Raw on Terror

 

This is not a war.

 

However long or short,

the word ‘war’ tends

to suggest a beginning,

middle and end.

 

How can it end, when we have lent

favour to one bickering child

over the other for so long;

rewarding Israel with supportive treats

and condemning Palestine for being wrong?

 

However disillusioned it may be,

the word ‘war’ implies

some kind of victory

when tallying up those who’ve died.

 

Which volunteers will pick their way

through the mountains

and deserts, search the caves

for what, in theory, should be shredded remains –

the bloody results of expensive missiles;

destructive toys in a guesswork game?

 

However obscene it might sound,

the word ‘war’ translates as

involving non-renewable resources

i.e. the ones who finish in the ground.

 

Technically, doesn’t there exist

an unlimited supply

of people believing in the Middle Eastern cause

so much so, they volunteer to die,

as those angry or young enough to be  influenced

can forever be taught

that the only solution resides in violence?

 

However discarded our dictionaries,

the word ‘war’ is defined

by two sides in conflict,

of different nationalities.

 

What is wrong with Western society,

that we find it so hard to conceive

of citizens all across the world

identifying with a wronged community;

that we are unwilling to swallow our share of the blame,

instead labelling their attempts to resist

thoughtless interference – deployed in our name –

as ‘acts of extremists’?

 

However biased or ignorant,

the word ‘war’ often produces

one side that emerges as righteous,

the other dubbed as villains.

 

So how will the roles be divided,

blurred as each commits its atrocities,

showing disregard for human life,

freedom and open-minded compromise;

when hostages are decapitated, and bodies

forever fall from flaming towers; when broadcast soldiers

drop bombs and racial slurs simultaneously;

while we fail to halt extradition to torture;

when, overall, the initial causes are discounted shamelessly?

 

This is not a war.

 

Author's Note

Let me know whether it flows ok, and also what you think of it in general. Thanks.

Reviews

[Hedra Helix]

all you had to do....you could've even had the tv on mute, all you had to do (4 yrs ago) was see Bushs face and those expressions he makes and couldn't you just tell, just by that alone, that he's a dumbass? I could. (4 years ago. Woot)
Cus then you unmute, he stumbles we listen and its like "yea, that pretty much nailed it."

the world and its works are insane I say.

and now theyre saying theres no global warming. moronz

;)


it flows

[aponijose]

I don't know whether or not it was yours, but I do remember leaving a comment to a piece of such nature. And my sentiments haven't changed much.

What's really sad is how insignificant some people think their "war" opponents are. They seem to act, or give the impression that they're ripping apart the lives of paper dolls. It really is quite pathetic to be taking pride in the death of another human being.

I hope the next American President does a better job than dear George. Seriously, the world is already taking quite a beating from all the "progress" our race has been making. I don't think that it can take a few added lashings from another powerful man without enough wits to remove the cover while using binoculars.

As for your piece, I think that it is a brand of journalism that is definately needed if we are to stop this thing that is not a war but is being called a war.

Thank you, Boylan. =)

[Legion]

It flows greatly. And the message is of such clarity that it bleeds through the screen with depth and precision. Great write with this surgical strike. Should be required reading for members of our government as well as those leaders of those factions that spread hate for their own causes. Kudos.

[TL Boehm]

strong statements - articulately and powerfully made. It hit home when you touched on the point that humans are non renewable resources...as war has become so impersonal - I was a child of the cold war - that time when a touch of a button could wipe out thousands.
Smart writing.

[Stiver]

Wow, what a brilliant piece. You make so many great points, so eleoquently.

I came to my own epiphany a few years ago that "wars stopped being effective when the number of people on the warring sides exceeded a million." In the past, it was effective to kill, when it was possible to eliminate 20, 30, 40% of a people. Logistically speaking, if you could wipe out 1/3 of a group's population (which is probably 50% of the male population), then you could assert power and claim victory. But wiping out 100,000 of 12 million or 50 million is pointless. Nobody wins.

You make that point as well--

"Technically, doesn't there exist
an unlimited supply
of people believing in the Middle Eastern cause
so much so, they volunteer to die,
as those angry or young enough to be influenced
can forever be taught
that the only solution resides in violence?"

There is a neverending "supply," which is why this war has been waging for 2000 years. Until the true leaders of each country sit down for an intelligent conversation, the killing will continue.

And I agree with your assessment, C, the US is complicit in keeping this war going by choosing a side. Furthermore, we give out so many tax dollars to these other countries when 90% of Americans, if asked, would vote to stop giving away our own money.

