More on Obama's Libya Campaign

This is the dialogue from my Facebook page that followed my article on Obama and a new military offensive in Libya:


Russ: So, my latest newsletter article (that I'm posting on the church blog) drew some praise, and more than a touch of ire! No great surprise, when you bring politics and theology together. (But what choice do we have? Read the Bible lately!?) I'm glad to post your response if you're intrested... http://amy-russ.blogspot.com/

Don Polaski: Beyond expressing disappointment, what does this piece *do* actually.

Russ Dean: I don't know that this piece "does" anything -- any more than any sermon (or lecture for that matter!) -- unless it changes someone's mind, open's someone's view, inspire's someone's heart... that's all words can do. From Don Flowers (in re...sponse to the article): "This is one of those times when I am grateful that I am not the president. I cannot imagine the moral quandary of deciding when and when not to intervene… But that isn't your job. Your calling is to raise the religious/theological question -- and you did it well. But know that prophets are without honor in their hometown, and often get thrown off cliffs, or worse!" Those of us who traffic in words for a profession can only hope the people who hear them will end up being the "doing" of our own words.
Don Polaski: I still think you're being really vague -- what then should we do, beyond adopting a pose of a world-weary superiority?

Russ Dean: I'm not intentionally being dense, Don (that's just a natural state)... help me with this. What are you suggesting I might have said that was more "doing" oriented?

Don Polaski: I think when we write we implicitly or explicitly do so for a reason, and well-crafted writing will move an audience in some way (even if that audience is us and the writing is an attempt to bring us some clarity). In my view, this piece (...unlike other stuff you've written) just sort of lies there -- I see the disappointment, but I don't sense productive grappling that might lead the way out of disappointment to somewhere. Right now the "somewhere" is a vague notion (and WB is vague as well) of an alternative consciousness and (pace Don Flowers) I think you have come back around and say explicitly that weapons, etc, are not the solution to Libya, but rather something else is. At some point you have to take on the responsibility of fleshing out what that consciousness looks like and how it relates to world we live in. That's where your work here is heading -- you might was well say so.
Shosha A Capps: This is beautiful and brave, Russ. It does everything it should.

Russ Dean: Thanks, Shosha... great to hear from you. As you might expect, I've had mixed response. But at least I've made a few people think! Hope you're well...

Jeff Rogers: If I focus on the first four paragraphs, I am left with the impression of the world-weariness of Russ's perpetual Groundhog Day experience (Is it 2003 or 2011? I'm old enough to add 1988 and the Reagan air attack in retaliation for the 1986... bombing of a discotheque in Berlin, which in turn resulted in Libya's retaliation by downing of Pan Am 103. What year is it? What difference has it all made?). However, if I focus on the last two paragraphs, I hear a call to formulate a counterscript to the prevailing narrative of U.S. military intervention as the solution to everything that ails the world, especially in the predominantly Arab portion of it. I hear Don P. saying, "Don't just call for a counterscript, write it!" Russ wrote heart&soul; Don wants him to write hands&feet: what the alternative actually looks like in a world of Gaddafis and Saddams and Ahmadinejads and bin Ladins--and Reagans and Bushes and Obamas--and us, us, us, because we are as complicitous in this as they are. While I do understand the arguments of each and why they are compelling to their adherents, neither the impulse toward "Bombs away!" on the one hand nor to toward all joining hands and singing, "Give peace a chance," on the other hand moves me. That's the hardest part to write, I think, not because it's "in the middle" but precisely because it must be predicated on an entirely different rationale than either the typical pro-military or predictable anti-military responses.

Craig Zello: I loved the last newsletter! It was my 2nd favorite ever (any guesses on my favorite?).
I owe so much to my time spent in the Army. It paid for my college which landed me a good job. That has taken around the world. All thanks to 4 years in ...the Army. I was in during the 1st Gulf War and came very close to going. Recently, I have questioned if we should have been involved then. I don’t know. I’m not saying we should be isolationists, but why are we doing what we are? What are the true motivations. I still believe in supporting our soldiers in a conflict. But, am tired of the same bad decision being made! I’m gaining more apathy toward politicians. Keep up tackling tough topics like this!

Russ Dean: Thanks for this, Craig. I've had some interesting comments. Most positive, but not all. I know that politics and theology and military are all difficult subjects, and I threw then all in together. I'm grateful for your military service, and stand with you that we should suport our troops. I can do so, even standing as I do against many of the missions they're called to serve... Thanks for the comments.

Chris Ayers: Great piece Russ!

Kathy Capps: What we do is to change our life, step by step, to be less dependent on Arab oil and to harass our representatives even when it feels so futile on a regular basis, letting them know that we do not support these unending wars. What we do is support with our finances things like Mercy Corps and Three Cups of Tea building schools for Muslim girls. What we do is pray and change our little piece of the world into a place of grace in as many ways as we are able to. What we do... is whatever we can to bring about peace.