A Mighty Heart
If you have not seen the Michael Winterbottom/Angelina Jolie/Dan Futterman film depiction of Mariane Pearl's recounting of her husband's brutal murder by Pakistani terrorists, I highly recommend it.
I rented this movie wondering whether any kind of public service work mattered when the prevailing conventional wisdom has centered around the heart of illiberalism - force - as some kind of governing philosophy befitting liberal societies.
Judea Pearl, Daniel's father, has something to say about that at Daniel's memorial service on March 10, 2002.
"Thrity eight years ago, Ruth and I had the great fortune of observing a unique biological phenomenon. The child that we brought home had a peculiar syndrome: he had not one shred of malice in his bones.
This child grew into a young man who filled our lives with joy, humor, love, and meaning. We feel fortunate to have been influenced by him so profoundly, and we are lucky to have beautiful memories to guide us into the future...
Kids sought his company not because he was outgoing - he wasn't - but because he was secure, unassuming, and unintimdated. He was not intimidated by bullies, or by rules, or by teachers - not even by his parents.
He was not intimidated even when one teacher stuck a swastika in his face and said, "You are wearing a Star of David, Danny. Look at what I am wearing!" As Israelis, we were terribly upset. This was our first exposure to Anti-Semitism, and we were sure that Danny would be scarred for life. We even called experts from the Anti-Defamation League to assess the damage.
But Danny just narrated this incident in a matter-of-fact way, as if to say, "Upset? Why would I get upset if a teacher make a fool of himself?"
One day, Danny came home from school with a booklet full of new safety instructions. Among them, we found one popular rule of the 1970's:
"Don't talk to strangers."
After some discussion, we decided that we would not press the rule too seriously with Danny.
Little did we know then that "talking to strangers" would become Danny's hobby, then his profession, and, eventually, his mission and ideology...
We know now that the last strangers Danny talked to were strangers of a different breed, from a different planet. They were strangers who knew no talking.
They have silenced Danny's voice, but not his spirit. The legacy of Danny's lifelong "talking with strangers" will be forever in our heart."
In April of 2002, Mariane Pearl, Danny's wife, had this to say in the forward to the book of his collected writings, At Home in the World:
"It was in London that I first stepped into one of Danny's offices.
The office floor was divided into little cubicles. Danny wore a stylish suit topped with a splashy tie pulled from his trademark crazy collection. He introduced me to his cramped space, inviting me to lounge in a beach chair that sat beside him, a totally inappropriate piece of office furniture filling most of his cubicle. I sat in that beach chair and took a good hard look at the man of my life as he spun out a tale from another of his reporting adventures in the Middle East, quickly sweeping his fingers over the keyboard without looking at the keys, surrounded by mountains of papers and books. Touchstones from his travels surrounded him. He had spread a big black tapestry that said "Allahu Akbar" -- "God is great" -- in scrolling red Arabic letters. He had propped a larger-than-life-sized picture of Iranian revolutionary leader Ayatollah Khomeini, brought back from one of his countless trips to Iran. He also had the most amazing collection of little monster figurines perched on a shelf.
I could tell he was a fast thinker, constantly synthesizing new ideas. He was a man who was going to illuminate my life. Sharing his existence would be like turning the pages of a comic book packed with lots of fun, unexpected turns of events and plenty of plane rides. Most important, I felt I had met the man who shared my approach toward the world and stood committed to change the world for the better. Lying in his beach chair, an exotic spot in London's gray, I felt great respect and trust in him.
As a journalist and sojourner of the world, Danny held no prejudices about the people we interviewed and met. He first and foremost considered the human being in front of him, regardless of religion, race or social status. Very suspicious of groups and organizations, he had a natural tendency to trust individuals. Once he started to work on an article, he would literally throw himself at it, working days and nights, tracking facts for weeks and experiencing pure delight when he found the littlest detail that would make the story livelier. He liked to walk on beaten paths and discover tales of the unexpected. He was a hunter of human contradictions, as well as of the small and immense absurdities of existence. In reporting from mosques and villages, deserts and world capitals, he was witness to the difficulties of communication between humans. He was like a tightrope walker, a funamble, happily linking worlds with his writings.
As journalists, Danny and I traveled so much that we began to live without acknowledging borders. We were truly citizens of the globe. We were beyond cosmopolitan. Danny was Jewish; I am Buddhist. Danny was born in Princeton, New Jersey; I was born in Paris, France. Danny's father was born in Israel, his mother in Baghdad, Iraq; my mother was born in Havana, Cuba, my father in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. We last lived together in Bombay, India, and last traveled together in Pakistan.
