partly

There are only a few times in my life when I have felt compelled to write someone directly about a comment they placed on-line or in a newspaper. I'm not generally a "Letter to the Editor" type person. Hell, I'm generally not even a "Quick note to the Author" type person.

However, today is one of those exceptions. Since this is political in nature and deals with the war (no surprise there) and because I realized that my posts have been rather long lately, it is LJ-cut for your protection.

I read a piece by Scott Ritter today that I just had to respond to.

Mr. Ritter was a chief UN Weapon's inspector in Iraq and I recognized his name because he was often mentioned as an expert on the situation in Iraq. But the name stuck in my mind most prominently because he once gave an interview to Time where he talks about the Children's Prison he saw when he was in Iraq. (Do you have any idea how hard it is to find any actual news articles about the Children's prison? Everyone mentions it, but I have yet to see a write up in a major news source when I go searching.)

The expert that caught my attention:

TIME: You've spoke about having seen the children's prisons in Iraq. Can you describe what you saw there?

RITTER: The prison in question is at the General Security Services headquarters, which was inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison for children — toddlers up to pre-adolescents — whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I'm not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace.

Needless to say, the thought that "waging peace" meant that he had to stand silently by while hundreds of children suffered, did not make me think kindly of him. In my mind it's the same thing as saying "I'm waging family unity, so I won't stop the abuse going on because that would destroy the family".

In the article I read today in The Guardian he defends George Galloway, a member of the British Parliament who was very outspoken against the war and who recently has turned up in Iraqi documents that indicate that he may have been receiving monies from Saddam. (See reports here, here, and here.) Now generally, I wouldn't care one way or another if Ritter was writing this. Nothing has been legally proven, Galloway is denying it and he has the right to be defended.

However, this caught my attention:

But I do know a few things about George Galloway and the cause he championed with regards to Iraq. I know that he helped found the Mariam Appeal, a humanitarian organisation established in 1998 initially to raise funds on behalf of an Iraqi girl who suffered from leukaemia and who, because of economic sanctions, was unable to receive adequate medical care. I met Mariam in 1999, when she was a guest of the Bruderhof Society here in the US, a religious movement that eschews individual wealth and promotes a simple, communal life. She was getting treatment for the onset of blindness caused by medical neglect related to her leukaemia treatment.

Mariam is a real person, not some political stunt. Her suffering was genuine.

I love that line: Her suffering was genuine. And while I have no doubt of that, how was that different than the prisons? Was the suffering there not genuine? What made one worth saving and the others not?

Since Ritter so obligingly gave his email at that end of the article, I thought I'd write and ask. I don't expect a response. I don't expect it will be read at all. In fact, I expect that in the next day or two we will see news articles about how Ritter was flooded with hate and intolerance because he dared speak his views -- because you know Freedom of Speech means no one should ever say they disagree.

But I thought I'd share it here with all of you. (Lucky you).

My response to Mr. Ritter.

Galloway's commitment to the Mariam Appeal and your support of him for that is commendable.

However, I feel compelled to ask why you feel that the drive to alleviate her suffering was warranted when at the same time you did nothing to alleviate -- or even publicize -- the suffering of all those children locked in a Baghdad prison. In your ongoing effort of "waging peace", why was the suffering and blood of those imprisoned children acceptable while Mariam's was not? Is not the suffering of many innocents at least as repugnant as the suffering of one? Does one only do right when it is easy and looks good on a publicity bulletin?

To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Edward Burke

I used to think that there is no curse that would be worse than the knowledge that you willingly chose to let innocents suffer. But now I think it is be worse to live in a world where innocent suffering is seen a tool to further personal agendas and the choice of helping is only based on how much helping would benefit the rescuer rather than the rescued.

Neither completely rational nor impeccably logical, but a whole hell of a lot nicer than if I had to speak to him in person. There are a lot of things in this world that I don't know of or that I can't change. But accepting them is not the answer. And applauding the work on behalf of this girl while knowingly letting others languish is like congratulating a doctor for successfully reattaching a limb to patient who just died.