Each weekday morning at Jonah House, the community gathers
for morning prayer, reading from the lectionary and sharing reflections. This morning we found ourselves in the first
chapter of Paul’s letter to the Colossians.
Paul, a spiritual leader of the budding church, is overwhelmed with love
for them and offers this effusive prayer: “that you may be filled with the
knowledge of God’s will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so as to
walk in a manner worthy of God… bearing fruit in every good work, and
increasing in the knowledge of God….” The prayer goes on, bursting with life
and love; a full paragraph comprised of two heartfelt, spirit-filled sentences of
encouragement and exhortation that can hardly be stopped by a period. Paul indicates that fullness of life requires
strength combined with patience; wisdom and understanding combined with action;
and, in all things, the tempering, humbling persistence of thanksgiving. It’s about mind, heart and walk – a fruit-filled
life – a prayer that every loving parent offers for their children.
It’s a prayer that I, with foolish faith, pray for the world
in which I share life, the country in which I share citizenship and the society
in which I share presence. Over the past
couple of weeks, it is a prayer in which I have been disappointed to the point
of daily distress. Syria is on my mind
all day, every day. Syria, and the
sickening persistence with which our politicians are pushing for US military
intervention. I confess, with full
disclosure, that as a pacifist I find it hard to believe that a violent assault
can ever be the source of lasting, peaceful resolution for any conflict. It seems to me that violence begets
violence. However, that being said, even
were there to be such a thing as a “just war” or efficacious military
interventions, I am still waiting for evidence that an air strike in Syria
could be such a thing.
While it does seem right to respond to devastating deaths
that have for sometime been occurring in Syria, I cringe when I hear Kerry
suggest that insistence upon an air strike is an act “grounded in facts,
informed by conscience, and guided by common sense.” I cringe now that Obama has substituted the
phrase “to act” with what he actually means, “to attack,” as though to not
violently assault another nation automatically indicates a resolution to
passivity.
A representative of Oxfam America President RaymondOffenheiser was interviewed yesterday by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now. As a
representative of Oxfam, Offenheiser’s primary concern is with internally
displaced persons (IDPs) in Syria and refugees seeking safety in neighboring
countries, does not see a US military involvement as a source of reprieve to
their suffering but rather an action that is likely to spread and intensify it.
Oxfam, “recognizes a need for strong and immediate action,” but is “not sure
military action is the answer.” He goes
on to say that if you strip away the rhetoric, at the end of the day all the
parties agree that the only true solution is a political solution and a
military strike will not only widen and prolong the conflict, putting more
civilians in danger, but will undermine the trust that would be necessary for a
real and lasting solution.
And frankly, though
images of those wounded and dead from the alleged use of chemical weapons was
used as the catalyst to incite the US to this very particular action, the good
of the Syrian people seems very far from the content of debates at
present. We hear more about “US interest”
and Obama’s image than what might alleviate the suffering of Syrians and bring
some political resolution to the ongoing civil war, not to mention the
underlying regional war (please see the Amy Goodman's interview with Fawaz Gerges for a
more comprehensive perspective on the complicated state of affairs in the Middle
East). Even those who oppose a strike
are being dismissed as suffering from “war fatigue” allowing the administration
to get away without answering questions about the gaping holes in the “evidence”
being presented that the Assad regime is responsible, not to mention any
indication of how this will in fact effectively help the situation rather than
worsen it.
This morning Amy Goodman interviewed Alan Grayson, a Florida
state Congressman. Grayson caught me by
surprise, articulately manifesting many of the pressing questions about
evidence and efficacy and how, rather than promoting US interest, a strike
would in fact do powerful damage. Despite
the encouragement of having these issues brought to light, it hurts to
recognize what continues to be left unaddressed. I wish that we would hear more
from those who are opposed to US military intervention about Syrian interest. Though the arguments indicating that it is
against US interest are compelling, it does little for those who genuinely
desire to aid the Syrians who are suffering (Fawaz Gerges is a better source
for this than Grayson). It is astounding to me that anyone would believe an air
strike (and almost undoubtedly subsequent “boots on the ground”) would curb the
carnage and not expand the loss of life, creating a ripple effect of violence
that will not be contained in Syria.
What would happen if all involved, and those of us not
explicitly involved, absorbed the reality that “to act” does not necessarily
mean “to attack.” Employing our own weapons,
whatever we may call them, also means using “weapons of mass destruction.” To not violently intervene does not mean to
be passive. I am wondering, what would
happen if we acted on the tragedy by mourning the destruction and loss of life
in Syria and creating a space to offer healing and to seek to understand and
address the insanity rather than simply exacerbating it?
I find myself recalling one of the final scenes from the
film Children of Men. In this story the line between good guys and
bad guys becomes realistically blurred. The
government that claims it is maintaining order is manipulating its citizens and
abusing refugees. Many of the rebels
that once seemed for “the people” turn against individuals in favor of the movement’s
agenda. By the end, nearly everyone is
shooting each other and no one knows why.
What stops the shooting is not the hero picking up a gun and picking off
the worst of the worst (actually, the “hero” Clive Owen, never uses a gun). What stops the shooting, just for a moment,
is the crying of a newborn baby in the arms of its terrified mother. What would happen if our response, if the
world’s response, to the crying children of Syria was to pause and lay down
arms rather than to pick them up and fire?
Please see below for more recommended reading/viewing:
"On United States Intervention in Syria: Remember a Few Things" by Joshua Brollier,
“What I, a Pacifist, Would Say to Obama About the Crisis in
Syria” by Greg Boyd,
“Tell Congress: Don’t Attack Syria,” Congressman Alan
Grayson (a petition and video interview), http://dontattacksyria.com/
"Top Ten Unproven Claims for War Against Syria," Denis Kucinich
Acknowledgements:
Thanks to the Baltimore Sun, CBS nightly news, Democracy Now, and Ted
for listening to my rants and laments and helping me clarify my thoughts.
