Reidblog [The Reid Report blog]

Think at your own risk.

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Blessed are the peacemakers

...to whom should that phrase apply?

The freeing of the three Western peace activists who had been held hostage in Iraq for four months is touching off ... as we've come to expect ... fighting between the left and the right.

Dr. Rusty Shackleford at Jawa provides a load of links summarizing his and other right-leaning bloggers' take that the military is getting short shrift from the peace community for their part in the rescue, and particularly galling to the right is a statement from Christian Peace Teams, the group the four hostages worked for, which used today's joyous occasion to call afresh for an end to the U.S./British occupation of Iraq:

“Our hearts are filled with joy today as we heard that Harmeet Singh Sooden, Jim Loney and Norman Kember have been safely released in Baghdad,” Pritchard told a news conference, but he added: “We remember with tears Tom Fox. ... We had longed for the day when all four men would be released together. Our gladness today is bittersweet by the fact that Tom is not alive to join his colleagues in the celebration.”

Pritchard said that the former hostages “knew that their only protection was in the power of the love of God and of their Iraqi and international co-workers”.

“We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by multinational forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq today,” he said. “The occupation must end.”

The facts as they are emerging indicate that British troops led the operation which discovered the hostages (no shots were fired, and apparently the hostage takers had abandoned the three after tying them up and leaving them in a house) and that U.S. and Iraqi intelligence gathering played a large part. (At this stage, I tend to treat the official account of military activity in Iraq with some skepticism, since so much of it has proved to be written for spin, a la "Operation Swarmer," rather than for fact, but I suppose there's less reason for doubt than if the Pentagon had announced som sort of dramatic raid...)

Anyway, the story of three anti-war activists sprung from the insurgents by coalition forces inevitably leads the right to ask: where's the gratitude toward these troops from the peace activist community, and more broadly, from the left?

I'm a bit odd in that I think it's possible to oppose the invasion and occupation of Iraq (as I do, because in my opinion it was an unwarranted and unnecessary waste of U.S. forces and treasure) and to believe that the troops carrying out U.S./British foreign policy are worthy of honor.

I think CPT should have, without qualification, thanked the British and U.S. (and Iraqi) forces who freed the activists, and if they have failed to do so explicitly (a colleague of Briton Norman Kember did thank the armed forces, if in an off-hand way), they should correct that oversight as soon as possible.

The notion of peacemakers is a subjective one. It can and does include those who oppose war (and violence, torture and abuse, etc.) It can also include those who, in the course of war, prevent harm from coming to others. In this case, the troops who secured the freedom of these men are worthy of that title.

So God bless them.

There's also the question of whether Kember and the others were right to go to Iraq in the first place. The above-mentioned colleague explained it this way:

Some go because they think armies are the best way to keep peace - I'm not judging their motives. But why shouldn't people who have a different approach towards justice and peace also take risks? Some go because they think armies are the best way to keep peace - I'm not judging their motives. But why shouldn't people who have a different approach towards justice and peace also take risks? Some go because they think armies are the best way to keep peace - I'm not judging their motives. But why shouldn't people who have a different approach towards justice and peace also take risks? Some go because they think armies are the best way to keep peace - I'm not judging their motives. But why shouldn't people who have a different approach towards justice and peace also take risks?

Well there, the question is, "risk what?" Kember and the others risked not only their own lives (and their families' and countries' heartache) but also the lives of the soldiers and Iraqi troops and civilians who were inevitably drawn into their case, capture and rescue. By putting others at risk, they threatened to bring not peace -- but rather more violence to an already bleeding Iraq.
So for me, the jury is out on the three (really four) "peacemakers" (pointedly, of the four, only the American was killed). I'm not sure what they accomplished by going to Iraq, as opposed to, say, journalists, who risk their lives to document the war for those of us who want to know where our country's blood and treasure are going to, or the soldiers, Marines and support teams who have to be there because it's their job, and whom I'm quite sure do the best they can to make a difference every day and then get home to their families.

Unfortuately in the end, I'm not sure any of the non-Iraqis in that country are changing things for the better. That's the real tragedy of this war. One group of people get taken hostage, troops find and free them, and the insurgency targets someone else.

That said, things are better for at least three people out of Iraq, and for their families, today.

Previous: