Won one, lost one. As of today, February 17, we are pondering the House’s stand against President Bush’s plan to add 21,500 troops in Iraq, which would be only a starting figure. All but two Democrats voted for the non-binding resolution, with 17 Republicans joining them.

The news has just arrived that the Senate has rejected the opportunity to consider the resolution, 56-34.

Frequently, the argument raised in the debate was that the Democrats’ back-door strategy was to follow the resolution against the surge in troops with one to cut off the funds for the war entirely. Anyone who had watched the debate with even a modicum of fairness would be forced to admit that again and again, the point was raised that no one would think of cutting off the funds.

Time after time, the point was made that the troops must not be deployed if they are not properly equipped with body armor and vehicles’ protection. Not to accept such a stipulation is to my mind not to protect the troops from harm. And I would go further and state that anyone responsible for such a dereliction of duty with regard to safety precautions for our brave men and women, should be brought up for trial on charges of dereliction of duty, and possible treason.

President Bush’s rush to war led us down the slippery slope of indifference to the safety of the troops. Round them up, send them over, and don’t fret about lost limbs, broken minds, lost eyesight, depression upon depression, appeared to be the philosophy in the White House and Pentagon. Not good enough anymore. Wasn’t good before. But now, we’ve found our voices, and we’re not going to stop shouting about supporting our troops in ways beyond empty words.

In the February 19th issue of Time, Joe Klein reminds us that, just as the troops have their mission, so, too, do the politicians, in his article, What It Really Means to Support the Troops:

“Their duty is threefold,” he tells us: “to be judicious about sending the troops off to war, to give the military everything it needs to complete the mission and, if it appears the mission is futile or compromised, to change it or end it.”

On the other hand, in the February 26th issue of the same magazine, we find William Kristol asking: “Is the U.S. too quick to project its power through military action?” In the process, he upbraids Germany’s Foreign Minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, for asking the question at an international security forum in Munich on Feb. 10.

Then, he continues on to question Barack Obama’s launching his presidential campaign with the assertion: “ It’s time to admit that no amount of American lives can resolve the political disagreement that lies at the heart of someone else’s civil war.”

Then, Kristol gets to the heart of his theory: “Is a propensity to rely on military force a vice to which we Americans are prone? And doesn’t the Bush Administration need to learn a lesson about the danger of using military force in pursuit of foreign policy goals?”

He answers his own question: “No.”

If that isn’t enough to keep you up nights, it might be because Kristol’s philosophy isn’t winning friends or influencing people these days. He has a short memory for the November elections, or, perhaps he closed his ears to the people’s voices then, as well as now.

Bill, we’re weary of war. And if you would open your eyes and look at the rubble our bombs have made of Iraq’s treasures in architecture, libraries, schools, and homes with gardens, and water to keep the flowers blooming, you might find the truth that bombs and guns breed more hatred and revenge and fear and broken lives. The question is, Bill: Do you care? Do you study alternatives to war beyond bigger bombs and faster, more deadly bullets? Do you pray, Bill?

When things become a bit too overwhelming, I find the goodness of people a steadying influence and a great comfort. It doesn’t matter in which century they lived, only that they lived with courage and wisdom, compassion and love. Blessed Charles de Foucauld, beatified in 2005, is such a person for me, and has been for decades, long before the Vatican gave him the beatification party.

Like St. Francis of Assisi, Charles began his career as a playboy and ended it as a holy follower of Christ. The three articles devoted to presenting his life in an abbreviated fashion have been brought up for your pursual once more, in the hope that you, too, will be comforted and inspired once again by Charles’ spirit of service to all, from every station in life. Be fore-warned: The saint had a way of living in peace, of sacrificing himself for peace, and making it look to us like a lovely journey. And so it was, a joyful journey, of Bethlehem, Nazareth, the Sea of Galilee, a Garden of prayer, a cross on a hill, and an empty tomb.

We are a people of hope, not of war, a people willing to plan and work for peace, a people who sees war as the very last choice in a long list of choices.

Lord, we ask your forgiveness for our part in the suffering of this war, and we beg of you to lead us onto the path of peace, and love. Bless all who have borne the greatest share of the suffering in Iraq and Afghanistan. Heal those who came back maimed. Help us to aid in their healing, and to comfort the families whose sons and daughters will never return home. This, we beg of You. Amen.

Home

Archives