Bill's View
It recently occurred to me that one of the first things new visitors to my website are going to want to find out is what I'm all about. I realize that my Journal is a combination of travelogue, personal history, current events, etc. etc. and is becoming pretty sizeable, so I thought it might be a good idea to extract some of the writing I've done about the wars, my personal views on what's happening in our country and around the world, and other things pertinent to the purpose of my walk and put these things somewhere so people could easily access them and find out who I am. That's the reason for this page. Without further intro, here's some of the stuff I've written on topic, which will be updated on a regular basis. Unlike the Journal pages which run backwards so the newest entry is always on top, this will run forward:
September 2: I
realize my petition may seem a bit simplistic to some, but I would encourage people not to
confuse simplistic with simple. Yes, it is a simple approach to ending these wars,
bringing our sons and daughters home and restoring a sane balance of power within our
government, but it is far from simplistic. After all the obfuscation, half truths and
untruths that have been slung at us over the past few years I fear that many people are no
longer capable of cutting through it all to get down to the basics of the situation - and
that’s what my petition tries to do. When we cut through all the garbage and get
right to the core elements, it is rather easy to understand that whatever we’re doing
in the
But here’s the scary part. If
the response to these realizations is going to be, "Well, if we can’t call it
war under the historic definition of war, then let’s change the definition of war so
that we can continue to do what we’re doing," - then we’re in for real
trouble. The moment we change our definition and understanding of war to accommodate our
present actions we will discover that we have quite literally embarked on a permanent war,
limitless and unending. The "war" on terror - even as it is defined in the
resolutions that ceded Congress’ war powers to the president - does not define a
specific entity as the enemy. It does not define a specific goal that this "war"
is to achieve. It does not speak to identifiable geographic boundaries, balances of power
or distributions of authority. What it does do is permit the president, at will, to
declare war on any given organization, group of people - or even an individual. Imagine
that - the president can declare that the
And the thing that makes it an
endless war is that it’s a war against a concept, an idea, an abstract - a war
against terror. The sad reality is that there is not a single soul alive who is not
capable, in their darkest of hearts, of employing terror tactics when pushed hard enough
and far enough. The capability to unleash terror is a frightening but intrinsic part of
the human condition. So ultimately, the only way to "wipe out" terror (and
you’ve heard that phrase used) is to annihilate all of humanity. If that realization
doesn’t frighten you I don’t know what will.
If we allow the "war" on terror to be included in our accepted definition of what a war is, the president will obviously have the right to retain the war powers ceded to him indefinitely and in perpetuity. Our nation’s careful balance of powers ceases to exist, and the executive branch of our government can do quite literally anything it decides to do for no other reason that it has determined - in its sole discretion - that the organization, group or individual against which it chooses to act is capable of terrorist activities and therefore an enemy. In other words, by the simple step of considering terror to be an acceptable target against which to wage an actual war - and giving the president the authority to do so - we have instantly established the foundation of a totalitarian dictatorship to replace our democracy. This is not a reach at all. It’s already in place. Think about it. This is why it is crucial that our leadership revisits the fundamental concept of war, realizes that our efforts to combat terrorism should not and must not be permitted to be defined as a war, and immediately undoes the damage it has done by granting the executive branch the power to wage war against an idea. We are in the midst of perhaps the greatest crisis our nation has ever faced as we have set the stage for a complete dissolution of our democracy. I hope that my petition will help cut to the center of this crisis and correct it before so many of our rights and freedoms have been compromised that we will find none of our constitutional avenues of action are left to pursue.
September 6: One
of the concerns that’s been in the back of my mind since the formation of this idea
has been for my own personal safety as I do this walk. Our nation is so politically
polarized right now that I have little doubt that if I wind up attracting any attention,
there will be those who, in the mistaken belief that this is a political statement, would
wish to do me harm. It’s something I’m going to have to live with. Yes, I
certainly have major grievances with our current president and the people surrounding him
who are manipulating us in extraordinarily dangerous ways. But I do not consider him to be
a Republican (and most real Republicans will heartily agree with me), and I harbor no ill
will toward those who call themselves Republicans, know what it means to be one, and act
like it.
I believe that as a nation, we are
in the midst of a crisis of grief arising from September 11, 2001. The trouble is, if
you’re familiar with Elizabeth Kubler Ross’ definitive analysis of the grief
process, we are stuck firmly in the anger stage - and being grossly manipulated to remain
there by those who view it as advantageous. Anger - and fear - are controlling our society
at the moment. And it works to the advantage of some because while we are angry we tend
not to think too clearly, and while we are fearful we tend to be easily controlled and
manipulated. And that is precisely what is happening.
This is not theory - it is
observation. I work with people who represent a general range of political affinity,
religious beliefs and so forth. And more than once, when news has come on the television
at the shop of more deaths of our sons and daughters in
As I said, my walk is not a
political statement. I was born and raised in a staunch Republican family. I know what
Republicans stand for. And I can tell you for certain that the people running our
executive branch at this moment are not Republicans. I have tried to come up with a
properly descriptive label and the one I think fits best is that they are Opportunists.
They’ll wear the Republican mantle because it serves their purposes. They will mouth
the words of ethics, family values and morality, but their actions totally belie those
words - the words serve their purposes; actually living them does not. In some cases, such
as economics, the classic Republican agenda does not suit them at all, so they simply
abandon it. If I were a Republican, I think I would be more outraged about what’s
going on right now than if I were a Democrat.
And what is the Opportunist
agenda? I can’t pretend to know the details, but I do know what is at the center of
it. It is all about power and control of this nation and, ultimately, the world. There are
those who would say that it is about profit - about wealth - and I would not disagree
except to observe that in the end, wealth is merely a means to obtain power and control,
so it is actually a secondary rather than a primary concern. The bothersome little secret
the Opportunists are trying to get around is that a nation based on democratic principles
does not permit any one group or any one person to acquire the kind of power and control
they seek to acquire...unless we allow them to change the fundamental way our country
operates. And at this moment that is exactly what we’re allowing them to do. Once
upon a time we abhorred such a concept as a pre-emptive strike. Once upon a time we would
rise up as one and proclaim without reserve that this nation would never stoop to such
depths as condoning torture or indefinite imprisonment without charges or counsel. Once
upon a time we would have shed blood in the streets before we would allow any public
servant (remember that our president and Congress are public servants?) to acquire
unlimited, unchecked power to break or ignore literally every and any law that forms the
soul of our nation. All of those things have now happened. Have we had enough yet? Is it
time to take back the reins of our nation which rightly and only belong in the hands of We
the People? Will we do it while we are still in a place where we can do it peacefully and
rationally? I pray so.
September 10: A Memo to the Opportunist Occupying
the Oval Office (or OOOO, for short)
Subject: We, the People
Sir: In the not too distant past
you made the statement, "I’m the decider." Excuse me, sir, but unless our
country has already slid much farther down the path toward a dictatorship than I had even
feared, you are NOT the decider. We, the People are the decider. We always have been, and
we are going to do whatever is necessary to ensure that we always will be. You, sir, are a
civil servant. We, the People make the decisions. You, our servant, don’t even have
to like them. Your job is to act on the decisions we make to the best of your ability as
our representative to the world at large. It is not your place to decide - and it is about
time that We, the People reminded you of that.
More recently you have declared
unequivocally that our sons and daughters will not be leaving
One of your predecessors in the Oval Office, Mr. Harry Truman, used to keep a placard on his (actually, our) desk that said, "The Buck Stops Here." You seem to suffer from a misconception of what that placard meant. To Mr. Truman - and most other civil servants who have sat at that desk - the placard meant that the ultimate responsibility for the actions and the welfare of our nation rests squarely on the shoulders of the person occupying that position. It seems, however, that you have taken it to mean that the ultimate authority, an authority which will permit no dissent, disagreement or even questioning, belongs to you. In this you are most gravely mistaken. The ultimate authority in this country belongs to We, the People. For some time now you have seemed more than eager to claim any and all authority you think that placard refers to, and you have been far more than reluctant to accept any of the responsibility the sign actually refers to. It is well past time for you to get it straight - We, the People are losing our patience with you.
September 12: I lost my dad to
cancer when I was in my mid twenties and he was only fifty-two. It was devastating. I not
only loved him deeply, but still consider him to be one of the most intelligent people I
have ever known. He loved life, was a very spiritual person and had a tremendous sense of
humor. I believe everyone who knew my dad had great respect and admiration for him.
I was dealing with the unfairness
of his death at such an early age when a neighbor said something to me that, I must
confess, gave me great comfort at the time. She told me that when someone like my dad, who
had so much to offer, dies so prematurely it must be because God had some very important
work for him to do in heaven. Understand that in my early twenties I was very accepting of
all the conventional interpretations and trappings of mainline western Christianity and
not given much to critical or analytical thinking in the social arena so, like I said, I
found these words to be very comforting - something to hang onto when my spirit was
searching for a "why".