Our commitment to journalism as our means of changing the world deepened every day. The world often seemed to be a mess, but it was our world and somehow our mess. It became clear to us that we enjoyed a privileged position. That enabled us to expose corruption, injustice and ignorance. It empowered us to question vested interests, fundamentalism and untruths. For us -- for Danny -- journalism epitomized the path for charting a better world future. Danny cherished truth more than anything. He called it his religion. He had undertaken a lifelong struggle against conventional wisdom. In all those respects, Danny was a hero -- an ordinary hero.
We were legitimate citizens of the 21st century.
I can only hope that more individuals will think independently, give voice to their thoughts and take responsible action so that this world starts belonging to its people. It is our task to educate, inform and provide keys to people so that they will not be held hostage to the ignorance bred in every corner of the world. It takes courage.
Danny's kidnappers tried to behead freedom. The absurdity of his death belied the life we lived together. We were journalists. We were free. We met people and told their tales to the world. Nobody could harm us. Why would they? We were open-minded and respectful. We were not corrupt. We were not running after power or fame. We were not political or militants. We needn't hide anything. We were ambitious. We believed ordinary people like us could change the world by changing the way people think about each other. We believed you only had to be a journalist armed with intellectual courage, curiosity, a writing talent, a solid sense of humor and a genuine willingness to fight your own limits.
The terrorists who killed Danny stood at the other extreme of what Danny represents. They could only wield their knife and cowardice against Danny's intellectual courage and bold spirit. Danny died holding only a pen. They stole his life but were unable to seize his soul. By killing Danny, terrorists took my life as well but could not lay claim to my spirit. Dead and alive we will never let them win."
That is the kind of spirit that animates what is best in a liberal democracy. If only the world had a thousand more Daniel Pearls.
The movie reminded me why public service work is important, even when bad ideas dominate the public discourse and democratic politics. Because without the Daniel Pearls of the world, the only alternative people would have would be the cynicism that is the source of terrorist thinking as much as more cynical democratic politics. And there would be no honest reality check for how ugly that thinking can be without people like Daniel Pearl to stand for something better.
Love,
Ben
9 comments:
What motivates terrorism?
'A Mighty Heart' showed that the Pakistanis cared, even under the conditions they live in. Life is cheap in the third world. Modern communications and good intentions don't change that.
The problem of third-world terrorism in the first world is virtually zero. The first world is satisfied with terrorists, rather than dealing with their underlying motivation that springs from an inability to effect change in local policies promulgated by governments supported by the first world for a first world reason - energy, oil and gas. As long as we keep sucking that teat, and supporting those governments, the terrorists have a point.
The level of terrorism to date is a manageable trade-off, though our response to terrorism hasn't been, mainly for political reasons. We prefer being thought stupid to being thought weak, the result of an elemental cowardice present in human beings and demonstrated by the voters and those whom they elect.
There's definitely elements of terrorists wanting to affect change in autocratic societies, Anonymous. But I think the underlying issue is control and power. The most obviously overlooked motivation for terrorism is that they want to bully for power. They do it less in more mature democracies because there are more opportunities for engagement and influence. But the bottom line is that they want what they want and they will use whatever level of violence they see fit to get it. It's actually not that complicated at all, the more I've thought about it.
Now, there are ways that you can account for that that don't involve military force. In Nothern Ireland, you have a peace process. In Palestine and with Israel, there is no other option. And both issues are, fundamentally, ones of self-determination, meaning legitimate democratic claims. Al Queda, on the other hand, have very few legitimate claims, at all. And in each case, we can't forget that, fundamentally, we are still dealing with thugs. Even thugs with a good cause are thugs. So I don't want, in any way, to rationalize their ugly behavior in the name of whatever cause they might have that might need legitimate resolution.
Sometimes, as in the case of Al Queda, you must use military force. But we need to look for other options as much as possible, I think, so we give Arabs and Muslims around the world as little excuse as possible to rally to their cause and we are responsible for our own power grabs and abuses of power, as well, obviously, as with the unilateral invasion of Iraq.
The trade-off of a willingness to look stupid but not weak is, just, well, stupid. And it is true that there are plenty of stupid people in the world who think that studid doesn't matter and maintain their cowardice to face up, but that has consequences that their stupidity will never account for until they wisen up.
