The question is not merely "Where is the nuclear arms race leading us?" or "Can a nuclear war be avoided much longer?" or "Will the Communists take over the West?" or "Will the West win the Cold War?" or "Will the survivors of a nuclear war envy the dead?" From the standpoint of the present volume, such questions are irrelevant. Not that the issues they raise may not be vitally important, but the surmises and conjectures which might be offered as answers to such questions are really not answers to anything. They are beguiling guesses which seek to allay anxiety and which may well threaten to misdirect our best efforts if not to justify actions of which we out to be ashamed.
The more important question is not "what is going to happen to us?" but "what are we going to do?" or more cogently, "What are our real intentions?"
substituting, the obvious historic markers present in this thought to our current situation, changing 'communism' to 'terrorism', 'cold war' or 'nuclear war' to the 'war on terror.' it is amazing to me how i feel that much of the answers given to our current interactions with the war are more of a alignment with anxiety and fear that help to perpetuate an us vs. them and they hit first childish fight. unfortunately, this helps no one to understand, as merton put it, the "answers to anything."
having my brother in iraq, and having some knowledge (beyond the mainstream otherwise agenda'd media), with the dynamics of a tyrannical and fear based government & a radical group of Islam, i've come to an understanding that our participation in this war, may not be, but it should be, something of much deeper depth than 'weapons of mass destruction.'
wmd's do not do justice to the need to protect ourselves. honestly, even when pitched by colin powell in front of the united nations, it never seemed like a big deal of "what is going to happen to us?" but yet, since the weapons have not surfaced to the sheer numbers that frightens people, people have now turned coat and said "why are we there?"
if we started asking questions like "what are our real intentions?" & "what are we going to do?" then our response would be, something of the affect of to be, that we are a Christian state that does support humanitarianism and seeks to enable the world's population. then, if it is our true intention to be this way, our answer to "what are we going to do?" should reflect, not just a war on terror (i won't be shortsighted to say that we cannot completely dismiss a need for arming, at least not right now) but some also major efforts that are constant which help to take away the symptoms that promote human suffering.
after erin read & we discussed, between two worlds, a woman's account (www.womenforwomen.org) of a life in the shadow of saddam (she gives this a must read tag). there was quite a need to address the fear and horror that went with the past regime. shawn, has mentioned in conversation that this level of fear is very prevalent still & is something that has been present for generations, & it might just take some generations to rid themselves of it. i'm encouraged to know that his time there has not just times of being a soldier for humankind. unfortunately, we might have been looking out for number one, or too confused to act responsibly decades ago when the prior regime was taking power or began to corrupt it's power.
beyond our current war on terror. what happens to ideals of dispelling poverty? if we are to be our brothers keeper, then i should hope "what are we going to do?" becomes a response to pushing for the medical and nourishment needs of those in third world countries, educating our child population, making sure we have adequate health care, etc. (i could go on and on and replicate many different agenda items). my inclination is to say that, we have the resources, abilities, and creativity to really do the things that quell a those things that promote fear, anger, hostility, mistrust, etc. we've just possibly been asking the wrong questions?
