NavigationSearchUser login |
Daniel O'Rourke's columnsLetter to Editor of Buffalo News regarding future U.S. war plans
Daniel O'Rourke's columns | Submitted by admin on January 6, 2007 - 4:11pm.
The following Letter to the Editor, written by CPJ member Dan O'Rourke, was published in the January 6, 2007 issue of the Buffalo News (title was provided by the News): "Bush must not rush into a war with Iran" "FUBAR - the President's War in Iraq" - column by Dan O'Rourke
Daniel O'Rourke's columns | Submitted by admin on September 14, 2006 - 6:23pm.
Daniel O'Rourke, CPJ member, contributes a regular column to the Dunkirk Observer. The following, "FUBAR - the President's War in Iraq," was published on September 14, 2006.
"A Lover's Quarrel with his Country" - column by Daniel O'Rourke
Daniel O'Rourke's columns | Submitted by admin on April 29, 2006 - 5:22pm.
Daniel O'Rourke, CPJ member, contributes a regular column to the Dunkirk Observer. The following, "A lover's quarrel with his country," was published on April 27, 2006. Rev. William Sloane Coffin’s strong heart stopped beating at his Vermont home on April 12. He was 81 and had been under hospice care. His was a wide-ranging, courageous and powerfully influential life. A Presbyterian minister as chaplain at Yale University and senior minister of The Riverside Church in New York City, he was a prophetic leader in the civil rights, nuclear freeze and anti-war movements. His rich pulpit baritone and creative, concrete writings gave voice to our national conscience. His words still nourish my soul. In the cliché beloved of eulogists he will be missed, but more importantly who will take his place? Like many prophets Dr. Coffin did not come to his life’s work easily or directly. He was born to privilege; he could trace his forebears back to the Pilgrims. As a boy he lived in an eastside Manhattan penthouse, and later in California and Paris where he studied music and became fluent in French. He graduated from Andover’s prestigious Phillips Academy and entered Yale before joining the army. Later he worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. In 1947 he returned to Yale for a degree in government. Only later at the age of twenty-nine did he study for church ministry. Little did he, his family or this nation know how these early military and CIA experiences would prepare him for his prophetic vocation. As a former insider he was well aware of the seamy side of government and its intelligence agencies. In the truest sense of the words, however, he loved and served his country -- relentlessly admonishing her in the light of his biblical faith. He once said, “There are three kinds of patriots, two bad and one good. The bad ones are the uncritical lovers and the loveless critics. Good patriots,” on the other hand, “carry on a lover’s quarrel with their country.” His lover’s quarrel was life-long and his arguments always intelligent, sensitive and eloquent. Listen to him; his words still ring true. “‘America, love it or leave it!’ I believe that. The trouble with that slogan, which found its way onto endless bumpers during the Vietnam War, was that it didn’t mean what it said. It meant ‘America, OBEY it or leave it,’ as if national unity were more patriotic than national debate, especially when that unity seems to many to be based on folly. If the American people are worth the salt I think they’re worth, they will never be politically united, for as Barbara Tuchman recently wrote, ‘A nation in consensus is a nation ready for the grave.’ “Love of country, like love of parents, is never to be equated with blind obedience …. Don’t say, ‘My country, right or wrong.’ That’s like saying, ‘My grandmother, drunk or sober’ …. Don’t just salute the flag, and don’t burn it either. Wash it. Make it clean .… I am an American patriot who loves his country enough to address her flaws.” In politics, in the media, and in our pulpits our nation still need lovers like William Sloane Coffin. Even as his health failed Coffin raised his voice in protest against the Iraq War. In May 2003 when Union Theological Seminary awarded him the prestigious Union Medal, he said, “When thinking of the war in Iraq and future preemptive attacks, let us remember Thomas Mann: ‘War is a coward’s escape from the problems of peace.’ Certainly peace requires more courage than war, especially when super-patriotism stirs the blood and narrows the mind, constricting the heart.” Who will take Coffin’s place? Who now will be our conscience? Oh, I know there are national figures who more or less courageously have protested the present folly in Iraq. Congressman John Murtha and the phalanx of retired generals who finally have spoken out come to mind. So does Cindy Sheehan whose son was needlessly killed in this war and who raised the consciousness of the nation when she camped outside President Bush’s Texas ranch. They speak from their military experience and from their grief, but where are those speaking from their scriptures and their faith? Where are the voices from our churches and pulpits? There are some, of course, like Sister Joan Chittister, a Benedictine nun and Rev. Jim Wallis, the evangelical preacher, but most religious voices of opposition are timid and hesitant even as the obsessive madness of the Iraq War becomes more obvious. No doubt, clergy like indecisive politicians and lackey journalists are fearful of missteps, apprehensive about offending the influential and affluent, and worried about enraged criticism. Criticism of prophets, however, is inevitable; it came to Coffin, as it came to Jesus and comes to all who speak out against society’s embedded evils. Listen to Coffin again. “Truth is always in danger of being sacrificed on the altars of good taste and social stability.” Bill Moyer said of Coffin’s 2004 book, “Credo” that it was “the voice of a prophet and wisdom for the ages.” How many of us love our nation enough to quarrel with her over its ideological arrogance, its disregard for human life and human rights, and its wanton, cold-blooded foreign policy? "Ireland and Iraq -- 'A fanatic heart' " - column by Daniel O'Rourke
Daniel O'Rourke's columns | Submitted by admin on March 24, 2006 - 5:01pm.