Meaning, prefer you vanity of rather looking stupid than weak and your life is still the same fuckin' mess that you started with. And, in the case, that mess means a lot of innocent people who will continue into perpetuity to be killed until American leaders and American citizens, and everyone around the world, face up to the pride that smarter policy doesn't matter. Either people and politicians face up to their pride. Or people die. It's really that fuckin' simple.
And at this point in the game, the game is too complicated to argue otherwise anymore. There are very few simple wars we will face in the future (not that they've ever been all that simple, but certainly wars like WWII, a defensive war, is a much less complicated war than a war for the interests of others, as has been the case in Vietnam and Iraq).
So either people face up. Or we continue to face problems for which brighter minds are needed to solve.
That is why Hillary's cowardice and lack of intellectual depth is concerning to me, right now. Because no matter how much she can appeal to the vanity of the masses of stupid folks that having smarter folks with bigger vision in leadership positions, it does matter no matter how much people try to run away from that boogeymen in their lives.
I can't imagine anything more stupid than putting yourself at more risk because you are too vain and self-centered to face up to the fact that people who think more and more publicly are probably going to have better answers. But, I am learning, as a special education teacher, that kind of the nature of stupid is that it makes no goddamn sense.
But just because people make foolish choices in the midst of difficult times doesn't mean those choices are going to go well just because people wish it to be so.
What is needed is leadership that will promote more understanding, be willing to use force, but as little as possible, a genuine commitment to equity in international and even personal relationships - especially, today, when political leaders are increasingly judged by how they deal with people - a commitment to thoughtful policy with accountability to empirical realities on the ground, a willingness to change when strategies are not working, and a more genuine commitment to the interests of others more than to oneself.
It's actually not complicated at all. It's just that too few political leaders (and citizens) fit that bill. And, at times, their cowardice is what dominates the political agenda. And then when that doesn't work, we eventually get to more thoughtful and genuine solutions. There's just a lot of fucking up in between.
Interesting thoughts, Anonymous. I'll be curious to see what you have to say next.
Ben
It's a poor farmer indeed who can't farm his neighbors field better than his own.
- Ben Franklin
(A remembered quote.)
You can't change yourself, why would you bother trying to change other people?
- Marcus Aurelius
(A remembered quote.)
ben sutherland: [leadership with] 'a more genuine commitment to the interests of others more than to oneself.'
Have you tried losing 10lbs? Getting other people to lose 10lbs is impossible. People prefer illusion to the reality that no one loses weight, that's why we support a weight-loss industry.
Shrink-wrap world
American tourists are upset when they see whole rabbits and chickens hanging up in a Spanish market.
One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. I have no objection to terror as a technique. It was what Sherman's march through Georgia was about. Sawing off someone's head with a knife differs only in the time it takes compared to death by a 50-cal bullet to the head.
Holier than terrorists? I don't think so.
Well, being committed to the interests of others, Anonymous, doesn't mean that you make choices for them. We all make choices. And, no matter which way we try to explain it, we live with the consequences of those choices.
It's funny you ask about losing weight. I just found out my Body-Mass Index is between 26 and 27 and needs to be between 21-23 for a lower risk of cancer and heart disease. So I'm working out and watching my diet. I've cut a minute off each of the last two times I've run the mile. And I'm still working on a more regular exercise schedule. But I'm well on my way, I think. There's definitely a lot of the weight lost industry that is oriented around body image and other important matters than long term health, well-being, and longetivity. But there's plenty of good stuff out there too, for those who take it up. I want to live longer, so I eat and live healthier. Others don't, and they'll likely die sooner. And that's all she wrote.
Yeah, you have a lot of company of those who don't have a problem with murder as a tool of politics. Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, The Spanish Inquisition, The Crusades, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Al Queda. Plenty of murder has happened over the course of the long history of humanity for political purposes. People have found it easy to equivocate murder for a long time for their various political causes.
It's almost like holier than serial killers, isn't it? Or holier than totalitarians? Or holier than genodical mobs? Or holier than anything isn't?
It's almost as if you can explain away anything that you want for whatever purposes isn't it?
It almost makes you wonder why we have the discussion, at all.
Except that the discussion occurs for the purpose of figuring out what is right or wrong, allowable or not allowable.
There are only two ways out of the dilemna of terrorism. Either talks that end the killing. Or terrorists die or, if possible, are imprisoned. Every other discussion, very much like debating the desirability of the Holocaust, is specious. People threaten the people I care about, they either are imprisoned or die. And political negotiations are a means of ending that ugliness and facilitating justice.