Several years later and quite a
while before I entered the ministry I met a young man who was searching for truth and
meaning in his life. We had many conversations and in one of them he told me that he had
rejected spirituality and the entire concept of God in his quest - and he told me why. He
said that when he was a teenager one of his close friends was killed in a car accident
and, of course, he attended the funeral. During the funeral, the presiding pastor was
searching for words of comfort for family and friends, and intoned that if God had called
this young man home so soon it must have been because there was important work God needed
him for in heaven. My friend said that at that instant he thought, "What a greedy,
insensitive, arrogant God this is! What kind of God would cause this sort of grief to this
boy’s family and friends? What kind of God has so little consideration for us that he
would cheat someone of their life, destroy their mother and father - and all because there
was something ‘important’ to do in heaven? How omnipotent and all powerful is
this God who has to kill kids to get his work done for him?" He left the church that
day and never returned.
When he told me his story I
realized immediately that his reaction was perfectly normal and proper - and I never
forgot what he taught me. Later, when I entered the ministry, I carefully avoided using
such simplistic platitudes, having learned that if we take a moment to scratch the
surface, they often say something very dark and terrible.
I tell this story because I
believe we need to stop talking - and thinking - in slogans and platitudes. A few weeks
ago I happened to catch a short interview on TV of a mother who had lost her son in
It was her sole remaining strand
of justification, and she was holding onto it for her very life. I would never, ever take
that lifeline away from her because for right now - and possibly for a very long time to
come - it is the only thing that will allow her to get up in the morning and make it
through another day. But for the many out there who are not depending on this platitude to
maintain a slim hold on sanity but rather employing it merely as a justification or
righteous reason why we are doing what we are doing in Iraq, I would like to stop a minute
and think about what we are actually saying when we use this slogan. What are we saying
about who we are? What are we saying about our ethics, our values, and how we perceive the
rest of the world?
Well, let’s try this
analysis: What we are saying is that if we do not wish to have the innocent blood of our
citizens spilled, it is perfectly alright for us to go essentially anywhere we desire -
even into another sovereign nation - draw our perceived enemies there, and wreak horrific
slaughter and destruction on strangers in a strange land rather than face the possibility
that our own citizens may be harmed. What we are saying is that we are somehow more
valuable, more deserving of protection than anyone else in the world. What we are saying
is that we somehow have the innate right to do whatever we want, wherever we want
regardless of what impact our actions have on others because, well, because we and our
interests are somehow superior to them and their interests. What we are saying is that,
outside of the borders or our own country (and perhaps even within those borders) we are
the most arrogant, immoral, unethical sociopaths ever to wander this planet - with the
possible exception of the
This may not be what we think we
are saying. It may not be what we want to say. But like those words years ago that for a
time comforted me while forever scarring the perceptions of my more perceptive friend, you
can bet the entire farm that those around the world who are watching us and scratching one
iota beneath the surface of our slogans are seeing America in a whole new light - or I
guess I should say a whole new darkness.
Let me approach it from a
completely different angle for a minute - a much simpler, more direct angle. Let’s
just put the shoe on the other foot. We are well aware that there are any number of
neo-nazi and other deeply anti-Semitic groups alive and well in this country,
demonstrating their manic ignorance at every opportunity. Let us suppose that one day, the
leaders of
How would we react? What would we
say to
The sooner we lose this slogan the better - for us. And when we finally figure out what we’re telling the world when we say this, we had better begin looking a lot more closely at the various other sound bites we’re using to defend our indefensible hubris.
September 15: Just a quick note
tonight - an open memo for all members of congress who have voted to pass legislation that
would permit interrogation methods which are barred by the Geneva Convention (and thus, in
the eyes of most of the civilized world) as cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment, as
well as "outrages upon personal dignity.":
1. Torture does not work. Period.
Ask any expert.
2. Torture, in whatever form and
notwithstanding whatever imagined justification, is the most immoral, inhuman, unethical
act imaginable.
3. If we step outside of the
boundaries of the Geneva Convention, we immediately lose any basis to criticize, condemn
or correct those who would do the same to our own people.
4. (And most important, I think, in respect to those I’m addressing) - We, the People - our nation, our ethos, our values - DO NOT PERMIT TORTURE!!! If you have voted to allow deviance from the Geneva Convention, you have completely lost touch with those you represent and need to immediately step down from public service. There is no debate on this. There are no qualifications, no what-ifs, no arguments. Up until now, your reluctance to do the job for which we hired you, your inattention to the excesses and over-reaching of our executive branch, and your narrow minded focus on what you seem to think will play well in the polls have merely been chipping away at our civil liberties, our freedom and - yes - our ultimate security. But with this vote you are now beginning to chip away at our nation’s very soul. Stop. Now. Walk away before you can do any more damage and let someone who remembers what it means to be an American take your place.
September 18: We’re trying to
get people to stop thinking in slogans and start thinking about what those slogans mean -
for us right now and for the future of our country.
And while I’m on that
subject, let’s tackle another one tonight. "We’ll stand down when
Look, you guys are new at this.
You haven’t had any experience in running a republic. You’ve already split off
into separate colonies, or "states", n’est ce pas? This whole thing could
come falling down around your ears, and that wouldn’t be good for either you or us.
So we’ll tell you what we’re going to do. We’ll stay right here for a while
until we’re sure you have your feet on the ground. You don’t have to do a thing.
We’ll bring our own contractors in to build the infrastructure you’re going to
need, and they’ll bring their own subcontractors in to make sure everything is done
right. While we’re at it, we’ll be building the biggest fort we’ve ever
built - probably somewhere down around the
Think about it. How long do you
suppose we would have put up with it? How long would it have been until every French
soldier or contractor or bureaucrat in sight had a target on his back? How long would it
have been before we kicked every single one of them back across the
P.S. I’d like to rephrase - for accuracy - a question often asked recently. The question: How much of your freedom are you willing to give up for a time to secure your safety? The more accurate question would be: How much of the reality of your civil liberties, your constitutional rights, your freedom as an American are you willing to relinquish - perhaps permanently - to buy for yourself an illusion of safety? For in reality, there is not one single freedom or right which, once relinquished, you won’t have to fight long and hard to regain. And there is not one single freedom - nor any amount of them - that you could relinquish that would guarantee your safety. Those who want you to give up your rights because they say doing so will make you safer (when in reality they just find all those rights to be so damn inconvenient) are selling you snake oil ladies and gentlemen - and it’s dangerous stuff.
September 20: I’ve been asked
more than once now (and heard the same question directed at the anti war movement in
general) the following question: Suppose that we are again attacked by terrorists on our
own soil. Won’t that silence the debate and make what you’re doing irrelevant?
My answer: Not at all - in fact,
quite the contrary. Another attack should only strengthen the immediacy of what I’m
trying to do. You see, if we are attacked again, it will undoubtedly be by either Al Qaeda
sympathizers or some other group of murderous, sociopathic criminals who will not be in
any way representative of any state or nation and will attempt to hide their heinous
actions behind the illusion of religious or cultural ties. Before it happens, we need to
be able to establish clarity as to our response. If we repeat the same disastrous mistake
we did after September 11th and once again declare a "war" against a
bunch of criminals, we only lend them credence and gravitas they do not deserve, just as
we did for Al Qaeda. If it happens again, we need to find the wisdom to react the way we
ought to react to the perpetration of mass murder - an all-out manhunt for those involved
with the act and those who would abet and support them. If we discover that the murderers
were supported or abetted by a sovereign nation, we still need to refrain from turning it
into a war, instead determinedly setting out to form a true global coalition (by the way,
whatever happened to the glorious "coalition of the willing"? Hmmm...) of
nations to bring relentless and unbearable pressure on the offending nation to turn over
those involved in the act. Once we apprehend the criminals, they are treated and tried as
they ought to be - not as enemy combatants in a war, but as criminals, tried in criminal
courts and sentenced under laws of criminal justice.
In so reacting, we maintain a
sense of proportion and reality; we avoid the free-floating anxiety, anger and fear
perpetrated on the public by a bogus "war" bogeyman, and we send a real message
to like minded misfits - the message we have failed to send for five years - that we will
not grant you the global stature you seek; we will not play into your hands. We will treat
you as the demented thugs you are. You have committed a crime, not an act of war, and this
time we won’t let you get away with pretending it is anything other than a crime, nor
will we treat it as anything more or less than a heinous crime ourselves. Your goal is to
create chaos - this time we will not allow you to succeed.
By compelling Congress to reclaim
its war powers from the executive branch before another attack occurs, we will force our
leaders to consider their actions far, far more carefully this time than they did
immediately after September 11th. We will force them to realize the
monumentally irresponsible error they committed in granting war powers without limit and
without focus to a president who, as it turns out, is more than eager to take every
advantage of every ambiguity afforded him. We will remember the truth of the adage our
president could not quite wrap his intellect around: "Fool me once, shame on you;
fool me twice, shame on me".
And maybe, just maybe, if we can put an end to the incredibly stupid habit of using war as a metaphor for everything and everything - the war on terror, drugs, poverty, homelessness, AIDs, etc. ad infinitum, we can begin once again to seriously think about what a unique and terribly grave undertaking War is, and begin to finally see it in its proper, deadly, and ultimately inhuman light.