CPJ member, Daniel O'Rourke, wrote the following column,"Ireland and Iraq -- 'A fanatic heart,'" for the Dunkirk Observer, which was published on March 23, 2006. Saint Patrick’s Day has come and gone, but it’s still with me. I don’t mean those phony brogues, green beer and all that ersatz Irishness. I mean “the Troubles,” as the Irish poetically name them. I mean the diminishing conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. Saint Patrick’s Day reminded me of another artificially divided land, of another suppression of one religious group by another. It reminded me of the civil war now already begun between Iraq’s Sunnis and the Shiites. Different groups divided by class and clout, prestige and power but whose overarching identification is religion. In Iraq two sects of Islam, in Ireland two divisions of Christians fearing, hating and killing each other. Listen to W. B. Yeats’ verse from his poem “Remorse for Intemperate Speech.” It cries out from the heart of a tortured people. Saint Patrick’s Day has come and gone, but it’s still with me. I don’t mean those phony brogues, green beer and all that ersatz Irishness. I mean “the Troubles,” as the Irish poetically name them. I mean the diminishing conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland.Saint Patrick’s Day reminded me of another artificially divided land, of another suppression of one religious group by another. It reminded me of the civil war now already begun between Iraq’s Sunnis and the Shiites. Different groups divided by class and clout, prestige and power but whose overarching identification is religion. In Iraq two sects of Islam, in Ireland two divisions of Christians fearing, hating and killing each other.Listen to W. B. Yeats’ verse from his poem “Remorse for Intemperate Speech.” It cries out from the heart of a tortured people. Out of Ireland we come. Great hatred, little room, Maimed us at the start. I carry from my mother’s womb A fanatic heart. When Yeats wrote that, he “had witnessed the birthing of a new Irish nation through insurgency and civil war. He had served as a Free State senator, and after winning the Nobel Prize in Literature, was the country’s public man of letters.” As Thomas Lynch, the poet and author of “Booking Passage: We Irish and Americans,” has also observed, Yeats’ poem admits that intelligence and good intentions are often overcome by hatred and enthusiasm for a cause. “It is what links enemies, what makes terrorists “martyrs” and “patriots” among their own – the fanatic heart beating in the breast of every true believer.” I inherited some of that hate. I heard those songs of rebellion from my grandparents as a boy. Experience, education, travel –- life itself have leached that hate from my heart. But even three generations removed from Ireland, I heard suspicion, distrust and hate for the English Protestant landlords, who forced my famished ancestors onto “coffin ships” and into steerage for passage to a distant land. Is such religious hatred destiny? Can experience and education cure fanatic hearts? They did mine; can they do so in Iraq? Only history will tell, but here’s a story that gives me hope. Some years ago fundraisers from the Irish Republican Army stopped to see an American executive. He was an Irish Catholic CEO of an international company. They went to his office in his up-scale Manhattan headquarters. They spoke of the prejudice, injustices, killings and suppression of Catholics in Northern Ireland and requested money for arms. He refused them. “All right they said, but what then do you intend to do to help?” The CEO did not answer, but long after the IRA terrorists left their question haunted him. Weeks later he flew to Belfast and began making plans to build a plant in Northern Ireland. Eventually, with instructions that his people hire both Catholics and Protestants as workers and managers, he built it. The plant prospered and its non-discriminatory personnel policies were widely praised. A few years later this same CEO was in London on business to meet with an English counterpart. Their work had brought them together and they had become friends. Their different religions and ethnic backgrounds were hardly noticed. Over lunch in an exclusive club they were discussing the Belfast plant and its hiring practices. “What made you build it?” asked the Englishman. The American told him of the IRA soliciting money for arms. “But why did you do it?” his English friend persisted. “My grandparents were tenant farmers in Connemara. Their landlord forced them to leave Ireland during the famine.” Curious now the Englishman asked, “What part of Connemara?” When the American named the remote, mountainous village, the Englishman paled. “What’s the matter?” asked his friend. Shaking his head, the Englishman said quietly, “My grandfather owned that mountain.” Generations from now will the descendents of today’s Shiites and Sunnis have similar conversations? Will they meet as friends? Will they sit at table to share a meal to discuss business? Or will that hatred, which today rips Iraq asunder, still maim them? Will the grandchildren of today’s Sunnis and Shiites still carry fanatic hearts? It can happen, if visionary statesmen like Senator George Mitchell who nurtured the historic Good Friday Irish agreement bring similar diplomatic skills to the Sunni-Shiite conflict. (I must say, however, that I find the Bush administration’s Iraq policy is not long-term and visionary but short-term and delusional.) In Ireland economic prosperity, cultural cooperation and interdependence have drawn Catholics and Protestants closer. Full peace has not yet come to Ulster, but most fanatic hearts are have been silenced. Iraq desperately needs such modernization. The reformation of the Catholic Church at the Second Vatican Council helped greatly in Ireland. That council broke down many Catholic and Protestant prejudices. Islam too needs a religious reformation. Eventually modernization and reformation will come to Iraq but it will not happen quickly. As in Ireland, it could take generations perhaps centuries. And how long will our troops be there? God only knows President Bush doesn’t. We should set a timetable and start bringing them home. As the Quakers have told us “if our troops leave, then an independent Iraqi government, free of external control, could open the door to discussion and reconciliation between groups.” We should again remind ourselves of Ireland and the transitional Irish Free State which was also born out of insurgency and civil war. It struggled from 1922 to 1937. Americans must take the long view of history and not, as politicians instinctively do, think only of the next congressional election. One more comparison: in Ireland women jump-started the struggle for peaceful cooperation. In 1977 Mairead Corrigan and Betty Williams received the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts. Iraq too needs to hear the voices of its women who have lost too many children, husbands and brothers. If the Iraqi constitution gives a real voice to women -- and not only a nominal presence, the chances for peace between Sunni and Shiite will increase. That’s what Ireland can teach America about Iraq. Daniel O’Rourke is a former Observer Clergy Columnist. He’s a married Catholic priest, retired from the administration at State University College, Fredonia. A mediator for the Center for Resolution and Justice, he lives in Cassadaga. His column appears the second and fourth Thursdays of each month. Comments may be sent to orourke@netsync.net "The Iraq War and Jehran Omran" - column by Daniel O'Rourke
Daniel O'Rourke's columns | Submitted by admin on March 9, 2006 - 5:06pm.
CPJ member, Daniel O'Rourke, wrote the following column,“The Iraq War and Jehran Omran,” for the Dunkirk Observer, which was published on March 9, 2006.