We don't end it, the murder goes on. I want people to live. And I care more about the people than to causes that are supposedly on their behalf.
Ben
Runners
I've been running for 39 years, 7 marathons.
Unarticulated thoughts aren't really clear thoughts. One reason for writing is to find out what one thinks. Maybe that's why there are so many blogs.
From a readers POV, blogs are a klunky substitute for BBS's where a reader's post can become a thread for further discussion. On a blog, reader posts are always secondary to the blog owner's whim, his decision of what content is important. On a BBS, just by posting, readers choose what's important. Good comments attract comments on the comment, etc.. Blogs will eventually go away because the blog format satisfies no one. Every good blog post has too few readers to reward the effort of the blog owner to put it forward. Readers get no reward for good postings because they have even fewer readers, probably only the blog owner himself. Die, blog format, die.
For a different spin on blogging, this comment from postmodernhousewife in The Happiness Project. I posted a comment to her page.
For a different spin on torture, beselfish's 3 pages of comment in the Washington Post, (there's a pony in there somewhere). Or, as a Green Beret runner-friend put it, 'If it's fighting, no rules. If there are rules, it's games.'
One of anonymous's regular reads
Brad DeLong, Professor of Economics at U.C Berkeley
''John Edwards... [makes what] seems like an important point:
But there is a difference between doing everything in our power to keep America safe and a reckless, belligerent policy that actually makes us less safe. The preventive war doctrine was a stunning departure from the policy that had kept America safe during both world wars and during the Cold War. It is wrong on the merits, wrong on the morals, and wrong for America.
Interesting Comments, too.
Good, anonymous. So you must be clear, surely, at this point, that what makes the difference between someone who runs a marathon and someone who doesn't is that the one chooses to do it and the other doesn't. It's really not all that complicated, really.
Yeah, that's what publishing is for. My book is tentatively titled The Limits of Power. You and everyone else will be able to check it out as soon as I finish it. In addition to the empirical work and a philosophical discussion of law, power, morality, and freedom, I'll be discussing my theoretical policy work around principles I've called least possible necessary aggression. You'll have a chance to check it out when I finish it up.
Most people ignore the rules, anonymous, contrary to so much of the propaganda, these days. That's actually a central thesis in my work. The rules discussion should be based on an empirical analysis of what people actually do, not just what people say they do.
And, yet, though they ignore the rules, they are still accountable to an empirical morality about their behavior. Torture is wrong, except in the most limited of scenarios when all other means have been used and the threat is imminent. Murder and terrorism, as you argue rightly in an earlier comment on that Washington Post list you linked to, by definition, is always wrong, no exceptions. So I don't fuck with equivocations on either, but neither deserves equivocation.
And your reasoning around why there is no distinctions around the amount of force used or needed while engaged militarily is exactly why I wrote my work. Because when you argue that, there is no distinction between your argument and Hitler's. Hitler just took his seriously.
And that is exactly what my work is meant to address.
There's a reason why we won WWII, anonymous. And it wasn't because we were as brutal as Hitler. Quite the opposite. It was because our decency gave us more to fight for.
"Torture is wrong, except in the most limited of scenarios when all other means have been used and the threat is imminent."
...and warranted. Meaning, it can't be torture because my Big Mac is getting cold, obviously. Someone's life needs to be at stake.
Ben: There's a reason why we won WWII, anonymous. And it wasn't because we were as brutal as Hitler. Quite the opposite. It was because our decency gave us more to fight for.
Ben, you need to read 'The Fall of Berlin, 1945,' by Antony Beevor. In battle the Russians were certainly as brutal as Hitler. For the Russian soldier, as for the German, the choice was between the enemy in front or the officer with a pistol behind. Germany lost the war because she was a small country of limited physical resources (especially oil), and population (troops), that had bitten off much more than she could possibly chew. In the end, as always, God was on the side of the bigger battalions.
"Why Is Torture The Worst Interrogation Method?" The first answer: "Produces Unreliable Information." More.
A SERE school graduate confirmed this. After 4 hours of interrogation, Stockholm Syndrome works better.
Shortly after the end of WWII, a British Col. said that 'the Geneva Convention was a dangerous piece of fiction because it implied that war could be civilized - it can't.'
I'm not sure that there's anything to be learned from studying war except that it's a bad choice if there are any other options.
Post a Comment