Haven't We Been Down This Road Before?

Two thousand souls and twenty thousand ducats  
Will not debate the question of this straw:
This is the imposthume of much wealth and peace,
That inward breaks, and shows no cause without
Why the man dies.  --Hamlet, Act IV, Scene iv


Don't look now, but it's happening again, just when you thought the wars in the Middle East were winding down. No, war never takes a holiday, not for the USA. For in case you haven't noticed, war is now a permanent calling card of our foreign policy. Now that al-Qaeda has been hamstrung, it's time to find a new enemy and a new war. This time it's Iran, the greatest threat to civilization--according to the spin--since Alaric the Goth.

We're like the plumber who had only one tool, a hammer-- and oh what a mess he made wherever he went!

Few would have any affection for the Iranian government, a brutally repressive regime. The problem, however, is that, unlike us, Iran hasn't invaded anyone. They've not declared war on us. Their so-called nuclear weapons program is but a mirage. Only look how hard our government has worked in recent weeks to find something, anything incriminating against them. But as we've learned from the last war and the hunt for WMDs, facts don't matter much. When the US wants to go to war, we'll find a casus belli, even if we have to manufacture one (again). Now that Iraq and Afghanistan have been "made safe for democracy" (i.e., reduced to rubble), Iran is next on the list.

Don't believe it? Just ask retired US Army General Wesley Clark. According to Clark, neo-cons at the Pentagon have long been at work implementing a plan "to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control." The plan has included destroying the governments of seven countries: Iraq (check), Afghanistan (check), Libya (check), Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia, and Iran.

What I find fascinating is not that Iran is simply Iraq redux, nor that the corporate media, in their usual fawning subservience, are falling into line to do the government's bidding. Rather, I feel like Kierkegaard, who went to church, where a priest in a velvet robe opened a gilt-edged Bible with a satin ribbon and read, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself ... " What amazed the philosopher most was that no one was laughing.

The vast majority of Americans have no trust in government when it comes to taxes, but our faith becomes absolutely implicit when it comes to war powers (the biggest revenue waster on earth). We Yanks love a good fight-- provided we win, and it does not last too long.  And for some reason drummed into us from the cradle, we are under the misapprehension that America goes to war only to export democracy-- free speech, the right to vote, and a CVS on every corner. Who wouldn't want that? We don't understand that, in reality, what we export overseas is not democracy but economic domination, corporate exploitation. Or perhaps we just don't care. If we were able to look at things squarely in the face, we might discover that our foreign policy is not an extension of American democratic institutions; it is responsible only to an A-list of multinational corporations. But we ordinary citizens don't seem to mind, benefiting as we do from the fruits of empire: cheap gasoline, cheap electronics, cheap clothing and other commodities. It is a symbiotic relationship, like rhinos and oxpeckers.

As satirist Tom Lehrer used to sing in "Send the Marines":

For might makes right, and till they've seen the light,
They've got to be protected, all their rights respected,
'Till somebody we like can be elected.

That is, "somebody" favorable to doing business our way, which means handing over all their natural resources so that we can turn them into profitable commodities. We call it "economic development." Those kill-joy countries who decline to be pushovers then become the villains in our national melodrammer.

"But Iran wants the bomb!" you cry. Well, can you blame them? Iran is a major player in the region and wants to be respected as such. They are tired of being isolated and fearful of being bombed by the US and Israel (which has been assassinating Iranian physicists with alarming frequency)--just as we are fearful of having a new power to contend with, one that will be a wedgie in our plans to dominate all the sources of oil in the region. "But they've threatened Israel; they want to wipe it off the map!" Granted, Ahmadinejad's anti-Israeli rhetoric is insane and over the top, but it is designed for home consumption. The Iranian regime, like other totalitarian states, needs at least one bogeyman to give it legitimacy and to distract its populace from the harshness of its rule, just as the Israeli government needs to be surrounded by enemies so that it can justify the ongoing theft of Palestinian land. There is another oddly symbiotic relationship.

In reality, no country would be so foolish and suicidal as to attack Israel with a nuclear strike. Israel maintains the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the region and a swift capability to deliver them with accuracy by sea or air. So the security argument does not wash. Perhaps by security we really mean our desire to do what we want, to whom and when we want, arrogating to ourselves alone the right to be the biggest bully on the world stage. No, sadly, the biggest threats to world peace at the moment are the good ol' USA and its enfant gâté (Israel)-- and the American church is a chief enabler of both.