The American Friends recently brought a traveling exhibit to Erie, Pennsylvania on the human cost of the Iraq War. The exhibit displayed one hundred-eleven pairs of military boots in honor of the hundred and eleven Pennsylvania soldiers and marines killed in Iraq. The Quakers do not have a similar exhibit for New York State. Sadly, there are far too many pairs of empty boots to transport and display. The boots were marked with the names, rank, age and hometowns of the dead. In a few instances where families objected, the shoes were unlabeled. In a cluster at the center of the exhibit were three sets of boots from the City of Erie. One pair was marked for Donald Samuel Oaks, Jr. One of his boots held a bouquet of red roses his aunt had placed there together with a picture of the soldier as a mischievous five-year-old. Oaks was only twenty when he was killed in Iraq. Yet another boot held a crumpled, hand-written note from a grieving father to his dead son. “I will love you, Johnny, and will never forget you….” That soldier was from Oil City. He was 21. Incongruously, amid the blackened, heavy military boots were sneakers, sandals and children’s shoes. Each pair labeled with the name and age of a dead Iraqi citizen. What most touched me were four-year-old Jehan Omran’s tiny shoes. They were pink with Velcro straps. The kind I help my granddaughter with when she visits our home. The hushed visitors at the exhibit lingered over the footwear like mourners at a funeral parlor. They moved reverently to the posters, which spelled out the growing financial cost of the war. At the time of this writing it is two hundred and forty-five billion, but even that seems insignificant in the light of all these needless deaths. So far there have been 2,302 American military deaths in Iraq. We number them meticulously -- as we should. Yet General Tommy Franks has said brusquely of the Iraqi dead, “We don’t do body counts.” Some sources have estimated from 26,000 to 32,000 Iraqi civilian deaths. President Bush himself has cited that figure. Researchers at Johns Hopkins University, however, in a now outdated report published in “The Lancet,” a prestigious British medical journal then estimated the Iraqi dead at 100,000. Even that monstrous figure is just a statistic and doesn’t move me as much as Jehan Omran’s shoes with those Velcro straps. Too sentimental? Perhaps, but more realistic than a military spokesman with a chest full of service ribbons dismissing the Iraqi dead as “collateral damage.” Can the dead be dismissed that easily? Won’t they come back to haunt us? Haven’t they already? Rosie Musacchio of Dunkirk crafted a sculpture, "The Spirit Groaneth - A Response to the Grief of the Iraqi People." She’ll display and interpret her work at a gathering grieving the third anniversary of the Iraq War. This event, sponsored by the Dunkirk Fredonia Center for Peace and Justice and the Fredonia Students for Peace, will take place on Saturday, March 18 at 1:00 PM in Fredonia’s Barker commons. But back to those empty boots and shoes. There has been much grief in this country about the mounting deaths from this damnable war. Understandably, much of it focuses on our own military dead. After all we knew these young men and women as family, friends and neighbors and we grieve them deeply and personally. But what of the Iraqi dead? Why do we minimize them? Thy too have loving families, friends and neighbors. Aren’t we all one? Isn’t John Dunn’s famous line pertinent? “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.” Or as someone else has asked, doesn’t “our own pulse beat in every stranger’s throat?” Did our pulse beat in Jehan Omran’s throat before a piece of shrapnel silenced her laughter? Of course it did. We are one. Iraqi deaths diminish us Americans just as our casualties diminish them. Listen to a few words from a Spanish song. Somos el barco; somos el mar. Yo navego en ti, tu navegas en mi. We are the boat; we are the sea I sail in you; you sail in me. What these poets are saying is that we are all meshed, interwoven and braided together. Iraqi and American lives, whether we admit it or not, are interconnected. And I’m not speaking of the increasing reality of international economies and politics. “We are one” is the ancient insight of the mystics. If we deny this, as much of our government and media continue to do, we can rationalize almost anything including killing, torture, and endless illegal detentions. This debasement and degradation of Iraqis has also debased and degraded us and our nation’s ideals. The sea in which we sail together has been polluted by our arrogant, self-centered militarism. Where is the outrage at all this death? Where is it in the media? In the political opposition? From our pulpits? Oh I know, it’s there occasionally and selectively, but too often it’s timid and muted. Americans and Iraqis are in the same boat, on the same sea. Our languages, dress and religions may differ, but we share a common humanity, a common earth and a common God. Jehan Omran was my granddaughter too –- and she was yours. "Patriotism and Criticism" - column by Daniel O'Rourke
Daniel O'Rourke's columns | Submitted by admin on January 28, 2006 - 7:39pm.
CPJ member, Daniel O'Rourke, wrote the following column, "Patriotism and Criticism" for the Dunkirk Observer, which was published on September 8, 2005.
