Honoring Petty Officer Dietz

Peace doesn't come, and violence doesn't go away, simply by our choosing to lock ourselves away in our own worlds of make believe. We cannot ignore the reality of the violent world in which we live.

Wars don't bring peace, but at times we need to fight wars in order to preserve our country so that we can eventually have the opportunity to become reconciled with our enemies, remove the root causes for conflict and achieve peace together.

And those who give their lives for our country are rightfully honored as heroes and held up as models for the rest of us.

An unfortunate situation is playing out in Littleton, Colorado, where a group of people claiming to be concerned parents are besmirching the memory of Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Danny Dietz, a brave man who gave his life for his country while fighting in Afghanistan and is rightfully honored for his actions.

Petty Officer Dietz, according to what officials told his family, was killed in an ambush by al-Qaida gunmen in Afghanistan in 2005. He was severely wounded, but he fought off the enemy for more than 45 minutes while one of his team members escaped. For his bravery, the Navy awarded him the Navy Cross.

Not surprisingly, people in his hometown of Littleton, Colo., decided to create a statue in his honor, and raised $43,000 for the purpose. The statue is to be dedicated July 4 in a prominent park in the area where he grew up and is remembered by many.

But a group of parents is objecting. The statue, they say, glorifies violence because it depicts Petty Officer Dietz holding an automatic rifle, the weapon he used in his selfless effort to defend his country.

The protest against the statue is completely unjustified. In fact, the protesters need to reflect on the values they are teaching their children by their objection to the statue.

We want our children to learn the value of living selfless lives of sacrifice for others. The statue of Petty Officer Dietz will be a most fitting example for the children of Littleton.

Bush tries to make the hard sell

It's not surprising that President Bush is having a hard time selling his new Iraq policy to the U.S. public. It's clear now to everyone other than the "My-president-right-or-wrong" crowd that Bush committed a serious error in pulling the trigger on the Iraq war in March 2003. Some think he should not have gone to war at all. I think he should have waited, perhaps another year or two, before making the final decision.

The strong impression many of us have that the administration has tried to spin the war over the years and be less than honest with the U.S. public about what was going on makes the president's task now even more difficult. Remember the talk about "dead-enders"?

People are saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

The tragic thing is that Bush probably has at least a significant part of the solution this time. Pulling the troops out precipitously would clearly have disastrous consequences. Not to mention the fact that it would probably be immoral.

Then-secretary of state Colin Powell once cited what he called the "Pottery Barn Principle," that if you break something you need to pay for it. Pottery Barn later protested that they had no such policy, but Powell had the right idea. We can't just go into somebody's country, tear the place up and then leave it in shambles.

If Bush's policy ultimately fails, the most likely reason is that it does not put enough emphasis on creating a sustainable living environment in the areas that are cleared by Iraqi and U.S. military forces. This effort needs to include an outreach to the leaders of rival religious communities. I haven't seen any discussion of this and this concerns me. The terrorists have successfully exploited religious rivalries to foment more violence. Those working for peace in Iraq also need to understand the important roles to be played by the religious communities.

Another possible reason for failure is that the terrorists simply fall back and let the U.S. do what they want and create the conditions necessary for its troops to leave the country. Once the troops have left, they can come back in and continue their campaign of killing.

The Democratic move to deny funds for the buildup can only be seen as populist grandstanding that does not serve the interests of the country.

The solution in Iraq is not military or political

President Bush has yet to announce his new strategy for Iraq, and yet there is already much analysis on what it is expected to contain.

In response to reports that the President will send more troops to the battlefield, Democrats are lining up with the mantra, "There is no military solution. There is only a political solution."

It takes a politician to feel such conviction in the power of politics. What track record is there that tell us that politics can bring peace to Iraq? There is none.

The course of the war in Iraq is at a critical juncture. One comment to an earlier post on this blog referred to speculation about how people in a prosperous Iraq 40 years from now might look back on this war and the U.S. role in it with gratitude. If that prosperous Iraq is to come about, things need to start going very well right now.

Egypt's president is saying that his country needs a nuclear deterrent. He's known for many years that Israel has nuclear weapons, but it is only now, when Iran is acquiring nuclear weapons and appears to be ascendant in Iraq, that Egypt decides it needs nuclear weapons, too. Clearly, he is preparing for the possibility that the war in Iraq expands into a regional conflict. If that happens, Iraq 40 years from now is not likely to be prosperous, and it is not likely to look back with gratitude on what we Americans are doing in their country today.

The Bush administration can increase the number of troops, but at best that will only buy some time to put into effect a genuine strategy for peace that is neither military nor political. The administration needs to reach out to every American who is passionate about ending the war, including people such as Cindy Sheehan. It needs to get these people to Iraq working to bring peace.

Cindy Sheehan, ambassador for peace?

Cindy Sheehan, the peace activist whose soldier son died in Iraq, has won herself and her cause another few seconds of fame by demonstrating against the Democratic Party congressional leadership. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that her actions shortened the war in Iraq, or the U.S. participation in it, by so much as a millisecond.

It would seem that Ms. Sheehan has the potential to join the ranks of women in various parts of the world who have had substantial impact in bringing an end to deadly conflicts by crying out, "Enough! No more." But she is falling far short of that mark.

For Ms. Sheehan to honor the memory of her son and make a difference in bringing U.S. troops home, she needs to go to Iraq. That is where the fighting is. That is where the problem is. That is where she needs to be. Protesting in the safety of Washington, DC won't do it.

From the U.S. perspective, it might be good to have Ms. Sheehan in Iraq speaking to political and religious leaders with the particular conviction and fervor that can only be expressed by a mother speaking out of a heart broken by the loss of her son. Certainly, the dry unemotional pleadings of U.S. diplomats and military leaders have not had the desired effect so far. That was obvious in the way the Iraqi government handled the execution of Saddam Hussein.

This may be the kind of dramatic move by the U.S. that is needed to restore credibility to its efforts for peace. For Ms. Sheehan, it would win her and her cause a lot more attention than she is likely to get by staying in the U.S. and making cameo appearances at other people's events.

As a start, the next congressional delegation to visit Iraq might invite Ms. Sheehan to go along.

Teaching peace in Iraq

The New York Times this morning is reporting on how the handling of Saddam Hussein's execution is causing concern. You can read the UPI summary report in World Peace Herald, or go to the story in the New York Times. (We need your traffic more than they do.)

Many countries have political cultures that have former presidents and dictators being forced into exile, imprisoned, or killed. I think one reason leaders in some countries declare themselves "president for life" is that they know their lives are going to end at the end of their term one way or another.

U.S. officials are frustrated that the Maliki government fails to see how its behavior is "driving the country toward an abyss," the Times said. (UPI)

It is clear that the U.S. needs to make an aggressive effort to educate the Maliki government and Shiite religious leaders about this abyss and the implications of falling into it. If the situation deteriorates into an all out Shiite-Sunni civil war, neither will win. If that civil war deteriorates even further into a war between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran, the whole world will lose.

It is in the interest of the United States and other major world powers to bring the major factions in Iraq to a point where they can decide to get along. Perhaps what is needed in Iraq today is not more troops but more people trained in conflict resolution.