September 28: Dark days indeed. I don’t know who I’m more upset with right now - the Opportunist Occupying the Oval Office whose over-reaching is not-so-slowly but very surely transforming our democracy into a totalitarian state, or our Congress, which seems to be of the notion that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are sorta neat examples of calligraphy, but not of much significance beyond that. Today Congress deemed it just fine to suspend habeas corpus. I don’t want to go into a big lecture or history lesson here, but there are a few things I really think I should point out for the sake of those who aren’t particularly alarmed by this development:
In our nation’s history, habeas corpus has only been suspended once before this. Abraham Lincoln did it during the Civil War. But here’s a point to ponder. Lincoln subsequently stated that, of all the decisions he had to make during the course of the war, his decision to suspend habeas corpus was the one he regretted most.
Again for those who may not yet grasp the full meaning of this, it means that Congress has granted the OOOO the right to imprison anyone - American citizen or otherwise - without bringing charges, without right to counsel, and with no limitation on the length of that imprisonment. All the OOOO has to do is declare that an individual is an enemy combatant or a supporter of terrorism. He does not have to offer any proof - just make the declaration - and poof! - a citizen disappears. Leave us ponder this for just a moment. The OOOO and any number of members of his administration have repeatedly and forcefully declared that if you don’t agree with him, then you’re on the side of the terrorists. Take me, for instance. I certainly don’t agree with what’s going on - I’ve made that pretty obvious by now. According to the rhetoric of the OOOO, that means I’m supporting the terrorists. And that means, if this latest lunacy is permitted to stand, that he will have the authority to toss me immediately into jail without ever charging me with any sort of crime and with no limit whatsoever to the ability to hold me without charges. I’m not making this up. Dissent is now a crime punishable by imprisonment without either trial or limit. Is it possible this could happen in America? It just did. But I’m an American citizen - I know my rights. Well, I know what they were. I just lost one - a very, very big one. Unless the Supreme Court still retains sufficient wisdom to blast this insanity out of the water, we have just seen a large section of pavement laid on the path to a totalitarian state - and it should make every single citizen’s blood run cold.
And it points once again to how crucial the thing I’m trying to do is. All of this is based on the OOOO’s retention of war powers and the illusion that he is a wartime president. If we are not in fact at war, then the whole terrorism thing must be treated as what is actually is - a dragnet to capture criminals and put their criminal operation out of business. And if it is seen as what it properly is, then those captured or imprisoned in the dragnet are not enemy combatants - they are criminals, subject not to military tribunals or wartime codes, but to criminal charges, the rules and procedures of the criminal justice system and the penalties which apply. And if we are not at war, then the signing statements the OOOO has been blithely applying to essentially every piece of legislation since he gained office exempting himself from complying with the legislation on the grounds that he is a wartime president become meaningless, and our OOOO has to find a way to do things that falls within the bounds of law - just like the rest of us. I want to remind everyone at this point that this is a person who ran for office thumping the Rule of Law bible at every turn, and ever since has gone to great lengths to exempt himself from that rule.
I’m not saying that we don’t need some special rules formulated for dealing with terrorists. Perhaps we do. But I am saying - again - that it is both nonsensical and dangerous to call - or to even think of - the effort to defuse terrorism as a war. And it is far beyond dangerous to give the executive branch the power to (a) declare who is and is not a terrorist and (b) based solely on that declaration, incarcerate a person indefinitely. If we do need special rules to deal with terrorism, let’s clear the table - put the war powers back where they belong, stop pretending this is a war - and sit down and conscientiously produce a structure to properly deal with the problem. But for heaven’s sake, let’s stop sitting back and watching while we’re being stripped of everything that makes us American! That is what - in my own very small way - I am trying to do. Won’t you please join with me? Thank you.
He said, "I think we all generally agree that our campaign in Iraq consists of a three-step process: To establish a free government, which we’ve done, to establish a military that will protect that government, and to leave Iraq. It’s the same pattern we’ve followed in freeing a lot of countries over the last 60 years. It’s so vitally important to remember that if we are successful in Iraq, we will have a government there that is a friend to the United States, a benign one that is not a threat to our nation, and will not be a state sponsor of terrorism. I still believe the American people understand this."
I’m not going to spend a lot of time on this, but there is one portion I wanted to highlight - the observation that "It’s the same pattern we’ve followed in freeing a lot of countries over the last 60 years." Let me see, Mr. Hunter...to which countries do you refer? Perhaps you’re referring to Iran, where we put the Shah into power. That worked out well, didn’t it? Bad example. Oops, sorry. How about The Philippines, where we backed Marcos. No? Well, um, maybe Noriega in Panama? I could go on. No, wait - I know! I know! How about Iraq, where we propped up what’s-his-name...yes, Saddam Hussein! Yes, our success rate has been pretty stunning, Mr. Hunter, and I’m certain we should follow the same pattern we have for the past 60 years - look where it’s gotten us.
It occurred to me quite a while ago that most of our leaders do not really believe in the merits of a democracy. I do. I truly believe that for most (not all) societies, democracy is probably the best, most benign form of government. As a matter of fact, I believe that so resolutely that I believe that most people, given time and the chance, will eventually choose to form some sort of democratic government for themselves. But our leadership seems intent on forcing, by political, economic or military pressure, other countries to establish democracies. And this is why I don’t think they truly believe in the merits of a democracy. If, for example you believed that Fords were the absolute best vehicles on the face of the planet, would you (a) force all your neighbors, by whatever means necessary, to buy a Ford, or (b) demonstrate through superior performance, reliability and service that this was one really great car? How many of your neighbors would be happy or grateful to you if you chose option A? What does option A say about your faith in the merits of the vehicle itself to win others over to it? How many of your neighbors would be so torqued off by your overbearing arrogance and lack of any consideration whatsoever for them that they would swear never to even look at a Ford again, no matter how good it was? Just a thought.
November 4: I have been asked by more than one person now if I don’t think that what I am doing is more than just a little bit insane. I have seriously thought about this - I really have. And I would like to answer that question clearly this morning.
No, I do not think what I am doing is insane. Not even a little bit. Unusual, certainly. Radical, perhaps. Drastic, yes. But definitely not insane. In fact, I am certain that what I am doing is one of the most sane things I have ever done in my life.
Thirty-eight years ago I did something similar to this. Thirty-eight years ago I firmly believed that I was truly blessed to live in a country where I had freedom and opportunities available to me that were unparalleled in the history of the world. Thirty-eight years ago I felt that, in return for what I believed would be a lifetime of freedom established by uncommonly wise forebears, endorsed by public approval and continuously guarded by dedicated leadership, giving up four year’s worth of that uncommon freedom in service to my country was not too much to ask. For a time, as a member of the armed forces of my country, I did not have all the rights and freedoms an ordinary citizen had. For a time, I was not permitted to participate fully in the political process, I was not permitted full freedom of choice, or of movement, or of action. These were restrictions I was willing to accept for a time, if they meant that the rest of my life could be lived with the assurance that those freedoms would never be encroached upon again.
But now I realize that the freedoms I expected to be immutable need more diligent protection than I once believed, and the character of the country I cherish requires at times more attention than I expected. Four years were not enough. It is time for me to serve my country again. What I am doing is not the least bit insane. What I am doing, if you want to put a label on it, is patriotic.
I’ll tell you what is insane. The leadership of my country standing in the halls of Congress and debating whether torture - in any form and to any degree - is an acceptable practice is insane. Attempting to eradicate terrorism by continuing to pursue a course of action that demonstrably has the effect of encouraging, producing and even legitimizing more terrorists is insane. Attempting to establish democracies by force is insane. Refusing to attempt to communicate with those we fear may have a desire to harm us is insane. The idea that the Congress of my country would one day pass - and the president of my country would one day sign into law - legislation that immediately and completely nullifies nearly every right guaranteed to me as a citizen under the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights is insane. Declaring war against an idea is insane. Executing a pre-emptive strike against a country - any country, for any reason - is insane. Not holding accountable a leadership that, on pretense, drove my country into a war that has so far claimed the lives of three thousand of our sons and daughters and half a million or more foreign lives and by its very definition has no set of circumstances that could be defined as a victory nor any parameters that could be established as an end is insane. The fact that there aren’t already tens of millions of my fellow citizens walking to Washington D.C. to demand that our leadership returns to the employment of rationality and reason in administering the affairs of our nation and restores the country we entrusted into their hands is insane.
At this very moment, the country I love so dearly, the country I had hoped to leave to my children and grandchildren as their birthright, no longer exists. But I will not let go of her easily. I will do whatever I can, whatever I must, to reclaim her. I will make whatever sacrifice is necessary. I have felt powerless, voiceless, disenfranchised for too long, and I know that many, many of my neighbors have felt the same way. They have come to believe that they don’t matter - that those who hold power have become too powerful, that the route to reclaiming what we cherish is too difficult, that one person - even one person who truly cares - cannot make a difference. And that is why I am walking. I am walking to show my friends and neighbors that one person can be heard. I am walking to demonstrate that it is still possible to speak truth to power. I am walking to illustrate that each and every one of us can indeed make a difference. I am walking because I believe that the greatest threat to the security and continuity of my country is no longer from without - it is now from within. I am walking to pry my country out of the hands of those who would quench her beacon of freedom and mutilate the image, esteem and promise she has represented for generations to the entire world. I am walking as a patriot.