In struggling to find a topic for this column, two unrelated things happened. Followers of Jung would call them synchronicity; the catechism of my youth might call them actual graces. The first was a bumper sticker I saw in a parking lot. It read, “It is the soldier’s duty to obey; it is citizen’s duty to question.” The second was a quote from President Theodore Roosevelt, which I spotted the next day in the news. Roosevelt seemed to be bellowing out to the nation from Mount Rushmore. He proclaimed bluntly, “To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” A strong sticker – and stronger words. Those sentiments are certainly timely given the debate about the Iraq war and the questioning of the patriotism of its critics, but the message is deeper than that – a lot deeper. A loyal, questioning opposition is essential for the functioning of any democracy. Once we surrender the right to question and criticize our government, then the democratic process is fatally weakened. As the bumper sticker said, it is our duty as citizens to question. We’re not soldiers; indeed we can best support those bearing arms by questioning. I only wish that citizen Colin Powell had questioned the flawed rationale for this war publicly. Instead as Secretary of State he reverted to the engrained habits of his military lifetime and obeyed as a soldier. He would have served the President, the nation and the troops much better if he had openly challenged the war and the shaky justifications offered for it. The debate about that war is growing; it has been focused and galvanized by Cindy Sheehan’s forthright question, “For what did my son Casey die?” Of course Mrs. Sheehan does not speak for all gold star mothers; she never claimed she did. But she speaks for many. If we can believe the polls, she speaks for many of us. An increasing majority of the public doubts the President’s changing explanations, his repetitive bromides and his lack of vision. Despite the President’s cockiness, most of the nation knows that the war and the pacification of Iraq are going horribly. Is the President in denial? Or is he thoughtlessly mouthing the platitudes Dick Cheney or Don Rumsfeld print on his prompt cards? The record is now indisputable: from the beginning the highest sources in this administration have misinformed the country about this war. As more and more of our troops die, more and more Americans, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, the military and ordinary citizens are questioning. They should; it is their patriotic duty. A Newsweek poll in August reported that only 34 percent of Americans approved of the president's Iraq policy and 61 percent disapproved. A Pew Center poll in July reported that only 27 percent thought Bush had a clear plan for success in Iraq, but the President’s response continues to be more calls to support our troops. The nation does not need consensus to support our troops; it already has it. It needs debate on why the troops were sent to Iraq in the first place. Otherwise the observation of historian Barbara Tuchman would apply to us: “A nation in consensus is a nation ready for the grave.” The questioning and its implied criticisms prove that as a democratic nation we are very much alive. Rev. William Sloan Coffin, a prophetic Christian and patriotic American who has often questioned governmental arrogance and power said, “Good patriots carry on a lovers’ quarrel with their country.” Cindy Sheehan and her colleagues are in such a quarrel. They are good patriots. Let the quarrel rage. Let the questioning become persistent and insistent until we get some frank answers and a realistic plan for Iraq. The political mantras and simplistic slogans are convincing fewer and fewer. “Bring ‘em on,” our president boasted in his cowboy drawl when confronted with the Iraq insurgents. Those insurgents last month killed seventy-four more troops. How long will this national nightmare continue? As for such questions being unpatriotic, remember Mark Twain. "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it." This government does not deserve it. Daniel O’Rourke is a former Observer Clergy Columnist. He’s a married Catholic priest, retired from the administration at State University College, Fredonia. A mediator for the Center for Resolution and Justice, he lives in Cassadaga, NY. His column appears the second and fourth Thursday of each month. Comments may be sent to orourke@netsync.net "Civil Discourse or Hostile Argument?" - column by Daniel O'Rourke
Daniel O'Rourke's columns | Submitted by admin on January 28, 2006 - 7:30pm.
CPJ member, Daniel O'Rourke, wrote the following column, "Civil Discourse or Hostile Argument?" for the Dunkirk Observer, which was published on August 25, 2005.
We hear a lot about civil discourse, dialogue, and discussion. But whether it’s the selection of a Supreme Court justice, the pros and cons of the Iraq war, or spouses sorting out who washes the supper dishes, unfailingly polite exchanges are rare. Too often the conversations become intellectual wrestling matches rather than fruitful dialogues. Discussions frequently devolve into arguments. Parties don’t listen to each other. Instead they gather arguments point by point to refute the opposing position; they have already made up their minds. Sometimes ideology or prejudice has solidified their positions. Recently in Kentucky, an argument between friends over the war in Iraq ended with a fatal shooting. Douglas Moore shot Harold Smith once in the chest and Smith died at the scene. Police said that Moore acted in self-defense and did not arrest him at the Bull Creek Trade Center near Prestonsburg where he and Smith each had booths. Admittedly, that’s an extreme example, but in most arguments there is more anger than reason, more heat than light. Whether it’s friends, politicians or husbands and wives, arguers seem to have earplugs. They don’t hear each other. Having prejudged the issue as well as the “opponent,” their certitude is unwavering. Subtly and sometimes crudely they communicate to the other that not only her views, but she herself is unimportant. Self-deprecating humor and attentive listening, even when we don't like what the other is saying, are much more productive. In that way we show that our respect won't waver. No matter how vehemently we disagree we can state our own position kindly. There is nothing said that could not be said more gently. There is a world of difference between, “# $ * &, you’re an imbecile to believe that.” And, “I disagree, Joe. How about looking at it this way?” If the language is not respectful, the argument will teach us nothing; it will only create hostility. There is wisdom in the ancient scripture, “A soft answer turns away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger. (Pro. 15:1) Who is wise? The Talmud asks. “One who learns from all,” it teaches. Those in heated arguments have no possibility of such wisdom. If we listen to the other carefully and with respect, we might learn something. Eknath Easwaran, the Hindu spiritual writer and founder of a center for meditation in Berkeley, California said, “In many disagreements … it is really not ideological differences that divide people. It is lack of respect, which is another way of saying a lack of love. Most disagreements do not even require dialogue; all that is necessary is a set of flash cards. If Romeo wants to make a point with Juliet, he may have elaborate intellectual arguments for buttressing his case, but while his mouth is talking away, his hand brings out a big card and shows it to Juliet: ‘I'm right.’ Then Juliet flashes one of hers: ‘You're wrong!’ You can use the same cards for all occasions, because that is all most quarrels amount to. “What provokes people is not so much facts or opinions, but the arrogance of these flash cards. Kindness here means the generous admission -- not only with the tongue but with the heart -- that there is something in what you say, just as there is something in what I say. If I can listen to you with respect, it is usually only a short time before you listen with respect to me. Once this attitude is established, most differences can be made up. It may require a lot of hard work, but the problem is no longer insoluble.” Eckard Tolle, author of “The Power of Now” said somewhere that we should embrace the competing narration. Instead of dismissing or ridiculing others' beliefs we should attempt to understand and ferret out the truth in them. Often we do not. Instead we look for like-minded friends or fellow travelers who reinforce our pre-judgments. It’s easier to dismiss opposing views out of hand than to flush out their truth. We prefer to see things in black and white. Reality, however, is much more complicated and unfolds in high definition color. We should be suspicious of bumper sticker clarity. Some will say that respecting the competing narration implies a lack of conviction and passion for one’s position, but not necessarily. We can calmly place our own beliefs in parentheses as we respectfully pay attention to the other point of view. Our convictions may or may not be modified by the discourse, but eventually after the discussion they can be re-concentrated with more focused energy. Civility does not mean emotional apathy or intellectual indifference. No one has all the answers. A dose of humility might help refine our position. When spouses have disagreements, familiarity makes it more complicated, but patience, respect and humility can work wonders. The poetic words of Saint Paul read at many a wedding are on target. “Love is patient and kind…. It is not arrogant or rude…. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful.” (I Cor. 13: 4-5) Easwaran would have us replace the word “love” in that text with “respect.” If we do that, the Senate Judicial Committee, the negotiators with Iran and North Korea, and John Bolton at the UN would have exceedingly wise advice. Everyone: lawmakers and homemakers, politicians and voters, citizens and the military need to be respected. We all need more light than heat -- more civil discourse and less hostile argument. Daniel O’Rourke is a former Observer Clergy Columnist. He’s a married Catholic priest, retired from the administration at State University College, Fredonia. A mediator for the Center for Resolution and Justice, he lives in Cassadaga. His columns appear the second and fourth Thursday of each month. Comments may be sent to orourke@netsync.net "Anger, Truth and the Iraq War" - column by Daniel O'Rourke
Daniel O'Rourke's columns | Submitted by admin on January 28, 2006 - 7:15pm.
