer. But how can good come from the mass destruction of the good?

*Mayer, Jane. “The Predator War.” The New Yorker, October 26, 2009.

For Esme, With Love and Squalor

“Goodbye,” said Esmé. I hope you come back from the war with all your faculties intact.”

Frontline’s program “The Wounded Platoon” has haunted me for two weeks now. Disturbing, haunting, horrifying. Complete with the hopelessness that comes from knowing that, like the Gulf oil spill, nothing truly good can come of all this. We stay, we go: it will end badly and the question is “which badly is a better badly?” The devil you choose…

For the US generally, there are the usual issues: how does this make us safer, how does this address the threats here, in Yemen, Somalia, Eritrea, North Korea, everywhere; how do we humanely clean up the messes we have made (surely we will be responsible enough to pay for the all we have broken in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past decade, won’t we?); how do we cope with the fact that we’ve paid for our very real fear in equally very real human currency, some of it ours, too much of it taken from others, and all of it valuable. But there are the questions about Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom that this civilian idiot can’t stop struggling with: Just who are we? What are we? Noble monsters? What is right? And is it worth doing what we think (sort of) is right for us, if it’s not right for everyone, if it’s devastating to everyone, everyone else? Is it really “damn them all if they’re not us?” “You’re either with us or against us:” (the most self-interested, arrogant, hateful phrase ever uttered; a phrase to damn ourselves better than anything or anyone else ever could) and, at any rate, the “with us” portion of the world is dwindling daily. Rightfully? Who knows anymore? Who ever did?

“Brave but lethal,” the Frontline narrator called the platoon. I extend it to our soldiers, whom I support, respect, admire, and worry for. Unbelievably brave, noble—but lethal. Estimates range from 96,381 to 105, 117 documented civilian deaths in Iraq alone. Some estimates go above one million just for Iraq. Google the civilian casualties for Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan sometime. It’s not pretty. Neither is it accurate because apparently it’s more difficult to count non-Americans. I try very, very hard to dismiss the cynical thought that, in our terror, out of some desensitized necessity we haven’t decided that these dead are not worth counting. (Surely my America wouldn’t believe that?) But when I heard a brave and damaged soldier on Frontline speaking about shooting civilians, about losing the ability to see them as human, about equating people with animals, or “they were nothing to me…”

And how could he have helped it? We train them to kill, hopefully for the right reasons, but we train them to kill. They go over there, willing to die for all of us, in the worst cases seeing the unimaginable. Losing their mates, losing their options, and (temporarily?) losing the luxuries of mind and morality. If someone shoots at you, shoot back. But how many times does it take before you learn that they might all shoot at you, if not today, then tomorrow? And how do you not break apart under that? And what happens when we “take a broken soldier, and then we send him back?” What happens after?

The American casualty rates as of 5/28/2010 are 4,404 (Iraq) and 1,076 (Afghanistan). The wounded: 31,827 (Iraq) and 6,038 (Afghanistan). The casualty rates do not include the troop and veteran suicides. The wounded rates do not include the unreported or undiagnosed cases of PTSD or other mental health conditions.

As Frontline brilliantly illustrated, some of our soldiers come back and don’t come back intact. They are protecting us, but who’s protecting them? And what kind of sick, tragic unintended consequence sees situations where occasionally people here need protection from them? Not enough heroes are coming home, but too many heroes are coming home broken. Too many heroes are ending up in hospitals and prisons (but oh, dear god, how can we not feel that we’re betraying them when they end up there? How are we not betraying them utterly when they end up anywhere but in the vicinity of okay?).

“You take a really sleepy man, Esmé, and he always stands a chance of again becoming a man with all his fac—with all his f-a-c-u-l-t-i-e-s intact.”  A story that’s too simple: A twelve year old girl somehow knowing the right words to heal a shattered man. Frontline brought it to mind. And I keep thinking of it still. I want America to come back with its faculties intact (ethically, too, loving my country too much to see it behave badly, even in the name of the abstract good). I want all of our soldiers to come back with their faculties intact.

We’re going to need a lot more Esmés.

* Salinger, J.D: “For Esme, With Love and Squalor,”  Nine Stories.

Before There Was Blog: December 2009

15 December 2009

Afghanistan

When all sense of government and national identity is local, of what practical benefit is a national army? And how can one be sure the soldiers are loyal to their so-called nation above their tribe or region?

But we state our goal is to train this national army so, as one analyst phrased it, “they can fight this war on their own.” But this is our war, not theirs (though they have known nothing but for forty years). There is not just one Taliban, not just one terrorist group. Afghanistan did not ask us to help them train to fight in a war against Enemy X– we’re superimposing a war and perhaps the enemy, too. I’m pretty sure most of them would rather just live, try to give their kids something better. Like thirty days of peace.

We’re training this army…I can’t help but think the world, ourselves too, would be better served by training plumbers, electricians, teachers, doctors, entrepreneurs, construction workers. Leaders. But no, we have decided to make more soldiers. Because there aren’t enough of those…

And then there are the militants. We will pay them off, bribe them not to shoot at our men, and preferably not to shoot at the Afghani army, such as it is. We will bribe them and the government too. And this makes so much sense in a country with a government known more for its proclivities for corruption than for its capacity to provide stability or enact policy. What better way to fight bribery than with more bribery? (But then again, we cling to capital punishment and what better way to fight death than with more death?)

A Permanent Peace

President Obama quoted Martin Luther King Jr. in his Nobel acceptance speech (a beautiful piece of work, that). The quote was about violence not begetting a permanent peace, only more problems. And I realized that I don’t know that I believe in a  permanent peace anymore, not as long as men are in charge. History can show us precisely zero evidence that a permanent peace is possible. The present refutes the suggestion, if not bludgeoning the idea to a sick, quivering, lifeless mass. And I wondered if the idea of peace on earth is not something like God, that you have to take on faith or that you’ll know when you see; that you, in a sense, have to force yourself to have faith in because every one of the five senses you possess is sending messages to the contrary. I wondered, too, when I lost the ability to believe in such a thing because I know I did not start out that way. And maybe that’s the hopeful thing– that probably none of us start out that way; that our default setting as children is to believe that there is such a thing as a permanent peace.

And in the meantime, I hope there might eventually be a temporary one.

Sacrilege: 19 December 2009

I listen to the news. I think about it. Hard. And I know that my thoughts are entirely irrelevant. But still, I think. But I do this from the safety of my life here, where no one shoots at me and I can be reasonably certain my foot or car will not trigger an IED. I am grateful beyond measure for my safety and my security. I am grateful for being Here and not There. But my safety feels unfair, a gift I didn’t earn, and one that everyone should have received. And the thinking about all of it– well, sometimes, because I am comfortable, because others are not, because it is not for me to change all of it, sometimes it feels absolutely indecent, a sacrilege to criticize from my house, to shuffle the real problems through my brain somewhere in between my to-do list and wondering what I should eat for dinner.
And I really don’t know to whom I owe the apology for that.