Activism

I've been thinking a lot about war and poverty lately. Mostly this stems from debates over Iraq, environmentalism, and of course, the ensuing discussions (and naturally, arguments) over pacifism. I hate the term pacifism. Mostly what it tells me - and this is just my own connotation - is that we shouldn't do anything. When I hear the word "pacifist" the first thought that comes into my mind is "let it take care of itself, I protest any action." Often, pacifists are the worst protesters there are. Their solution to any dilemma is to protest what's already being done, instead of coming up with an actual solution to the problem and then enacting it themselves. In other words, it's another version of the "If Nuts" conundrum: "somebody else other than me should figure out a better solution because they're doing it wrong."

And so they write long treatises against Bush, because it's obviously all his fault. Or they make cutesie signs at protests, believing that in protesting, they are enacting some sort of change, that they're doing their duty as a citizen to help the world. And so lots of money spirals down the drain in now TWO ways - for the mis-led (or as I prefer "could-be-done-better") war in Iraq AND in the campaign against it. Lots of money wasted instead of being fed towards solutions. Not to mention the time we put towards bashing one side or another that could've been spent on a solution.

Now, I'm aware of the irony: here I am protesing the protesters wasting more time. And so let me say this - I have begun working on a solution. It's no just "let's just figure out a nice little government that will WORK instead of Bush's moronic ideas (but I won't tell you what because I don't know)." It's something I believe will work. Here goes.

First, we have to recognize as a nation that the war isn't getting the immediate results we were hoping for, but that it's also not necessarily a bad thing - this stuff takes a LOT of dedication and time, especially if we want it to last. You only get out of it what you put in, as it were.

Second, we have to come to understand the complex nature of things, and being looking at ALL the factors in each equation and proposed solution. There are many warring factions in the middle east - not just two sides (the pacifists seem to say it's an "us vs. them" sort of problem, and so the pacifists become the "us vs. us"). There are Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds and Arabs and Muslims and Americans and Jews and Palestinians and each and every one is tied up in the conflict somehow. We need to start focusing our efforts on unwinding and untangling the strings of conflict to find their source. I have a hunch that the source is pure old fashioned inbred-hatred, but research probably needs to be done.

Third, the best way to ... ah, currey favor, as it were ... is to put monetary efforts into relief supplies. It's easy for Al Quaeda and the various other "insurgents" (terrorists) to prey on the people's fears of America or the UN or whoever because they've been told we're evil; and then we go bomb them and lo and behold, it's a self-fulfilling prophesy. What if we bomb them with beefaroni and minute maid and poland spring and canned green beans and band-aids and hydrocortisone and all the relief support we can (doctors, nurses, aid workers, counsellors). Flood the region with all that excess food the US produces and then destroys to keep farmers in business. Mind you, this has to happen sensitive to the culture - we have to be careful we don't violate muslim or jewish dietary laws or something. The military still plays a part - they protect the relief workers.

And then we do that for a while. Conservatives will point out that we are still the largest contributor of relief supplies to the region, but I say that just because we contribute the most doesn't mean we contribute enough; and so we have to keep sending more food and medical relief and water and whatnot. Maybe some shade; people who live in deserts always need more shade, so maybe a few tents and tarps and poles to put the tarps on, and tables on which to put the waterbottles under the tarps.

Then we start aiding the industry, helping people find jobs and build their own self-determined infrastructure; unless this whole thing is ultimately Iraqi-determined, it won't last. We've been trying to establish government, but I'm not sure that a government exactly like the US is really going to work; their concept of freedom isn't necessarily the same as ours, and so maybe what we need to do is contextualize the democratic process to middle-eastern standards. Maybe one president isn't enough, maybe we use the swiss concept of seven rotating presidents, all elected, all able to keep each other accountable to the people.

It's not the best plan, but it's a start. I think it's got a lot of room to grow. Comments appreciated. We can't just say "do better" without suggesting a plan of action, and I'm sorry, but simply pulling out of Iraq and ignoring the problem is not a plan of action; that's pacifism, and it's not going to work. Letting them duke it out amongst themselves will only end more lives; they won't stop just because we're gone. To sit back and do nothing is not an option: we as a nation have to pull together and begin contributing TOGETHER to a solution, or else peace in the middle east is ultimately out of our reach.