CPJ member, Daniel O'Rourke, wrote the following column, "Anger, Truth and the Iraq War" for the Dunkirk Observer, which was published on July 28, 2005.
Last month my wife and I bought a Toyota Prius hybrid. It conserves and recaptures energy for a sophisticated electric battery providing excellent mileage per gallon of gasoline. One of the ways it reharnesses energy is by regenerative braking using the heat energy otherwise lost when slowing down or stopping. Surprisingly, I thought of this new car recently when I read these words of Mahatma Gandhi - “I have learned through bitter experience the one supreme lesson is to conserve my anger, and as heat conserved is transmuted into energy, even so our anger controlled can be transmuted into a power that can move the world.” Commenting on Gandhi’s insight, Eknath Easwaran, the Hindu spiritual writer and founder of a center for meditation in Berkeley, California said that Gandhi’s life gives us an excellent example of how the heat of anger can be harnessed. “As a young, unknown, brown-skinned lawyer traveling in South Africa on business, he was roughly thrown from the train because he refused to surrender his first-class ticket and move to the third-class compartment. He spent a cold, sleepless night on the railway platform. “Later, he said this was the turning point of his life: for on that night, full of anger because of this personal injustice, as well as the countless injustices suffered by so many others everyday in South Africa, he resolved not to rest until he had set those injustices right. On that night he conquered his anger and vowed to resist injustice” through the power of nonviolent resistance. Ghandi’s words and example are good advice for me because I’m angry. I am angry about the Iraq War. I’m angry with President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld, the toadying generals and the glib neo-cons who naively got us into this bloody quagmire. I’m angry at the senseless loss of military and civilian life. Somehow those of us who are angry must harness that energy like Ghandi into a rational, peaceful, effective response. I met someone recently in the supermarket who told me she liked my theological columns best. They made her think of her life and the Mystery of God in a fresher, deeper way. Other readers impatient with “the spirituality stuff” want more about the environment, poverty and especially the war. Sometimes sitting down at the word processor, I’m torn. I write different kinds of columns and readers have their preferences. So be it, but it has dawned on me that a stark distinction between the spiritual and political is misleading. They are flip sides of the same coin. Nothing (e.g. honesty and candor) is purely spiritual and nothing (e.g. war and the environment) is completely political. Spiritual values are interwoven in all the great issues of the day. Harnessing anger is one of them; honesty is another. I won’t list the misinformation, the massaging of intelligence, and the false rationalizations for this God-awful war. Several substantive reports including some from Bush’s own administration have concluded that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, no ties with Al Quaeda, and nothing to do with 9/11. Now the Downing Street Memo, a secret British intelligence document, concludes that the Bush administration had decided to launch a preemptive war against Iraq no matter what the intelligence data. Despite all those careful studies, the President in justifying his Iraq policy before a carefully screened military audience again co-mingled the war on terror with the war in Iraq and again and again invoked 9/11. Why does the President continue to make this link? Sure, it’s political, but is it truthful? Is it honest? Is it moral? I don’t think so. Vice President Cheney said he thought the insurgency in Iraq was in its last throes. Probably in the convoluted language of governments, he misspoke. A few days later Rumsfeld said the insurgency could last as long as 12 years. Currently, we’re averaging three Americans killed a day in Iraq. Do your own math. At that rate 13,140 more Americans and probably a hundred thousand more Iraqis will die. Rumsfeld’s estimation might be militarily realistic, but is this carnage moral? Is it ethical? I hardly think so. Do you? Of course we should be angry with our government, but we need to harness that energy and do something rational like urging Congressman Brian Higgins to support the investigation of the Downing Street Memo. Or urge him to join others in congress in backing the “Homeward Bound” resolution committing us to start withdrawing our troops by at least October 2006 without keeping control over Iraq’s oil or maintaining military bases there. We can do more. Our Prius Hybrid conserves energy in another way. It turns off the gas driven motor completely when the car stops in traffic or at a red light. It starts up again instantly at a touch of the accelerator. We too should stop, reflect and do something. We should reflect on this war, and get our thoughts together, then we might put them on papers for our representatives or the media. It doesn’t have to be an elaborate op-ed piece. A sentence or two stating your position clearly could be just as effective. In any case stop, harness your anger and do something peaceful to address this foreign policy disaster, which is killing our young, draining our resources -- and diminishing our souls. Daniel O’Rourke is a former Observer Clergy Columnist. He’s a married Catholic priest, retired from the administration at State University College, Fredonia. A mediator for the Center for Resolution and Justice, he lives in Cassadaga, NY. His column appears the second and fourth Thursday of each month. Comments may be sent to orourke@netsync.net “War Isn’t Working but Support our Troops” - column by Daniel O'Rourke
Daniel O'Rourke's columns | Submitted by admin on December 21, 2005 - 11:09pm.
CPJ member, Daniel O'Rourke, wrote the following column, "War Isn't Working but Support our Troops" for the Dunkirk Observer, which was published on January 13, 2005.