As I am walking, don’t wave your flag in my face and mouth senseless slogans to me. Instead, remember what the country you love - if you love her - stood for, and look around you at what she has now become. Think about what is happening. Think about what our actions - and our inactions - are telling the rest of the world about us. Think about whether or not you want your children - and their children - to be blessed with the freedoms you always assumed would be theirs as a matter of course. They will not, unless you have the courage to do what you can, to do what you must, to make it so.
I am beginning my walk today, and as I do, I am serving notice to the public servants - the members of Congress, the president and the vice president - to whom I have granted by my vote the temporary authority to manage the affairs of my country. I am serving notice that I demand that the wounds inflicted upon my country by their inattention to their duties and their inability or unwillingness to execute the powers of their offices with honesty, vision, courage and transparency be healed and corrected. It only took a few months for them to be coerced, misled and duped into a course of action that is rapidly unraveling the very fabric of our nation. I am giving them much more than that length of time to figure out a way to undo the damage they have done. I want my country back, and despite their continuing actions that indicate to me a general inability to even recognize the severity of the problem, I am willing to give them several more months to restore her to me.
When I reach Washington D.C. I will have accomplished what I set out to do. But whether I realize the goals I am setting for the restoration of these United States is going to depend not on the willingness of our leadership to hear me, but rather on how many of you will join your voices with mine, how many of you will do what you can do - and what you know you must do - to reclaim our country. Whether or not we ever see our beloved country again will depend on whether or not we are willing to join our voices together to make a statement so loud and so determined that our leadership will no longer be capable of ignoring or dismissing us. Whether or not I realize the goals I have set will depend entirely on how many patriots we have left.
November 8: People have asked what I’ll do if the changes I seek happen before I arrive in Washington. My answer has been that I’ll continue to walk. That’s because when I am asked this, it is usually by someone who has concluded that my walk is about ending the wars and getting our sons and daughters home. It’s easy to see how people draw this conclusion, especially with the title I’ve chosen for my effort.
But the ending of the wars and the return of our troops is an (inevitable) effect of what I seek to accomplish, and while it is certainly central to why I am doing this, the underlying motivation has a bit broader focus. You see, I don’t just want to end these wars, but I want to help to move our country into a position that will make it far less likely that we will ever do something this stupid, this arrogant, this irresponsible again. While ending these wars will be an incredible step in the right direction, it will do us little good in the long run unless we use this opportunity to examine ourselves in a mirror, unflinchingly discover who we have become, and remember who it is we believe ourselves to be and want ourselves to be in the world.
After September 11th, we lashed out in a blind, vengeful rage. Perhaps that was understandable, and I think the world in general even understood for a while. But over five years later, we’re still stuck in that mindless rage and the world is losing or has lost its patience with us. And we still don’t seem to get it. Last night while watching the returns, I heard yet another politician - I don’t remember who or even what party (could have been either one) - declare (I paraphrase), "Islamofascism is the biggest threat the world faces today". It is not - by a long shot. It is not even the biggest threat our country faces - by a long shot. And that statement only serves to illustrate that the fundamental changes I hope to see are still far from our grasp.
Because what I hope to see is a country that is proactive rather than reactive. I hope to see a country where consideration for the consequences of our actions comes before we take those actions rather than afterward. I hope to see a country where feel-good phrases and nationalistic declarations of bravado are immediately viewed with a huge degree of skepticism rather than a frightened herd mentality. I hope to see a country that is finally able to swallow its overblown pride and take its rightful place as a nation among nations, rather than continue to act out its self-destructive fantasy that it is a nation above nations. I hope to see a nation that learns the clear lesson of the entire history of human existence that when you put yourself (or others put you) on a pedestal, the ultimate effect is that it makes you an easy target and the ultimate desire of those looking up at you is to knock you down. I hope to see a country that realizes that there is no longer any culture on earth that is a world away - but that they are all now quite literally our next door neighbors. I hope to see a country that understands that an apology or an admission of a mistake is not a sign of weakness, but rather an indication of maturity, wisdom and strength.
Lofty goals, to be sure. But the world in which we now live demands that we seek them if we wish to survive and thrive. You see, I have no doubt that our country will be attacked again. No matter who is in power, no matter how much of our rights and our freedoms we decide to sacrifice in the empty pursuit of security, no matter how much we may wish it would not be so, we will be attacked again. And when we are, if we react as insanely as we did this time, there won’t be much of anything left at the other end that will be recognizable as the United States of America, because we will have eaten ourselves alive. That’s why my principle goals in walking are broader than what most people assume, and to state specifically what those goals are:
(1) To restore the balance of power between our branches of government so that we will be bound to act in the fashion our Constitution and Bill of Rights intends.
(2) To closely examine what has happened over the past five years so that when the next disaster happens we are ready to deal with it responsibly and effectively.
(3) To be true to our vision of ourselves, even when our outrage tempts us to allow the actions of others to change our self-determination of who we are.
So here’s the thing: If you disagree with me, this is what you’re disagreeing with. You say you support the present state of things? That you are convinced that the very continuation of civilization hinges upon whether or not we "win" these "wars"? You have the right to believe that. What you do not have the right to do, in my opinion, is to demolish the very soul of this nation in order to achieve your ends. If you are going to fight a perpetual war against a phantom enemy, then you must find a way to do it that is permissible under the laws that form the framework of our society - otherwise, you wind up destroying the very thing you seek to preserve. Changing our laws, changing our Constitution, nullifying our rights in order to achieve your purposes are not acceptable courses of action. If you cannot find a way to accomplish your objectives while simultaneously keeping our representative democracy intact, then you cannot continue to pursue your goals and call yourself a patriot. What comes first in your mind? Your patriotism or your rage? Your allegiance to freedom or your desire for vengeance? If you want to preserve this country for your children, then you MUST demand that it behaves - at all times - in a manner consistent with its own principles. And since these are my stated underlying goals, if you agree with them, you have no argument with me. I’m sorry if this does not permit you to continue to act out your anger and your fear, but it’s time for us to grow up. We cannot continue to be America if we do not act like America.
November 9: I am more than a bit concerned that since the majority in both the House and the Senate shifted to Democratic control on Tuesday, many people will begin to relax, confident that things will rapidly and dramatically change, and that things like what I’m doing won’t seem quite as crucial anymore. I beg of you, Don’t! Harken back just a few short months to the Abramoff lobbying scandal. Recall the outraged voices from both sides of the aisle bellowing that lobbying reform must happen NOW. What happened? Exactly nothing. The moment the eye of the public - our eye - was distracted by the next bright, shiny scandal or crisis, the entire subject was quietly shelved and our civil servants went about business (or lack of it) as usual.
Fact is, our entire leadership at this point will take the sum total of public apathy, indifference or inattention and multiply it a hundredfold. No matter who is in charge. If we want changes - if we want to reassemble our Constitution and reclaim our civil rights - then we must hold their feet to the fire daily. As much as our leadership has failed us, we have failed them. Remember, it is We the People who run this country; the people we elect are only there to carry out our wishes. And if we do not make our wishes clear and do not continually demand performance we have, in the end, only ourselves to blame. We have been quiet for far too long, cowed by the Orwellian bullying that dissent is unpatriotic - even treasonous. We must now avoid at all costs fading into the background once again lulled by the delusion that our leaders will do the "right thing" without any further vigilance on our part. Please don’t let that happen. Keep on speaking out. Keep on working for the changes that must be made. And I’ll keep on walking.
November 10: When I was in my twenties I kept a fresh water aquarium that brought me great pleasure. I worked for a long time to establish a community aquarium, which held a wide variety of different species of fish that could get along together in one tank without thinking of each other as lunch.
I wanted desperately to be able to include a Beta in my aquarium. For those unfamiliar with Betas, they are also called Siamese Fighting Fish. They are gorgeous fish with long, elegant fins and coloration that ranges from bright reds and vermilions through royal blues and purples - certainly one of the most beautiful fish in existence. The trouble is, they live up to their name - Betas do not get along together, to say the least. If placed in the same tank, they will often fight until one of them is dead. But I thought I might have a chance if I could put just a single Beta in my community tank. Perhaps he could coexist with the variety of species around him.
So I bought a Beta, a truly majestic, stunningly beautiful fish with fins like velvet curtains flowing around his sleek body. And I placed him in my aquarium, watching him carefully. At first I had high hopes that my experiment might be successful, because the rest of the fish in the aquarium generally ignored him and went about their own business. But before very long a problem began to develop - not with the other fish, but with the Beta.
He would approach another fish in the aquarium, nose to nose. Then he would puff out his gills, unfurl his majestic fins, and make himself appear as large as possible in what was an unmistakable display of threat. I remember one swordtail in particular that he seemed to have a grudge against. When this happened, the swordtail would simply back away from this grandiose display and swim to the other side of the aquarium. The Beta would stop his display and begin looking around for another fish to intimidate. But while this was going on and the Beta was searching for another target, the swordtail would flash across the aquarium, zip up behind the Beta, and take a good chunk out of one of his fins. By the time the Beta turned around to see what had hit him, the swordtail was long gone - and wouldn’t bother him again until the Beta confronted him once again with another belligerent display - and the process would repeat itself.
