Earlier this year, Creative Loafing's president and CEO, Ben Eason, got a copy of an e-mail from a friend about the war in Iraq. Reading that e-mail spurred Eason to a civic experiment: Could he spark an online dialogue among his many friends, some of them veterans, some of them connected to foreign policy or intelligence in this nation's service? And could he get people to abandon highly polarized views to reach below the headlines, to talk about whether our current wars — in Iraq, in Afghanistan, or against terror — are necessary, justified, properly executed or moral?
"Perhaps in a small way," he wrote to his friends, "the sharing of ideas among friends might help us to understand one another better and demonstrate that talking past one another in slogans and sound bites isn't how our founding fathers thought policy should be deliberated."
He got plenty of responses, thoughtful ones. He created a blog to let his circle read each other's thoughts and to allow for comment.
Here in the CL newsroom, we were intrigued by his experiment. So we've added some other voices that we thought would be interesting as well. We invite you to join in by posting your own thoughts in the comments link at the bottom of the page, or by joining us for our live talk show, "Political Party," on Monday, Oct. 16, at 7 p.m. at the Shimberg Playhouse in the Tampa Bay Performing Arts Center.
— CL editors
E.D. "Sonny" Vergara: It'll always be the same
"Sonny" Vergara, a Vietnam vet, lives in Brooksville and was executive director of the Southwest Florida Water Management District. Vergara's e-mail — the first Ben Eason received when he asked for thoughts on the war — is a copy of Vergara's response to his sister about a website related to war issues.
Cindy,
I think a lot about the soldiers and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan, and everywhere that our men and women in uniform are in danger on behalf of what this country stands for. I know that while it is different from my own experience in Vietnam, some aspects will always be the same in war, i.e., the feeling that every day you're alive is a good day, handed to you more by fate than good sense; the ache inside the fear, wondering if you're being thought of by your loved ones as they carry out their routine, stateside lives going to jobs, paying bills, sleeping in comfortable beds, waking to a secure world every day; … feeling like your own life has been suspended for reasons you're not sure you completely understand or agree with but you endure because of a larger belief that, right or wrong, if not you, who?
The poignant pictures found seemingly everywhere on the Internet these days often bring tears to my eyes. I worry that my sensitivity might be noticed by those near me so I hide it, not wanting my friends and family to think there's something left over in me from my own experiences … I don't know why … a soldier sitting, staring into space, holding a letter from home; a soldier with his arms around his buddies laughing, in a bunker, dirty, seemingly oblivious to the danger outside, mistakenly understood by those who haven't been there as "courage." I saw one the other day of two women soldiers asleep in the sand, one resting her head on a hard metal box in the shade of an armored vehicle, the other with her head resting on her comrade's thigh, both obviously bone-tired, not ready to go back to their sleeping area before getting up and doing again whatever it was that was so needed by their fellow soldiers. I reacted, I guess, because of the exposed innocence it portrayed on the violent edge of war that is in all young soldiers. It's called allegiance to duty, unquestioned loyalty, camaraderie, passing of childhood, unwitting participant in history, sensing change in one's self as one never thought possible … and more, so much more. I guess I hide my emotions because I don't want to appear sappy about what is so common "there." Maybe I shouldn't.
Satellite phones and e-mail may have changed it all now. I don't know. I'm sure it's different … but in many ways, it'll always be the same.
Tom Draude: Are we really at war?
Draude is a retired Marine general and a big Shakespeare fan; he read the St. Crispin's Day speech (Henry V) to the troops going into battle during the first Gulf War. He formerly ran the Southeast Region of USAA Insurance in Tampa and now heads the U.S. Marine Corps University Foundation in Quantico, Va.
I spoke to the graduates of the Marine Corps Basic School about our Foundation last week [and] I told them this was a different war from mine. Although I served three times in Vietnam and fought some very good soldiers (NVA and Viet Cong), there was never the fear that they would attack my family back in the U.S. This enemy has done so and would seize the chance to do so again. This is an enemy that hates us more than they love life.
I did not tell them but it still disturbs me: Are we really at war? We say we are, but other than the three-quarters of 1 percent of our population in uniform and their families, who is sacrificing? Other than the hassle of airport security, how have our lives changed since we "went to war"? My son, Ryan, received his MBA from Georgetown a few weeks ago, and the graduation speaker was the Secretary of Commerce. His speech was about immigration — not a stretch since he came from Cuba and worked his way up the line at Kellogg's. But two things struck me: Georgetown is a Catholic University (and I know not all the students are Catholic, Christian or practicing any religion.) Nevertheless, there was no mention of God until the almost obligatory "God Bless America" at the end … and there was not ONE WORD about the war! Can you imagine any member of a WW II Cabinet who would not mention the war? Just a word about the sacrifices being made at that hour by men and women who are trying to keep our nation safe while MBA's are being earned — not a word!