A few Sundays ago I was attending church with my family. The service was advertised as a Missions Sunday, an annual opportunity for the congregation to hear reports from its missionaries on the advancement of the gospel in various parts of the world. A traditional part of the service is a flag ceremony, in which the flags of the nations where these hard-working missionaries labor are carried down the aisle of the church. Unfortunately, one zealot, who had been entrusted with carrying the American flag, received permission from someone to don a US Army hat and fatigues and parade down the aisle to the wild cheers and applause of the congregation. How embarrassing! Not to mention sickening. It might have been forgivable if the person were a military hero. Instead, what was meant to be a harmless symbol of the unity of the church--one gospel, one people out of many nations-- became a pivot point to hoist the flag of American militarism and exceptionalism. Well, I suppose we're fortunate that in their excitement no one fired off a celebratory round-- that's always hard on stained glass. If someone had thought to ask the assembled missionaries what they thought of this display, they might have helped us gain some perspective by sharing how other peoples view us.

In Act IV of Shakespeare's play, Hamlet surveys the vast Norwegian forces about to invade his neighbor Poland, all for a scrap of land no farmer would bother to till, and he muses sardonically on the vanity of warfare. Like our own warmongering leaders, the Norwegian king,

Whose spirit with divine ambition puff'd  
Makes mouths at the invisible event,
Exposing what is mortal and unsure
To all that fortune, death and danger dare,
Even for an egg-shell. Rightly to be great
Is not to stir without great argument,
But greatly to find quarrel in a straw ... 

To the American church all I can do is plead: please, please, don't be manipulated again, don't be a mascot for the military-industrial complex. We serve the Prince of peace--he is our Commander in Chief, first and foremost--and he commands us to be peacemakers, not warmongers. That means we don't start locking and loading at the first sign of conflict; rather, in this case, we endeavor to be more objective, to understand the other side, to build bridges not bombs. It means we pray that war will not be necessary, that more death and destruction will be averted, that cooler heads will prevail, that the forces of arrogance and greed will not win out, that two great nations, two great civilizations can find a way to live in peace. It also means we love and pray for the other side as well as our own.

It's Time to Occupy

A few days ago, six Afghan children were killed by a NATO missile that missed its target-- or did it? Actually, the official NATO command response to the "unfortunate" incident was not that the missile had missed its target, but that the children were essentially collateral damage in an insurgent operation.

According to the local Afghan governor's office, a NATO aircraft was hunting down Taliban insurgents who were reportedly planting roadside bombs. Two of them were killed, but the other three escaped and hid themselves in civilian homes. That's when the missiles hit, killing six children (ages 4 to 12) belonging to two families. Afghans on the ground, however, tell a different story: the two families were working with their children in the fields, they said, when they were attacked from the air without provocation. They saw no evidence of any insurgent activity in the area.

Who is telling the truth? Does it matter?  Six more children  have been blown apart as a result of either a bungled operation, or, far worse, an air-strike policy that has been consistently callous, even wanton, when it comes to civilian casualties. I suppose our government expects us to say, in utilitarian fashion, "Well, war is dirty. At least a couple of the bad guys were killed. That's worth the dismemberment of six kids."

A Christian friend recently said to me that "good people" can find themselves on opposite sides when it comes to these issues. Really? Take slavery, for example. There were so-called "good folks" on both sides of that one, weren't there? Or how about civil rights? I recall, growing up in the 1960s, my parents complaining when their pastor took time off to attend a civil rights march in Alabama. They did not think it was the church's place to get involved in such issues.

Let's be honest and say that all of us live, to some extent, in ignorance. Ignorance does not exonerate us from responsibility, but it is a human frailty that we all can plead guilty to. Maybe we grow up in a slave-owning society, or in a racist culture that denies basic human rights to certain individuals based on the color of their skin. It's like living in a house with a dog. You don't notice the smell.  But when people begin to point out the stink, you have two choices: to acknowledge it, or to deny it.  At that point, you are making a conscious moral decision; you take sides.

The time is now overdue for those who claim to follow Christ to take sides on many issues, from the wars in the Middle East and the so-called War against Terror, to issues closer to home, such as government corruption, unbridled corporate greed, and the economic injustice that is eating away at the foundations of our society.  It is time for Christians to make their voices heard. It is time for us to occupy.

How can we claim to be disciples of the Prince of peace and yet condone the kind of senseless carnage that is happening in our name? How can we read our scriptures and gloss over God's call for us to be advocates for the poor, to raise our voices on behalf of the oppressed, and to work for a more just society.

The Occupy movement has shown the world what kind of society we can be. No, I'm not talking about the media stereotype of the typical occupier. What you may not see in the media is that many of these occupiers have constructed alternative communities that are working, where everyone has enough food, where the homeless and sick are cared for. Some of these encampments are even sustaining themselves using alternative forms of energy. "That's socialism," you cry? Is it? Is caring for the poor, the sick, and our creation just an -ism? Are these not biblical mandates?