This column will appear around the celebration of Martin Luther King’s birthday. It’s fitting to begin with his wisdom. “Our scientific power,” he said, “has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men.” Amen, Reverend, Amen. Is there anyone reading this, whether they voted for President Bush, Senator Kerry, Ralph Nader or Michael Badnarik who honestly believes this war in Iraq is going well? Statements to the contrary from public relation press secretaries, self-serving politicians and career-motivated generals only remind me of journalist I. F. Stone, Editor of the Nation, who used to teach his young reporters, "All you have to remember are two words: GOVERNMENTS LIE." All governments lie, not just this administration. Democrat and Republican, American and foreign, democratic and totalitarian governments lie. In their disinformation, obfuscation and spin essentially they lie. So no matter what the administration says about Iraqi sovereignty, freedom, democracy and elections being on track, the evidence on the ground is increasingly and persuasively to the contrary. In fact, many believe that this war and its aftermath is a disaster: a disaster in the loss of military and civilian lives. A disaster in our battle for “the hearts and minds” of the Iraqis and other Muslims. A disaster for our economy. A disaster for America’s leadership in the world. The situation in Iraq is God-awful. It’s what the military calls FUBAR: Fouled (the polite, printable version)-Up-Beyond-All-Recognition. There has been an inept litany of misinformation, miscalculations and ham-fisted decisions: the false claims of weapons of mass destruction. The unfounded, disingenuous linking of Iraq with 9/11 and Al Quaeda. The deployment of insufficient troops. The disbanding of the Iraqi army. The lack of armor and equipment for our soldiers. The torture of prisoners. The on-again, off-again, on-again battle for Fallujah. To the rest of the world this administration appears incompetent. It’s not been “shock and awe” for the Iraqis; it’s been “slog and awful” for our troops. God help the military caught in this mess –- and that’s a prayer. The first President Bush, in explaining why he did not pursue Iraqi troops into Baghdad in the Gulf War, said he did not want to end up with occupying troops trying to police a bitterly divided land. That of course is what has happened in spades. Moreover, the insurgents and terrorists are blocking all efforts to rebuild and stabilize the nation; most of the Iraqi people understandably want the occupiers out, and in the meantime our troops are suffering and dying. The Powell Doctrine, based on Colin Powell’s experience as an army officer in Vietnam, was on target. Before we go to war, he asserted, we should have clearly defined objectives, more than enough troops to do the job, political support at home, and a clear exit strategy. Donald Rumsfeld and his neo-cons rejected Powell’s battle-tested advice. Powell, however, did not resign. He should have. It would have been a courageous service to the nation and our now beleaguered troops. Instead he supported the President. The administration in turn frightened and shamed (some would say deceived) the nation into backing this war. In another war in another time, another political leader observed that, “Of course people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along…. The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do it tell them they are being attacked, denounce the pacifists for their lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to greater danger.” Do those words have a familiar ring? Those were the words of Hermann Goring, one of the leading Nazis tried at the Nuremberg. The tragedy is that this administration has perhaps unknowingly followed Gorings’s political cynicism instead of Powell’s prudent advice. Like many Americans I have a ribbon on my car saying SUPPORT OUR TROUPS, but I also have a bumper sticker proclaiming WAR ISN’T WORKING. Those messages are not contradictory. How can we support our troops in this ill-fated war? We should pressure our government to replace them. We should get them out of Iraq as fast as we humanely can. In the meantime we should provide them with the armor, the equipment and protection they need, and when too many of them come back to the VA physically and mentally scarred we should provide them with the best medical care and benefits this nation can provide. Despite the government’s claims, we are not doing “all we can” for them. Iraq is a mess. As the troops say it’s FUBAR, but we must support them in the middle of this muddle. It’s not their fault. Armor them. Supply them. Protect them. Replace them. Pray for them and, for God’s sake, bring them home. "The Psychological Scars of War" - column by Daniel O'Rourke
Daniel O'Rourke's columns | Submitted by admin on December 21, 2005 - 10:56pm.
CPJ member and treasurer, Daniel O'Rourke, wrote the following column, "The Psychological Scars of War," for the Dunkirk Observer, which was published on August 11, 2005.
George Bernard Shaw wrote that “nations are like bees: they cannot kill except at the cost of their own lives.” That cost can be computed in many ways. In Iraq it’s not only our military’s 1,820 fatal casualties and the 13,500 physically injured; it’s also the psychological wounds some veterans bear -- often for the rest of their lives. The psychological tolls of war are staggering. Scott Shane wrote in the New York Times, “an army study shows that about one in six soldiers in Iraq report symptoms of major depression, serious anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder, a proportion that some experts believe could eventually climb to one in three, the rate ultimately found in Vietnam veterans.” The New England Journal of Medicine and the National Center for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) corroborate Shane’s findings. They report up to 17% of our Iraq veterans are already suffering psychologically. Since symptoms can appear months after exposure, experts predict that the number with PTSD will only increase. Psychological scars of war are not new; they only have new names. As Shane observed after the Civil War it was “irritable heart,” after WW I it was “shell shock,” in WW II it was “battle fatigue.” After Vietnam the army and veterans administration took some measures to address this persistent disorder that can cause a lifetime of anger, nightmares, drug and alcohol abuse, family problems and a disproportionate number of divorces and suicides. The macho mentality of the army, however, has a difficult time admitting that these psychological wounds are not weakness or cowardice. The mostly unspoken thinking is that real men don’t cry or regret, that the good soldier is tough and untroubled by the killings and horrors of war. That type of thinking, of course, is denial. The Veterans Administration is better than the Army, but it desperately needs to hire more psychologists for veterans who are not receiving the treatment they need -- and in justice deserve. The VA, which was really not established for National Guard members and reservists out of active duty, is a regulatory quagmire for these vets. Unlike our veterans, most civilians have no idea of the hellish horror of war. Television filters out the goriest footage. Even the most realistic war movies such as Saving Private Ryan cannot replicate the smell of decaying bodies or the pictures of dismembered children. The Pentagon in its sanitized military spin-speak sometimes regrets collateral damage, but for the veteran the memory of the innocent blown to bits before his eyes is forever seared in his psyche, as is the death of his buddy bleeding to death in his arms. Later reflecting on these traumas, he is no longer sure why the war and perhaps his own actions in it destroyed these irreplaceable lives. The Vietnam Memorial in Washington, DC is mute testimony to the 58 thousand Americans who died in Vietnam. And for what did they die? Even former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara admits that it was an ill-conceived intervention in a civil war. And what came of all that senseless carnage? Vietnam is now both a communist country and a trading partner. The Memorial, moreover, doesn’t even mention the millions of Vietnamese who died in what they call the