The poem is well written. Your points are well-divided by stanzas, and that makes it easy to digest. But most importantly, your ability to employ approximate rhyme with big and difficult words, which are necessary to fit the subject matter, is key. Shamelessly/simultaneously, atrocities/bodies, resist/extremists, and society/community, to name a few, really help to tighten this piece and create a poetic masterpiece, not just a fine edititorial.

Thank you for sharing this C. I loved it.

Stiver

[Anthony Morningstar]

We're stuck waiting for in for coffee. Waiting for something to pacify our dull minds. To dull our senses. We won't feel or look beyond ourselves. Not that it's all bad. If we worried all the time about everyone and everything we would go crazy. With that said though this does bring up a good point. We tend not to think of what's out there or are driving not by the media.

Well written. It doesn't seem to lose speed trying to run over ignorance.

[Rain]

Only the dead have seen the end of war. Never, at anytime in man's history, has their been a time when man was not killing man, for a multitude of reasons. I'll not get into a discussion about the Middle East (Conflict) is what they term it. This was a well thought out, and well written piece. I do not have to agree with philosophy when it's written in such an intelligent manner. Great piece. Rain..

[Jenny Davis]

Wow...I don't think it is, you put it in such a way that makes me second guess "war." I don't agree with ANY war, particularly one that has no cause other than to MAKE another nation be like the Western world...or particularly with a war that has greed on its agenda. BUT- what you said about Israel and Palestein...so true, why help one and not the other...who truly knows who is right or wrong...when death is the result...no one is right. Very compelling and though provoking piece, bravo :)

[The Archangel Gabriel]

Brilliant! Your poem seems to have the same point of my new poem (that I have yet to post) "Never-Ending Jihad." My major point in this poem is that while we continue to occupy traditionally Islamic lands, there will always be another starving farmer that is ready to try to get out of continued suffering on Earth for 40 virgins in Paradise. And so, it appears that we have a never-ending war in the Middle East that our political leaders are not going to end.

Does this make sense? To some people, it does. In my work, "Dueling Prophets," I put forth the theory that it was never the intention of Bush or Usama to end this horrible war of attrition. Bush has been elevated to the status of "world dictator" by what he charaterizes as a bold response to the War on Terror. He has been very effective at reaching into the psyche of humanity with an "enemy complex" to convince the American voters that what we need to do is support another 4 years of war in the Middle East "to protect ourselves." Also, America has spent roughly one trillion dollars on military equipment, most of which has probably gone to his "pet companies" in the US MIC (military industrial complex.) At the same time, Usama has greatly increased the amount of heroin exported from Afghanistan, nearly cornering the world market? Why stop now?

I like the line:

"So how will the roles be divided,
blurred as each commits its atrocities,
showing disregard for human life,
freedom and open-minded compromise;
when hostages are decapitated, and bodies
forever fall from flaming towers; when broadcast soldiers
drop bombs and racial slurs simultaneously;
while we fail to halt extradition to torture;
when, overall, the initial causes are discounted shamelessly?"

I like to call this a "War of Evil on Eviler," and it is up for debate who is the side of EVIL and who is the side of EVILER. Given the political position, I suggest that the most effective response is to declare a third side and to remove the leadership on both sides by military and political process. Neither Usama nor Bush has paid the price for the extensive atrocities, and I believe that 6 years of experience is beyond sufficient to show that neither of them plan to improve substantially. If they have not done it yet, they are not likely to do so.

Nancy Pelosi, our Speaker of the House, also called the War in Iraq a "never-ending war." In truth, that is what it has been.

I agree with your technical definition of "war" as "nation upon nation armed conflict." That is how the Geneva Convention describes war. But, I also find this to be "too limiting" for a definitive definition of war. What do we say about the American Civil War or the American Revolutionary War? Were those not wars because, arguably, they were "nation against resistance movement?" I believe that these should be classified as "war" and that our Geneva Convention sponsored definition is too restrictive.

This was a wondeful piece. I have argued a number of these exact same points in the past, particularly the Israel/Palestine debate. How can Israel call anybody who is captured by Israel a "criminal" and anybody who is capture by Palestine "a victim of kidnapping?" Does Palestine not have the right to defend itself because Israel has completely overrun its lands? This is a bit naive at best!

Thanks for sharing this work. I will read more of your work.

-Gabe

[Crazy Cat Man]

great piece