Bob Dardenne: We don't have a name for it
Dardenne is a professor of journalism at USF St. Petersburg.
Except for students who have family or friends in Iraq, I see little evidence at least at school that people understand our military situation. Some might argue about the injustice of it, or the folly of having a plan for war without a plan for peace, or some other political aspect, but, they don't show much understanding of what war is.
And, it's also true that we don't really HAVE to show much understanding — as we have no rioting in the streets, no real sacrifices outside military families (the increasing debt might result in sacrifices later). That is, many people would have to go out of their ways to realize that, indeed, soldiers are killing and being killed.
And, all this in an evermore sophisticated media environment in which the press reports the deaths daily. In part, I think we are as a society too fragmented (certainly technologically) to focus on things much less dramatic and short-term than the 9/11 attacks.
John Burciaga: The common deception
Burciaga is a Unitarian Minister in Boston, but he is remembered locally as the former minister of the Unitarian Church in Clearwater. He was very active in the civil rights movement in the 1960s when he lived in Atlanta and was very much a part of the debates over the Vietnam War that became a dominant discussion in the Unitarian churches at the time.
I'm struck by the common deception that occurred with Vietnam and now with Iraq/Afghanistan. I see no other connection between the two wars than, in both cases, our government having misrepresented its motives and the country's interests. During the early years of the Vietnam conflict, I was a "hawk" and believed the stated reasons for our involvement. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was the ruin of my trust and belief — a resolution already prepared ahead of the bogus "attack" incident in that gulf. Once Vietnam was behind us, I carried no baggage into the merits of Iraq/Afghanistan, but soon recognized old forces and deceptions at play, this time not by a Democratic president (LBJ) but a Republican (G.W. Bush). I never fail to read stories of G.I.'s lives in our current war effort and am humbled by their bravery and willing sacrifice — all of which is too precious to be wasted without the best of reasons. Their lives and valor are sacred but are misplaced by government policy. This is the "soul" of America that I see being corrupted, not to mention those at home, some of who, like me, see what we feel is an extreme of deception at work.
Matt Leighninger: We didn't have the opportunity to decide
Leighninger has dedicated his career to enriching civic dialogue and is currently a senior associate at the Democracy workshop. He just finished his first book, The Next Form of Democracy, available from www.vanderbiltuniversitypress.com.
When I first looked at your questions about the war, some obvious answers leapt to mind: 1. What unites us that we empathize with our servicemen and servicewomen overseas, and 2. What divides us is that we don't agree on whether our troops should be there in the first place.
But as I thought about it, I realized that those answers may not be as simple or obvious as I thought. Yes, we are united by the fact that we feel solidarity with the people over there and with their families. Beyond that, we recognize that they are making a sacrifice for us — whether or not we see it as wise or worthwhile doesn't diminish the depth of that sacrifice. Also, many of us feel united because we simply don't like to do something badly — we want our troops to succeed in creating a peaceful Iraq, even if we doubt it can be done.
It may be that our differences in opinion aren't actually the main thing dividing us. Perhaps it is the fact that we didn't have the opportunity to decide, collectively, whether going to war was the right thing to do. If we felt like our opinions had been heard and were part of the process, we would probably be less upset about the final decision.
Renee Scott: A soldier's wife
Scott is a customer service representative in Des Moines, Iowa.
I am the wife of a soldier, and it was really hard waiting to hear from my husband over there, with all the bombing and death going on. This was in 1990. It put a lot of pressure on me — not only from the mother-in-law but from my children, who were young, but old enough to know where their daddy was. And they were scared all the time and having bad nightmares. My children are adults now, and my oldest son still has the nightmares, because he remembers seeing the building being blown up. My husband was to go over there again, but then retired due to medical reasons, which helped set my children at ease.
I understand how hard it still is, because I still have family and friends over there to this day. It makes you watch something so horrific and so astounding just to see if it is really someone you know. And if it is, you will have to help get over the abandonment of losing someone. It's how people feel — like the world has abandoned them from their loved ones, and when they are dead, you want someone to pay. That is a joke: Soldiers are just a means to a cause. If they die, it was an honor to die. The families left here to bear the death don't see it that way, and the government needs to know that.