By saying it is time for us to "occupy," I am not advocating that all of us leave our jobs and camp in some public square. But each of us needs to find a way to take a stand and contribute. C'mon folks, it's time. We can speak out, write or call an elected official, support our local occupiers with food, supplies and encouragement, participate in a protest, pray on our knees for change, teach our children about injustice.

The clock is ticking. Peace and justice are on the march across the globe. Whether they succeed or not in the short term may largely depend on what the people of God do, or do not do. Our voices are needed. So are our bodies. We have a strong biblical mandate to pursue both justice and non-violence. Our participation may just make the difference between a bloody revolution or a peaceful one.

But one thing is certain: that decision will determine where we stand, whether we are truly followers of the King of heaven, or just groupies.

Occupying Congress

From its very beginning the Occupy Wall Street movement has had the right idea. Our seething moral outrage over unbridled corporate greed has long needed expression; it has long needed to be seen, chanted, shouted. And it is encouraging to see how this movement has struck a chord with the average American.

I participated recently in an Occupy protest in my own city, and two things amazed me. First, that the majority of protesters (there were over 200 of them) were not young and unemployed. They were not professional or experienced activists. For most, this was probably the only protest they had ever participated in. Most were middle-aged like me-- laborers, craftsmen, homemakers, businessmen and women, some retired, but all deeply angered over the corporate coup that has turned Lincoln's "government of the people, by the people, for the people" into a government of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%.

Second, the response from passing motorists was so overwhelmingly supportive.  Probably 85% showed their solidarity by beeping their horns, waving their arms or fists, or whooping (I think I even heard a genuine Rebel Yell or two-- it's a Southern thing).  It was obvious that what we were doing found a deep resonance with our fellow citizens.

But as I told my wife over breakfast that morning, I can't help thinking we're going after the wrong guys. Wouldn't it be more effective to occupy Congress?  By that I mean, protesting outside the offices of our elected representatives. They are, after all, democratically accountable to us (at least on paper).  The guys on Wall Street (and by Wall Street we mean corporate America, especially the financial sector) are not. While I am in no way expressing sympathy for or excusing the egregious greed and grand larceny of the so-called Fat Cats, protesting Wall Street greed is rather like objecting to sharks' behavior in a feeding frenzy. Sharks are feeding machines that go where they know they can get a meal, where they smell blood. In the same way, Wall Street feeds on whatever and wherever it can, wherever money is to be made. There is no moral scruple. The bottom line is more, more, more.

By contrast, Congress has been entrusted with the economic oversight of this nation and with protecting citizens from capitalism run amok. The issue is therefore not only that there are wolves in the sheep pen, but more importantly that someone let them in. Where are the shepherds? They were bought off with wolf dollars, bribed to look the other way.

Corporations would not be crushing America if Congress had been doing its job.  Indeed, the corporate coup could not have happened without the absolute complicity of our elected officials:  the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the hundreds of other pieces of corrupt legislation that have sold our system to the highest bidder. What is broken is not Wall Street. Wall Street is not going to protect us from Wall Street. What we need most is campaign finance reform:  publicly funded elections that will drain all that intoxicating swill out of the trough. We need elected officials who will pass legislation to rein in Wall Street, rather than allowing Wall Street to reign over us. We need to hold our leaders accountable so that they can hold corporate America accountable.

Focusing on Wall Street as the identified patient has even allowed some of our leaders to use Wall Street's sins as a screen for their own corrupt behavior. Our President's railing against the "fat cats," for example, is the height of hypocrisy, especially since his own campaign is the biggest consumer of their cash. Some congressional representatives point the finger at Wall Street and cheer on the protests as if they themselves weren't the chief enablers in a broken system.

Wall Street doesn't really care about its image. No, not really. It probably does not like all this attention, but its feelings are not hurt by these protests. It has no feelings. Its only god is Mammon; its only responsibility to its bottom line. But our senators and representatives want to win re-election and they need our vote to do that. Their biggest fear is that we will find out what they have been doing and that we will organize ourselves. And that is exactly what is happening. Yes, change happens from the bottom up, but it has to go up. We need our elected officials, just as they need us. The alternative is revolution and bloodshed.

I would not want the OWS movement to stop what it's doing. I applaud what it has done. Its voice has galvanized a nation, awakened a sleeping giant. Now perhaps the rest of us can take the battle to where real change can happen, to the halls of Congress, with phone calls, letters, emails, and even showing up at their local offices. And if the protesters should suddenly find themselves evicted from Zuccotti Park... well, there's always Capitol Hill, the Mall, or the Senate Office Building.  The time is ripe. I urge my fellow Americans to get involved in any way they can.