Within a few short hours I had to rescue a bedraggled, tattered Beta from the tank and put him in a little bowl all his own for the sake of his very survival. While he may have been beautiful, the poor fish was dumber than a bag of wet mice, unable to realize that he was his own worst enemy.
I don’t know what brought that story to mind...
November 25: The news indicates pretty much what I expected - none of our elected representatives seem capable of taking the forceful stand necessary to put the madness to rest. That’s why we can’t let up. We all know how it works - at this point in time those of us who recognize what a catastrophe the past five years have been are hearing things we’ve hoped to hear for a long time from those who have an eye on the presidency in 2008. But we already know that as the election draws nearer, candidates will move more toward the "center", hoping those who are demanding change will follow along. We can’t play that game this time. It is up to us to hold their feet to the fire. I’m trying, through my petition, to offer our politicians a way out of the mess they got us into that approaches the subject from a completely different angle than any they’ve tried so far - one of pure logic and reason. It is not a liberal or conservative argument - it is a point of view that simply removes the obfuscation of the pretense of war against nations with which we are not in fact at war. Is there anyone who can rationally argue that we are actually at war with the nation of Iraq or the nation of Afghanistan? If this argument cannot be rationally made, then it is time to sit down and figure out exactly what we are doing and exactly where we are going. At this point in time, the United States is truly the proverbial loose cannon, and if our leadership cannot understand that and bring it back under control, then our citizens must.
December 3: I already sense that many of those who are thoroughly fed up with the insanity of the past five years are now beginning to sit back complacently and see what effect the mid-term changes in Congress will produce. We cannot afford complacency - or patience.
Ending the wars will not solve the problem. Bringing our sons and daughters home will not solve the problem. Restoring the civil liberties and freedoms that we’ve allowed to be stripped from us will not solve the problem. But it will be a start. A necessary start. From there, our next course of action will be one perhaps unprecedented in our history - we will need to actually learn from our mistakes. What a concept! We will have to learn that those who mouth such culturally and logically ignorant phrases as "They hate our freedom" are charlatans of the worst kind, intent on emotionally manipulating us into conflict. We will have to learn that war always means that we have failed. One of my dear supporters wrote to me a while back, telling of an ancient civilization that, the evening before its soldiers went into battle, went into a ritual of deep mourning - not only for their own sons they knew would not return from the battle, but for the sons and families of their enemy who would die in the conflict. That civilization was way ahead of us in recognizing the meaning of war. It is always a failure, and it is always an action that should be accompanied by deep grief and yes, shame. We need to learn that.
Think of the money we are spending in our current direction in Iraq. Think of what we could achieve if we were spending that amount of money on actually seeking to rid the world of terrorism. Did you ever try to rid your lawn of dandelions by plucking the yellow blossoms as they opened? Did it work? Do you think there is any real way to address the problem of terrorism other than identifying its roots and working there to stop it? How much time and effort are we devoting to that approach? For that matter, what are the roots of terrorism? That one I can answer for you - at least in part. Poverty. Ignorance. Cultural and political misunderstanding. Prejudice. Misguided zealotry. And I can tell you something that should be patently obvious by now - not only are we not addressing those problems now, but we are in fact encouraging many of them. When we get a handle on that and begin to turn the situation around, we will finally be clearing away the wreck. Your grandchildren’s grandchildren are crying out to you to do something about it - now. Listen to them.
December 26: While I was walking today, I was being interviewed via cell phone by a reporter back in California. During the interview she asked me what stake I had in all of this, and began offering a list: "Do you have a son or daughter serving in Iraq? Friends or other family members..." I interrupted her. "I have a far greater stake in this than any of that," I told her. "My country is at stake. Our democracy is at stake. Do you think democracies are lost through wars or blood in the streets? No, they slowly slip away while we’re not paying attention. They are stolen from us by over-reaching executive branches and legislators who roll over and play dead for fear of being labeled alarmists or hurting their chances for re-election...and by apathetic citizens who have forgotten that THEY are the ones who are really in charge. The country I love has, at this moment, ceased to exist - and I’ll do whatever I can to get her back." That’s my stake in this. What’s yours - and what are you going to DO about it?
January 5: I really don't like to be in the position of being able to say, "I told you so," but...well...I did, you know. Since I had the opportunity to watch some TV last night I was watching the coverage of the opening of the 110th Congress. As I had predicted, our freshly elected leadership is delicately backpedaling away from Iraq, declaring that they wish to focus on things like minimum wage, medicare reform and such. These are good and worthy causes, BUT...I did some thinking the other day about numbers. You are probably not going to want to hear this. Using my GPS, I calculated my normal stride, which turns out to be about 2.4 feet. This means it takes me about 220 steps to go a tenth of a mile, or 2,200 steps to walk a mile. Then I got to thinking about other numbers. Like the number of our sons and daughters who have been killed in this misbegotten war. It is now over 3000, as I hope you know. How many people is that? How many - mostly young - lives have we lost? Good, strong, caring men and women who have had their normal span denied them? Well, here's one way I really didn't want to think of it. If the bodies of all of our sons and daughters who have been killed so far were placed shoulder to shoulder along the route I am walking, I would have to walk nearly a mile and a half to pass by all of them. Shoulder to shoulder. A mile and a half. Can you grasp that? And are you realy for another one? If you were able to line the road in the same fashion with the bodies of all the Iraqi and Afghani citizens killed to date - men, women and children - I would have to walk 227 MILES to pass by all of them! Ladies and gentlemen, DO NOT LET you representatives slide Iraq onto the back burner. This MUST STOP! You and I both know the only reason for not ending this TODAY is some perverse need on the part of our officials to put some sort of pretty face on it. The thing is, what I'm saying in my petition allows them the ability to do just that.
You want to claim a victory? You have it! We said we were going into Afghanistan to depose the Taliban. We did it! Victory! It's time to leave! We said we were going into Iraq to find WMDs and/or to liberate the Iraqi people from Hussein and/or to establish a democracy. We did it! It's time to leave!
But, you say, we must now stay in Iraq to (a) stabilize the situation, or (b) clean up the mess we made. Let me tackle those:
(a) Stabilize the Situation: We are messing with a culture and a tribal system of government that has been around for thousands of years. Whether we leave Iraq today or ten years from now or a hundred years from now, we will not have changed either their history or their culture. Whenever we leave, the Iraqi people will either decide that this democracy thing might be a good idea and be willing to give it a chance, or they will immediately slide back into a continual cycle of tribal conflicts that will ebb and flow throughout the region. And - Get This - the longer we stick around forcing our ideas of governance on them, the LESS likely they will be to see those ideas as a viable way of governing themselves. Therefore, the sooner we leave the better chance they have of establishing a representative government.
(b) Cleaning Up the Mess: One of my wife's favorite sayingsis that it's alright to make a mess - as long as you clean it up when you're done. That we have made a mind-numbingly monumental mess in Iraq is self-evident. I am not opposed one bit to cleaning it up - in fact, I insist on it. But here's the way to do it:
First, get the military forces out completely. The only thing you're going to do with guns and bombs is make more of a mess. Abandon any ideas of setting up permanent military presence in Iraq. Get out. Leave. Now.
Next, get ALL of the American contractors out of there.
Now that you have the two elements gone that are continuing to create the mess, we can start to clean it up. Bring in as much humanitarian aid as the world can muster. Use the funds we're using to destroy the country to rebuild it - by awarding contracts to Iraqi companies and Iraqi citizens. Let the Iraqis use our resources to rebuild their world - schools, hospitals, utilities, roads. But the only U.S. personnel who should be involved in any way in the rebuilding should be organizations such as the Peace Corps, the Red Cross and other NON-PROFIT humanitarian organizations. Not one single American corporation should see another cent of profit from this war or its aftermath. Period.
There you have it, ladies and gentlemen of Congress. We can get out of Iraq tomorrow - victoriously, productively, peacefully. WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?
January 11: On to recent developments in the political arena. There's so much to say that I don't even know where to begin. As the OOOO dives even deeper into his Imperial presidency, at least I am beginning to hear a few people say some of the things that sound like what I've been trying to say for so long. As it became clear that he was going to unilaterally toss another 20,000 of our sons and daughters into the Iraq morass, someone actually raised the point that, if this was about securing a "victory" in Iraq, haven't we already accomplished everything we said we were going in there for in the first place? Don't we already have that victory?
I watched the speech last night of course. There are so many things I'd like to ask him:
Sir, you maintain that if our military leaves Iraq now, its government will surely crumble and the situation will worsen. First of all, how can you know that to be true with any degree of certainty? Secondly, could you not use that same argument a month from now or a year from now or ten years from now? How long will you try to keep us there by holding this threat over us? Would it not be better for us to stop playing the part of occupying force as soon as possible rather than continue to accrue hatred for years to come?