US War. Historian Leon Wolfe wrote of World War I “the war ended on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1918. It had meant nothing, solved nothing and proved nothing.” Over eight and a half million soldiers died in that war. Will some historian someday write about Iraq as they do now about WW I and Vietnam? More and more Americans think so. Already President Bush understands the complaint of French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau that it is easier to win a war than to win the peace. Historians agree that the peace treaty at Versailles was the seedbed for Hitler, the Nazis, the Holocaust and yet another war. All the gassing, bayoneting and killing in that first “war to end all wars” was for naught. As were the deaths in Vietnam “to stop the spread of communism.” As for the continuing deaths in Iraq “to spread freedom and democracy,” what will tomorrow’s historians be writing? In the meantime soldiers are still trained to kill. The military cannot bring itself to face what that ultimately does to some of its recruits. Killing does not come naturally to emotionally well-adjusted human beings. We instinctively think of killers as maladjusted and psychopaths. Looking back at their wartime experiences, some of our most sensitive veterans cringe at their memories. Many desperately need psychological help. Senator Richard Durbin has introduced legislation in the US Senate requiring every VA medical center to establish a post-traumatic disorder clinical team. The bill would require every VA region to have such a team, which would include a family therapist and a PTSD services coordinator. In a fair and just world that legislation would fly through congress, but who said this administration is fair and just? Listen to the words of the poet Wilfred Owen, who wrote of troubled veterans from another senseless war. It is also a compassionate insight about those Iraq veterans who though home with family and friends still suffer intensely from their wartime experience. Or be you in the gutter where you stand, Pale rain-flawed phantom of the place, With news of all the nations in your hand, And all their sorrows in your face. "Iraq -- 'Checkin’ out of Heartbreak Hotel'" - column by Daniel O'Rourke
Daniel O'Rourke's columns | Submitted by admin on December 21, 2005 - 10:44pm.
CPJ member and treasurer, Daniel O'Rourke, wrote the following column, "Iraq -- 'Checkin’ out of Heartbreak Hotel'," for the Dunkirk Observer, which was published on October 13, 2005.
Country music lyrics have a way of expressing our primal passions simply and simplistically. Recently, I heard Lee Greenwood singing his unabashedly patriotic “God Bless the U S A.” Despite the uncritical patriotism in that song, however, the nation is increasingly divided on the Iraq war. If that division came with country music sound tracks, the war supporters would be singing of President Bush with Tammy Wynette, “But if you love him you'll forgive him Even though he's hard to understand Stand by your man Stand by your man.” On the other hand, I imagine the opponents to the war belting out “I’m Checkin’ out of Heartbreak Hotel” with Merryl Streep in the movie “Postcards from the Edge.” “Cause I’m leaving here tonight, I packed my bags and paid my bill, I’m checkin’ out of heartbreak hotel.” As the war and the pacification of Iraq continue to deteriorate, there is a great temptation to compare it to Vietnam. Some with Yogi Berra are claiming it’s deja vu all over again. The comparison, however, is only partly true. There are many similarities and much dissimilarity. In both instances our government entered the war with great confidence and pride that we would easily win. We would “nail the coon skin to the wall,” boasted Lyndon Johnson. Or “we will be welcomed as liberators in the street of Baghdad” (Dick Cheney). Or as a deluded Paul Wolflowitz fantasized “welcomed with flowers.” Our government’s arrogance in both wars was colossal and self-destructive bringing needless slaughter and suffering. The justification for the intensification of the war in Vietnam, like the initial justification for the preemptive war in Iraq, was based on misinformation spun by the administrations to convince congress and the American public. The clear hindsight of history shows us that the incident in Lyndon Johnson’s Bay of Tonkin was as manufactured as George W. Bush’s even more insidious claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and was ready to use them. In both wars our government, intoxicated by the political rhetoric of the day, deceived itself. Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense for Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, now says clearly that Vietnam was a civil war, which the United States misread and never should have entered. We were caught up in the accepted domino theory that if Vietnam fell to the communists then the rest of Asia would follow. South Vietnam did fall; the rest of Asia did not follow. The current political myth is that Iraq will be a model democracy for the rest of the Middle East. For reasons, which are more and more apparent as Iraq slips toward civil war, that rationale is as flawed as the domino theory of the Vietnam era. Another parallel, as the current polls attest, is that the American public is becoming increasingly disillusioned with the war in Iraq as it did with Vietnam. Moreover, as a Vietnam veteran told me the Vietnam experience has lowered the bar on the number of American deaths the public is willing to tolerate. But there, I think, the parallels end. There are two huge differences. The biggest difference is Bush’s Orwellian manipulation of 9/11 linking it without evidence to Iraq. Many Americans frightened by the death and destruction of fellow citizens on our own soil were deliberately led to believe that attacking Iraq would make us safer. The opposite has happened, but that falsified Iraqi connection with 9/11 is the major difference in the perception of much of the public. Unless you are a pure pacifist the military response against Bin Laden and Afghanistan after 9/11 was appropriate. The preemptive war against Iraq, on the other hand, was an ethical and political disaster. It would have been just as mindless if after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor had we retaliated against the Soviet Union. The biggest difference, however, is that a voluntary army, including many civilian reservists, is fighting the Iraq war. Vietnam, on the other hand, had an army composed greatly of draftees. Unlike Vietnam the nation has given widespread support to our troops who were sent into this war in insufficient numbers to control Iraq and with insufficient armor to protect themselves. I do not know anyone who does not support our troops. This administration has treated them dreadfully. Despite the continuing disaster in Iraq, many American are reluctant even to entertain the possibility that nineteen hundred American troops could have died in vain. On public television a few weeks ago Margaret Warner interviewed four parents who had lost sons in Iraq. One of them was Paul Schroeder from Cleveland, Ohio whose son Marine Corporal Auggie Schroeder was killed when a roadside bomb destroyed his lightly armored vehicle. Paul Schroeder and the three other parents agreed that the soldiers who died in Iraq died heroes because they followed their consciences, served their country and did their duty. He and the others did not think their sons had died in vain, but Schroeder said bluntly that their sons had died NEEDLESSLY. The initial Rumsfeld policy of deploying only 138,000 troops, Schroeder said, was insufficient to secure the country and as a result Iraq is still in turmoil and troops and Iraqi civilians continue to be killed. To sacrifice for your country is noble, but to die for a failed Pentagon policy is needless. Schroeder thinks it's time that the Pentagon admit its initial mistake and send in more troops to secure Iraq, but if there is not the political will for that, he said, we should pull the troops out now. That grieving father is right. To save American and uncounted Iraqi lives, the nation should be “checkin’ out of heartbreak hotel.” “Iraq – the writing on the West Wing wall," column by Dan O'Rourke
Daniel O'Rourke's columns | Submitted by admin on December 21, 2005 - 7:56pm.