Wil Vaughn: What is respected is brute force
Vaughn served in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
I was in major combat operations from January 2003-January 2004. I am two years removed from that combat arena. I have [been] in Afghanistan this past year. While I was over there, my wife told me of how the media was portraying what happened. We even had, at times, media personnel embedded with our unit. To the media, death and carnage is what gets them ratings. It has nothing to do with the powerful message our country might be sending. Yelling, controversy, death and despair are the elements the media wants to portray of our conflict.
I am a part of this new generation of war veteran; this is a different war. We have not lost as many soldiers as any preceding war yet there has been extremely the opposite effect on public opinion. The histrionics of people like Cindy Sheehan are admired by the media, when the average military family understands the commitment their sons and daughters have decided to take.
Americans have a fascination with understanding evil or enemies. We continually attempt to appease people who do not like us. There is a reason why the Taliban had power in Afghanistan as well as Sadaam in Iraq. In that part of the world, talk means nothing. What is respected is brute force.
Mike McGrath: War and propaganda
McGrath is the editor of the National Civic Review, published by the National Civic League in Denver. He is a former journalist for the East Bay Express in Berkeley, Calif., and the Denver Westword.
When President Bush decided to overthrow the Taliban, I was an enthusiastic supporter. I actually watched the coverage of the Northern Alliance's push to Kabul (and the U.S. air support) with a sense of exhilaration. I'm not a big warmonger, but I am not a pacifist either, and I was angry about 9/11 and disgusted by al-Qaida's suicide attack on Massoud, the stalwart leader who had fought both the Soviets and the Taliban.
But my feelings about the "war on terror" changed when President Bush decided to overthrow Saddam. Not that he didn't deserve it. What really bothered me was the phony way the administration tried to link Saddam with al-Qaida. I'm no expert on the Middle East, but I knew enough be skeptical of "intelligence" connecting an old-fashioned, pan-Arab secularist like Saddam with a religious fanatic like bin Laden.
War and propaganda go hand in hand, but the level of misinformation and public confusion over the war in Iraq is unprecedented. LBJ lied about the Tonkin Gulf incident, but nobody was confused about the purpose of the war — to prevent South Vietnam from going communist. You could support it or oppose it (which I did), but you knew where things stood.
Presidents from both parties have eroded the constitutional power of the Congress to declare (or not declare) war, but this is probably an unavoidable tendency given the nature of modern world threats, and as long as there is a lively (and reasonably well informed) public debate, the damage to democratic self-government is containable. I agree with those who have argued that when this is all over, we may need to have a truth reconciliation commission to bring the American people back into the same dimension of political reality.
Roy Kaplan: Shock and awe
Kaplan is the former executive director of the National Conference of Christians and Jews and a professor at USF.
Although I'm not a veteran, I have lived through a number of wars this country has fought: Korea, Vietnam, small scale actions like Grenada, Panama, Somalia, the Gulf War, and now the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I guess the question on most peoples' minds … is whether this current conflict is different from the others. That is, is the current conflict in the Middle East different from other conflicts in the motivation for engagement, objectives/outcomes, and effects on society.
Concerning the motivation for entering the present conflict, I would have to say that this needs to be discussed on two levels. First, we have the ostensible manifest justification that we were being threatened by WMDs and we were doing the right/just thing by eliminating a dictator and freeing oppressed people. The second, latent justification, and the one that appears to many to be paramount after events have demonstrated the fallacy of the WMD argument, is the strategic interest of Iraq and Afghanistan for the U.S. because of natural resources. I will never forget the day our planes began bombing Iraq (second war) in the "Shock and Awe" attempt to convince the American public that this would be over quickly. And I will never forget the comment that one news reporter (I think it was Dan Rather) made shortly after we began the land invasion: "The oil fields have been secured." Now there was an honest (perhaps unintentional) assessment of the motivation.
I'm concerned about what this conflict is doing to our society. I fear that the basic fabric of our Constitution is being altered through illegal laws like the Patriot Act that circumscribe individual rights and freedoms — press, assembly, privacy. The scary thing is that many people aren't concerned about the diminution of these freedoms because they have been scared into surrendering these freedoms ostensibly for the sake of maintaining social order. After a while, our society takes on some of the characteristics of those very groups that previously repulsed us, creating a situation where "We have met the enemy and they are us."
This article appears in Oct 11-17, 2006.