You claim to have explored many possible options. Did it ever occur to you to explore options that don't involve a military presence? Did it ever occur to you to explore options that don't involve U.S. contractors? I didn't think so.
There's much more - but I'll leave it at that for now. Then early this morning I heard Ms. Rice and Mr. Gates promoting this on the early news - and Mr. Gates held forth with a truly chilling statement. He was saying that we need to increase the size of all branches of our military in order to be equipped to fight the "continuing war on terror". There it is, folks. The Secretary of Defense is now selling the snake oil directly. The war on terror is an official war like any other war - except that it has no end. If we don't begin waking up right now, your grandchildren's grandchildren will be fighting the war on terror under a commander in chief who has unrestrained power to do literally anything he or she wants. Our leaders will press us with the assertion that failure is not an option, while never bothering to make it clear to us what success looks like. We will be cowed by the assertion that victory is vital to our very survival, but will never be told what constitutes victory. And our sons and daughters will contnue to die.
I also happened to catch Mitch McConnell being interviewed about the OOOO's speech. Of course, he thought it was wonderful, but in a four minute sound bite, he managed to work in at least three times how brilliant Donald Rumsfeld's tenure had been, based on the observation that we haven't been attacked on our home turf for the past five years - and certainly Mr. Rumsfeld's brilliant strategy is responsible for that fact. Mitch, Mitch, Mitch. Has it occurred to you that terrorists have been too busy high-fiving each other over the past five years as they watch us eat ourselves alive to bother attacking us again? Why bother concocting any more suicide missions when we're doing a better job of dissolving our own democracy than they could ever have dreamed of doing? And even if what you say is true - even if Mr. Rumsfeld's brilliant strategy is responsible for keeping us safe over the past five years - can we look at what that strategy has been for a moment? Usurp another sovereign country's territory, toss our disposable sons and daughters over there so we can bring thousands of them home in boxes, kill untold hundreds of thousands of citizens of a foreign land and foment a situation that continues to spread hatred and prejudice throughout the world so that we'll keep our enemies too busy to soil our own doorstep again? Is that what you're calling brilliant? It seems to me a better term might be Mind-numbingly Arrogant. If this is what we define as brilliance then it's no woder that most of the civilized world is beginning to look at us as if our hair was on fire...and will surely grow to hate us passionately if they don't already.
January 19: Some thoughts I've been working with while walking for the past week or so: I've met a broad spectrum of people since I began my walk...not just people who support what I'm trying to do, but a truly random representation of our country at motels, RV parks, restaurants, gas stations and on the streets of tiny towns and larger cities. And it has occured to me that, as a general character trait, one could truly say that the people who make up the soul of this country are peace loving people.
The people I meet are loyal to their nation, and are more than satisfied with the scope and shape of that nation as it is. Nobody wants to annex Iraq or Venezuela...or Canada, for that matter. We are not in the least hungry for territory that is not already ours. Nor, for that matter, are we as a people hungry for resources that are not already ours. Some may argue this point, but I will maintain that the typical American would much rather work toward energy and resource self-sufficiency for our nation than continue to exploit and depend upon the resources of other countries. The people I meet are not greedy people.
And while we may have the most powerful, sophisticated military forces in the world, these people have absolutely no desire to use those forces for any other purpose than to defend our country or to assist other countries which may not have the capability to defend themselves. As a people, we are not warlike and we are not aggressive toward the rest of the world.
We are also prone to trust those in positions of authority or leadership. We assume that those we place in power understand the American soul and that their actions will reflect our vision of who and what we are and hope to be within the global comunity. And that may be our one great fault.
Because it seems that we have a conglomerate leadership at this time among the executive and legislative branches that has lost any clue as to the nature of this country's soul. The executive branch capitalized on our moment of national outrage and fear to convince us that an unnecessary war was necessary, and it is now incapable of comprehending that, being at heart a people of peace, we will not condone the continuation of such a misbegotten enterprise. The legislative branch sat staring at its collective navel for so long that, as it just begins to awaken, it will have to start nearly from square one to figure out what they are supposed to be doing and why.
Meanwhile, the people continue to sit with ever waning patience and watch as their elected representatives persist in trying to justify unjustifiable actions, excuse inexcusable moral and ethical lapses and devise irrational rationales for sending yet more of our sons and daughters into the killing fields. Our representatives need to be reminded, at last, that we are a peaceful people. We do not shed the blood of our sons and daughters for any other reason than the defense of our country and our allies. And now that we have seen clearly the lie that brought us to where we are today, we will not permit the continuation of this debacle.
Our politicians should have known better. Whatever their motives for the actions they have taken and the wars they have wrought, they should have known that, while they could initially rely on our intrinsic trusting nature to allow them to undertake their scheme, they would not ultimately be capable of continuing on this path indefinitely. They counted on our trust. They capitalized on our fear. They manipulated our anger. But there is one thing they could not change. We are a peaceful people. We do not like war, and we will neither support nor condone an endless war against a faceless enemy. We hope the rest of the world will forgive us for how those in power have misrepresented who we are for the past many years. We promise you that we will end this sorry, bloody, lunatic chapter of our nation's history very soon - because we are a peaceful people.
January 20: As the Vietnam war lurched to a close we watched its final moments with a mixture of agony and relief: the chaos on the roof of the American embassy as some escaped in helicopters while others were left behind; boatloads of refugees seeking whatever sanctuary they could find; helicopters being jettisoned from the decks of aircraft carriers to make room for yet more helicopters laden with those rescued at the last moment - and, finally, young men in uniform coming home as wives and children raced across the last few yards of tarmac into their open arms.
Those of us who have come to understand the ultimate futility of war in general - and who recognized the travesty of that war in particular - breathed a huge sigh of relief. Finally, we thought, our nation has learned a lesson it will never forget. If there was one bright hope that we could salvage out of all the devastation, all the insanity, all the needless human sacrifice that was Vietnam, it was that we would surely never permit our country to go down that road again.
Some of us, in fact, did not forget. And a scant thirty years later, when those in positions of power began capitalizing on our fear, our anger and our confusion to whip us once more into a warlike frenzy, we initially thought that people surely would remember what we had so recently learned and would not let this happen. And when it became clear that people weren't remembering we took to the streets in protest to remind them. But fear and anger are powerful tools - and they were wielded deftly. And we soon found ourselves back once more in a place that we had been certain we would never find ourselves again.
We are still trying to extract ourselves from that place and, while it may take us longer than we want - and certainly much longer than it should - we can at last begin to envision the day when this horrible chapter will also come to an end. As it does, it is not too soon to begin thinking ahead. Once, we had assumed that our history would enlighten us and surely keep us from repeating tragic errors. We now see clearly our assumption was wrong. The analogy was not drawn precisely enough. The example went unheeded. The memory failed. The old adage our president did not quite have the capacity to fully iterate has come to define our situation: "...fool me twice, shame on me." The shame is indeed on us for not having learned from our history and for allowing ourselves to be duped - once again - into an unnecessary war.
And now we know that we cannot rely on the lessons from our past to prevent us from making the same mistake in the future. Now we know just how easy it is to make us forget what we should never forget. Now we know - and must confess - how easily we can be misled. And knowing that, it is now time - before the current chaos has even ended - to try to make sure that this does not happen again. We cannot wait. Before we are even able to extricate ourselves from the present morass there are those who are dressing up a fresh batch of bogeymen for us - Iran, North Korea, Syria, China...if none of these frighten us they'll be more than happy to trot out a few more, paint "Evil!" on their foreheads and present them as the next great threat to our safety and security.
But this time we have to jump the gun. Before it can happen again - and since we now know that history alone is insufficient to keep us out of the snare - we must begin establishing an operational framework that codifies the lessons of our past in a procedural pathway that will help to prevent future lapses in judgement and foresight.
We thought we had sufficient safeguards in place. But we have now encountered an executive branch that, in its lust for ever greater power and authority, has repeatedly and blatantly lied to us in the pursuit of its totalitarian ends. We have witnessed a legislative branch which, when confronted with its central task of being the calm, cool, deliberative body that would prevent such excess, has been not only willing but feverishly eager to abdicate its responsibilities for oversight and reason. And we have seen that the system we expected to prevent the very sort of situation in which we now find ourselves mired can collapse like a house of cards in a brisk breeze.
Unfortunately, this is where my severely limited wisdom fails me. While I believe I can illustrate the why - history and memory are insufficient to preclude us from making catastrophic mistakes - and the what - an unyielding system that mandates the conscientious pursuit of every alternative to war; a structure that requires a transparent, truthful analysis of the necessity, cost and consequences of war; and a fully binding procedure that permits war only as a truly last resort - I confess that I am unable to offer the how.
Perhaps the answer lies in a Department of Peace that must sign off on any future rush to war. Perhaps it lies in a strengthened system of checks and balances that cannot be overridden, relinquished, subverted or ignored. Perhaps it lies in some other direction. But I do know that however we are to redesign our country's approach to war, we must begin to do it now, while the lessons are fresh and the consequences of not having such safeguards in place are still so painfully clear. I wish I could offer a solution, but I am certain that we should be able to find one if we try - and if we care. I do hope that, in offering these observations as a contribution to the discussion, I will be able to help in some small way to achieve that goal.