Dan O'Rourke, CPJ treasurer, contributes a regular column to the Dunkirk Observer. The following, “Iraq – the writing on the West Wing wall,” was published on December 8, 2005.
On Veterans Day as President Bush was addressing a military audience in Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania, I was in a hospital waiting room. A television set in the corner was carrying the President live. A woman there said to no one in particular, “I don’t believe a word he says.” A man spoke up in agreement. Another younger man holding a baby said quietly, “I was in Iraq for two tours of duty as a reservist.” The room grew quiet. Then the woman gesturing toward the TV added, “Oh I support the troops; I just don’t believe him.” “I don’t believe him either,” the veteran agreed, “and I don’t think those troops sitting behind him believe him.” Less than a week later Congressman John Murtha, the top Democrat on the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, said in widely publicized remarks, “The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion…. Our military has done everything that has been asked of them…. It is time to bring them home.” Murtha spent 37 years in the Marine Corps, earned the Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts, the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, and the Navy Distinguished Service Medal. Even if some politicians do not agree with the specifics of his redeployment plan, he is widely respected by the military. He had visited Iraq recently and has close friends among the brass. He is saying publicly what generals on the ground in Iraq cannot say for fear of derailing their careers. Murtha is not the only one who thinks this war is flawed and foolish. Martin van Creveld, a world-respected military history professor at the Hebrew University in an astonishing article in “Forward” magazine, has written that the Iraq war is “the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C. sent his legions into Germany and lost them.” The reaction of the young veteran in the waiting room convinced me that many at all ranks in the military see this war as un-winnable and that our continuing presence only fuels the opposition. Murtha’s prepared statement said, “over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalitions troops, and about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified.” Initially the White House, Vice President Cheney, and Republicans in the House of Representatives attacked Murtha with swift-boat savagery, but this time the usual political attacks didn’t work. Murtha was too respected and his military and patriotic credentials unassailable. The President’s falling poll numbers, Murtha’s blunt statement and a bi-partisan resolution in the Senate calling for periodic reports on the Iraq war are prompting the White House to change course. Rumors are already circulating of Pentagon plans to bring troops home after the Iraqi elections scheduled later this month. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Fox News, “I do not think that American forces need to be there in the numbers that they are now for very much longer because Iraqis are stepping up.'' Stepping up? Since when have Iraqi troops become so capable? In October America’s top generals in Senate testimony admitted that only one of the hundred and nineteen Iraqi battalions can operate by itself in combat situations. Another concern is whether the mainly Shiite military is trustworthy. American troops have uncovered the Shiite military’s torture of Sunni prisoners. Uniformed gunmen also murdered a Sunni sheik, his three sons and his son-in-law. Neighbors reported that about ten Iraqi army vehicles were parked outside the sheik’s home during the assassinations. There is also compelling reason to believe that spies loyal to the insurgency have infiltrated the Iraq military, and now they are stepping up and we are stepping down! Why now? In a recent report obtained by the media, the Iraqi Prime Minister stated honestly that Iraq’s military and police have “a long way to go” in dealing with the insurgency and crime. The report concluded “that the Iraq army needs more men, better leaders, new equipment and improved training” in order to function without American support. Bulgaria and Ukraine will begin withdrawing their 1,250 troops by the middle of this month. A half dozen other coalition nations also are considering possible pullouts or reductions. Now that the political writing has miraculously appeared on the West Wing wall, the majority of the ground troops will be home by Election Day 2006. Some strategic units will stay in Iraq along with the air force to protect American bases, but that last ditch military shift like the whole misadventure in Iraq is also doomed to fail. (See Seymour Hersh’s article in “The New Yorker” magazine for December 5.) The White House, however, is determined to find a way to safe face, declare victory and get out of the chaos it has created. President Bush is down in the polls and is losing his base among skittish Republican politicians and a frustrated military. That’s why he’s no longer chanting his “stay the course” mantra. Never mind the data. Whether the Iraqi military is ready or not the Bush administration has made up its mind. It will celebrate Iraq’s gerrymandered elections, praise the Iraqi military, dramatize base turnovers with flag changing ceremonies, declare “victory” again and again, and bring our ground troops home. When you think about it, it’s completely consistent. The same administration that lead us into this war with misinformation will try to get out with misinformation. But what if Iraq continues to deteriorate into a full-blown civil war? No problem. The White House will blame the Iraqis. That too is consistent. Bush has yet to take responsibility for this debacle. Even his exit strategy is “a flawed policy wrapped in illusion.” 
|
Your generous donations support the activities of the Center for Peace and Justice.
Thank you for your support! |
Dunkirk-Fredonia Center for Peace and Justice
Contact Info | Email to Site Editor | Email to Webmaster