January 28: OK, let's get serious. I want very much for what I'm doing to be more than a three thousand mile, nine month stunt. The two sides of the aisle in D.C. chip back and forth incessantly, challenging each other in a wearisome schoolyard chant to come up with a better "plan" for Iraq as neither side seems able to put forth anything that isn't either disasterously wrong-headed or hopelessly vague. I realize that - especially at this time - I'm sitting in my own little corner of the internet essentially unnoticed by the world at large, but I do believe I have, if not a full-blown plan, at least a rational, humane and potentially successful foundation for one. So if you have places to echo what I'm trying to say, why don't we try to put my little pinata out there and see how successful people are in poking holes in it?
At the base of my plan are two realizations that, I believe, are by now clearly inarguable. They are:
1) There is no possible solution to the problem in Iraq - or in the larger middle east, for that matter - that involves the use of military force. Starting from the extreme and working backward, the "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" school of thought, besides being both unspeakably loathsome and functionally impossible, is not a workable solution. One does not end violence with the use of ultimate violence bent on annihilation - one only becomes the evil one professes to oppose - and the balance of the world community would surely turn against any power that stooped to that level of atrocity and would work together to ensure its demise in a deservedly eye-for-an-eye retribution.
A ramping up of military operations a la McCain (or Kissinger in Vietnam) and others to the point of massive displays of force and perhaps renewed bombing and destruction of significant portions of the country is also unworkable. Even if such aggressive tactics succeeded for a time in silencing whatever tattered remnants of a society remained after the application of such force, the "shock and awe" it generated would eventually also generate a backlash that would pretty much guarantee that any nation resorting to such a tactic would never again be able to exist in a state of peace or safety in the world.
Continuation of the present policy of limited or incrementally rising numbers of military personnel attempting to secure specific portions of the country is also demonstrably ineffective. The whole process is akin to a bleeding wound - slowly but inexorably sapping vital strength while allowing time and opportunity for infection to spread. In addition, the spectacle of the greatest military power the world has ever seen being unable to secure and stablilize a city - let alone a smallish nation - becomes a theater of the absurd and damages the future potential effectiveness of the threat of military force in areas or conflicts where it might otherwise have proved to be a viable deterrant.
So to restate my initial point, military force, no matter how carefully or massively applied, is incapable of solving the problem in Iraq.
2) It should also be abundantly clear to all by now that the continued attempt to solve the problem with the application of military force is a primary factor in the exacerbation of the problem. Not only can't we stabilize the country via military options, we make the problem demostrably worse the longer we try.
Since the problem in Iraq cannot be solved militarily, and since it has now become obvious that continuing to attempt to do so only worsens the problem, the only logical conclusion to be drawn from these two observations is that, whatever the solution to the problem in Iraq may be, that solution cannot include a military component. Therefore, if we truly desire to resolve the problem in Iraq, part of the resolution is clearly to remove our military forces from the country as soon as possible.
Immediately we hear the voices crying that in removing military forces we would be abandoning the country to chaos. This is an extremely narrow point of view based on the flawed assumption that the presence or threat of physical force is the only available or effective persuasive tool in the human inventory. I would maintain that this is not only untrue but clearly contradictory to the whole of human experience. While the threat of physical violence is the one we sadly seem to favor, it is but one of many motivators available to us. But the perennial trouble with employing it as a first (or sole) option is that, when other motivators are eventually applied, if the force motivator is not first removed, we remain continually suspicious that it was the threat of violence all along that was the central factor in securing resolution. It is only by turning back from the threat of force altogether that we will be able to observe and learn to have confidence in the effectiveness of the other motivators available to us.
In short, pull the military forces out immediately, clear the table and roll up our sleeves: we have serious work to do here and we haven't even begun to exercise - or even consider - all of our options.
And the other options we have available are numerous. They include - but are not limited to - the use of diplomacy, political persuasion, economic incentives, humanitarian aid, technological assistance, education and cultural comprehension. I want to offer two quick but crucial notes at this point:
First, that in order to illustrate our desire to finally solve the problem we must now demonstrate our sincerity. No matter what we do at this point, there will be those on the other side who will be certain that self-interest is our only motive. To help counter this argument I strongly believe that at the outset of a new, non-military effort to resolve the Iraq situation, we should immediately outlaw not only any form of profiteering, but we should prohibit any corporation outside of Iraq from profiting from the reconstruction of the nation unless Iraq itself specifically invites that corporation to participate and sets the parameters of its involvement.
Second, that if we expect to be successful in producing true and lasting change in Iraq or in the middle east as a whole, we must immediately and permanently abandon the penchant for demonizing peoples, cultures or nations with which we have a disagreement. Portraying those we claim to be trying to assist as members of an "axis of evil" or as bloodthirsty zealots - or using any other religious or moralistic epithets - can only serve to broaden the gap between us, and we cannot hope to bridge the gap if the imagery we employ continually widens it.
Will the violence in Iraq roll out of control the moment we remove our military presence? While our administration is adamantly convinced this is the case - to the point of portraying the ultimate outcome nearly as the end of civilization as we know it - to assume that Iraq would immediately collapse into total chaos neglects one crucial reality that we often seem incapable of comprehending: the Iraqi people are not stupid. They actually think, feel, hope, love, learn and understand very much as we do. Surprise. Once the external threat of violence is removed and it becomes clear that the world as a whole is fully prepared to help them find a place in a continually more intimate global society, the people of Iraq would find themselves in a position where permitting continued internal sectarian violence to destroy their land and decimate their population would now become nothing more than an embarrassment upon themselves - much the same as the embarrassment we brought upon ourselves when we squandered the good will nearly the entire planet offered us after September 11th by rushing headlong into a senseless war. Perhaps Iraq will learn from our own mistake and choose not to waste a golden opportunity. I believe there is real potential for that to be the case. The Iraqi people are a proud, wise and ancient culture. Without the threat of outside force and removed from beneath the bloody fist of a merciless dictator, I do not think they will make the mistake of becoming their own worst enemy.
But we cannot know unless we afford them the opportunity to try. So I will maintain that a concerted, multi-national effort to bring every peaceful motivator to bear on the nation of Iraq is the only course of action that affords a realistic opportunity to see it become a nation that is the beacon to the whole of the middle east we mistakenly believed we could erect with military force. I dare the leadership of our nation - and of the world - to prove me wrong.
January 30: I have never perceived myself as anything more than a concerned observer of the political and international scene - one of many concerned Americans who want our country to be all it believes and professes itself to be. But for the past many months I've begun to wonder exactly who is reading my journal. The latest suspect is Senator Arlen Specter, who said today (I paraphrase), "I respectfully submit, Mr. President, that you are not the sole Decider." Where have I heard this before? I don't know whether to be pleased that people in positions of leadership have begun in the past few months to start saying the same things I've been saying for so long - or frustrated that it's taken them so long to figure out what an ordinary schmuck like myself has had figured out for some time now. I have to admit that Sen. Specter wasn't fully echoing my own statements, as he was inferring that Congress might have a say in the decision making process while I take it clear back to the bone and insist that we, the people are the deciders and all these folks are no more than civil servants hired into temp positions to carry out the will of the people...and it's high time they realized it and began acting accordingly.
Where we have legislators who don't understand this, we need to take notes and relieve them of their responsibilities at our earliest opportunity. I happened on a prime example of such a legislator today through the blog of Ms. Jeeni Criscenzo (thanks, Soozy!), who I hope will not mind if I post an excerpt here. Jeeni was in D.C. on the 27th and writes of one of her experiences:
"Brian Bilbray was arrogant and rude. When any of the women in our group tried to speak he interrupted them or, as in my case, clearly redirected his attention to the TV that remained turned on, on the wall behind us. Referring to the march on Saturday, his first words were, 'So I guess you folks were here for the hoopla.' HOOPLA??? At least ten more American troops have died in Iraq since masses of American patriots took to the streets last Saturday in cities across the country, and he thinks it's all a party. Bilbray never answered a question, he deflected questions! He blamed the problems in the Middle East on Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. He showed no depth of understanding, only bravado, as he declared that he had won the election by a clear majority. 'You people have a right to do what you're doing, but my job is to make the decisions,' he stated."
See what I mean? People like Mr. Bilbray don't seem to grasp the concept of the word "representative". How can he be one if he doesn't know how? On another note, I found myself in the very strange position of being in agreement with both Al Sharpton and Pat Buchanan - who found themselves in the position of actually agreeing with each other. They were discussing Russ Feingold's move to have the OOOO's Justice Department define exactly what it felt the administration's claim to war powers is. Both of them said, in essence, that this was a weak-kneed tack for Congress to take - these powers are clearly spelled out in the Constitution, and clearly belong to the legislative branch. They would both like to see Congress acquire some backbone and stand up to the executive branch on the matter. Anyone know where our legislators can get a spine transplant? When you get Sharpton and Buchanan to agree on something, I think that may be a pretty clear indication that it could be wise to examine the issue thoughtfully.
February 24: On to the business at hand - the walk. When I began my walk, my primary focus was to restore the balance of power among the branches of our government and to start undoing the damage that has been done to our Constitutional rights and freedoms. I saw the ending of the war in Iraq to be an inescapable result of the restoration of sanity and reason to our governance. I did not address exactly how or when the end of this war should take place, stating in my rationale that I would have to leave such details to wiser heads than my own.
But time has passed and our leadership continues to be incapable of rising above inanity and sloganeering. Jonna just finished reading a book I mentioned the other day - "How America Lost Iraq" by Aaron Glantz. She wanted to make sure I read the last chapter of the book, which I did. Seems Mr. Glantz and myself are on the same page. And I am now convinced that the only sane, rational, reasonable, logical, humane, ethical course of action for us is to immediately and completely withdraw our military forces from Iraq. I'm sorry, those of you who want to argue for a phased withdrawal of some sort for fear of the chaos that might ensue if we were to pull out completely are simply not paying attention. The cold, hard fact of the matter is that we cannot possibly do any worse than what we are doing. In all our rhetoric over the dangers of immediate withdrawal, we neglect one overarching reality - and that is that the Iraqi people are real people, with hearts and minds and sense of their own. While we are occupying the country they have little or no control over their government, their environment or their day-to-day existence. Can we honestly think so little of them as to believe that, if left to manage their own affairs, they would continue the killing and the bloodshed and the chaos that has ruled their lives for the past five years?
We ostensibly went into Iraq to liberate the country from an iron-fisted megalomaniac of a dictator. We did that. And five years later - and I really, really hate to say this, but it's demonstrably true - the Iraqi people are far worse off than they were under Hussein. I'll paraphrase an old saying that the average person's assessment of whether their government is a good government is whether or not the trains run on time. Under Hussein, the trains ran on time. And the people had electricity. And running water. And hospitals. And schools. And jobs. And a plethora of other services and conveniences. Now, five years after their "liberation" - FIVE YEARS - they have none of that, and little hope of seeing most of it in the foreseeable future.
I'm not saying Hussein was anything other than the mad dog he was, but there is something else to consider as well. The atrocities for which he was toppled, tried and executed happened a) during the 80s when the United States was actively supporting his regime, or b) during the early 90s when, after the First Gulf War, Bush the First encouraged the citizenry to rise up against Hussein then did nothing to support them when they did. So while we can look on Hussein as a thoroughly deplorable despot, we cannot escape the fact that whatever blood was on his hands is on the hands of our nation as well. Deal with it.
My growing fear is that those who are pulling the strings at this time still envision creating an Iraq that is modeled on South Korea - a haven for American interests that is under an essentially permanent U.S. occupation in order to keep it stable and functioning. The thing that those who hold this agenda seem unable to grasp is that Iraq is not South Korea and never will be. What we face in Iraq has huge elements of culture and religion that were not present in South Korea, and result in an atmosphere that makes their agenda completely impossible. Continued occupation - for a day, a year, a decade or a century, will not produce a stable nation or government...in fact, it will do precisely the opposite, and in the process provide a perpetual recruitment tool for those we hope to eliminate.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - unless and until we completely abandon the military option we will be completely unable to even begin to explore the many other possible options that are available to us to bring stability to the Mideast. When is our leadership finally going to get this through their heads?
March 4: Jonna came up with a particularly apt analogy. She said she had been thinking about cancer patients who undergo chemotherapy. If you know anything about chemotherapy, you know that it is essentially a process where the doctor goes about a deliberate program of poisoning you in the hope that the cancer will die before you do. Sounds a little crazy, but in essence that's what it is - and sometimes it works. She says that it reminds her of what's happening with Iraq. We've been going about a process that is killing Iraq - and us - in the hope that we'll solve the problem before we destroy both them and us. The thing is - it isn't working. It isn't getting rid of the cancer - in fact, it's only making it worse. If it was chemotherapy we would have stopped it a long time ago. But not only aren't we stopping - we're upping the dose! It is truly insane. If the OOOO had gone into medicine instead of politics he'd have had his license revoked years ago. But he's in a position where he can kill thousands more than he could have as a chemotherapist - and nobody has the courage to point out the craziness of what he's doing...and stop it. Wake up, Congress! It isn't "cut and run" - it's "end and mend"! Stand up to the loathesome rhetoric! Get past the fearmongering! We need some leaders with the courage to do the right thing - and we need them now!
March 12: Those of you who have been watching my walk from the start will soon begin to notice not a shift, but a new emphasis in my dialogue as I have the opportunity to speak and write about all of this. It began yesterday with my interview with the Abilene CBS station and I'm sure I will continue to refine it as I go. I'm not leaving any of my message behind, but where I began by stressing that I was offering an approach based purely on logic and reason, I have now realized that another crucial element to what I'm trying to do must receive equal stress - and that is the rule of law.
It occurs to me that while we recognize that individuals are bound to reflect their sense of morality and ethics in their actions - and to be constrained as well in those actions by the laws of their society - so nations are no less bound to do the same. And it has become crystal clear to me that our nation has largely forgotten this.
For over half a century now our nation has been "playing" at war all over the globe - conducting warlike actions against a number of countries while never actually declaring an official state of war against those countries - and the process has blurred our vision and blunted our senses. It is time for us to immediately abandon this habit and re-examine the way we have acted on the world stage because, among other things, it is in direct conflict with who we believe and profess ourselves to be. It is in direct conflict with our own sense of morality, our own ethics, and even our own rule of law. It is what allows us, at this present moment, to be engaging in acts of war on the sovereign soil of another nation.
When the reporter asked me yesterday if I was advocating an immediate withdrawl from Iraq, I answered, "If we are who we believe we are, we have no other choice. If we feel we have grounds to actually declare war on Iraq, then we can continue to do what we are doing. But if we do not have a grievance with the nation of Iraq that constitutes grounds for war, then we simply cannot continue to occupy the country and conduct operations of war there."
Our legislators thus far, while finally beginning to seriously address the resolution of the situation, seem unable to remove themselves from the concerns for their own political futures or their party allegiances. But if they could see that this is not a question of political strategies but rather a time when we must at last hold ourselves to our own moral principles, I believe we could bring this nightmare to an end immediately.
It is not an argument that hides one's head in the sand and professes that we should never enter into a war (although personally, I confess that I wish it could be so). It merely says that if we're going to have a war, then we must do so forthrightly and clearly. Either officially declare war and conduct the resultant operations of war, or do not declare war and do not engage in those operations. We are either at war or we are not at war. Which is it going to be? In those terms, there is simply no argument possible that we have the grounds to officially declare war on either Iraq or Afghanistan, and if this is the case, then we have absolutely no grounds to continue the operations of war in those nations. We have no moral, ethical or legal choice other than to withdraw immediately. Further, without the official existence of war, Congress has no choice other than to rescind the war powers granted to the executive office. Period. End of discussion.
My argument then is that our rhetoric and our actions contradict each other, and it is time - immediately - to reconsider what we are doing and decide who and what we will be for the future. Here is the choice:
a) We decide that we will make a conscious, dedicated and ongoing effort to have our actions reflect our belief in ourselves as an ethical, progressive and compassionate member of the world community of nations - which will both end the current conflict and prevent similar catastophies in the future; or
b) We decide that we prefer our present course of action to the image of ourselves we have nurtured since our founding - and admit to the world that we have become in spirit as well as in action the arrogant bully of a rogue nation that our present course indicates we are.
We can no longer pretend we are one thing and act as though we are another. We have a clear choice to make. Now is the time to make it.
March 19: Over the past several months many people have asked me why I am doing what I am doing - because many people seem to feel my course of action is rather extreme. I want to tell you today why I am doing this.
I am doing this because I remember America - and I love America - and I want her back. And if selling my home and everything I own and taking a year of my life and walking every inch of the way across this great continent might, in even some small way, help to bring the America I love back, then - by God - that is precisely what I will do.
But if I am ever going to see the America I love again - if I am ever again going to live in the land I cherished, the land I faithfully served, the land I want my grandchildren to know and love, then there is something else I am looking for right now - something our nation has been lacking for some time now. I am looking for leaders.
I am looking for leaders whose first allegiance is not to political party or personal fortune, but always and only to the Constitution of the United States of America.
I am looking for leaders whose primary concern is not for the people of their district or the people of their state, but for the people of this planet - and for the planet itself.
I am looking for leaders who know that when the founders of this nation wrote that all of us are created equal and are endowed with certain inalienable rights they were not talking only about Americans, but about all of humanity.
I am looking for leaders who at last seek to learn from our history and our mistakes - and vow to do everything in their power not to repeat those mistakes.
I am looking for leaders who recognize that admitting a mistake is not a sign of weakness, but rather a clear sign of strength, maturity and wisdom.
I am looking for leaders who have the sense to understand that when they stoop to the rhetoric of fear, intolerance, prejudice, arrogance and hatred - they have lost their way and are no longer deserving of the public trust.
I am looking for leaders who can comprehend that when you employ the tactics of the enemy you become the enemy.
I am looking for leaders who are smart enough to