Whether you agree or not...

War is an awful thing on all sides. Whether you are on the offensive or defensive, someone is dying, missing, away from family, and there are those who are left behind, whether they are grieving a life lost to the war, or waiting for their loved one or friend to come home. There is always someone out there dealing with the aftermath, and it's brutal.

Here in the U.S., there are so many who oppose the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and so they then oppose the military and their families as well. I can't help but have a heart for those who choose to do what I could not-do a job in which I may one day be asked to go to war.

Over the past two or three years, I'd say, I've tried to make it a point to shake hands and thank whomever I encounter in uniform or if I somehow find out that they serve or have served in our military. For something so simple as a handshake and a thank you, you would be surprised at the reactions I get.

On campus one day, I stopped by two recruiters to do the usual shake and thank, and they asked me to sign up. "No way-one, I have cystic fibrosis, so the military wouldn't take me anyway, and two, I just couldn't do it." He asked if I have children. "Yes-I have a son." "Would you let him sign up when he is older?" "No-I wouldn't want him to." "If not him-who?" "Well-good question." Every soldier is someone to somebody. Anyway, I asked them how the day was going. They said I was the only person to thank them; they are prone to swears, name-calling, even spitting. I'm sorry, but just because someone in the White House or the Pentagon thought it was a good idea to get this ball rolling doesn't mean these two men signed up for that (or maybe they did). But I don't think they deserve to be spit upon.

During my to-be sister-in-law's bachelorette party at a hockey game, we ended up sitting behind several military guys. When they left for drinks*ahem*another man commented that we were sitting behind some "joes." I didn't even know what that meant (and it was explained to me!). After they returned, I tapped the guy in front of me on the shoulder and shook his hand, told him that I wanted to thank him for serving his country. He gave me a quizzical look and turned right back around to watch the game. About half a minute went by when he turned around and said, "I want to shake your hand. You are a real American. No one does that." Later on he showed me a picture of his child. He didn't say much (maybe that's because his friends were doing all the talking!), but just that short exchange with him change my night.

It is Saturday morning as I am blogging, and earlier I was online and on the phone looking for a group that volunteers to meet military personnel at airports and greet them home. Fort Carson is the closest one to me, which is a bit out of the way, but how much has that soldier gone out of the way for you and me?

The Rich get Richer & the Poor get Poorer: in Democratic Republic of Congo (and elsewhere)

In the article "Blood and Treasure," author Adam Hochschild tries to tell the story of what has and is happening on the continent of Africa: exploitation of the poor for corrupt government or outsiders. He writes about the oh-so-now-known as "blood diamond" industry. It is a lengthy article, so I am just going to link it here and let you read it: http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/02/congo-gold-adam-hochschild


In a subset "The Blood Diamonds Myth: Why boycotting "conflict minerals" won't help Congo" (blue underlined is from Mother Jones' website and not my noting)

IN THE 1960s, many Americans boycotted California table grapes to help farmworkers unionize; in the '70s and '80s, we boycotted South Africa to help the anti-apartheid movement. In the late 1990s there was the push to ban "conflict diamonds," which led to the 2002 agreement, now signed by some 75 countries, to boycott diamonds produced by armed rebel groups in Africa and elsewhere. Shouldn't we help war-torn Congo by boycotting "conflict minerals"?

Unfortunately, it's not clear that a boycott would do much more than put tens of thousands of miserably paid miners out of work. Take the rather toothless conflict diamonds accord (which came about only because the international diamond cartel saw "blood diamonds" undercutting its inflated prices): It already applies to Congo, but makes no practical difference since the country's diamonds, like the overwhelming majority of its other exports, don't come from areas currently at war. And even when there is a direct connection between war and mining (as with the minerals sold by the Forces Démocratiques de Libération du Rwanda, the genocidaires who have taken refuge in Congo), those exports are vexingly difficult to trace. You can quickly tell where an imported automobile was manufactured, but even the best laboratory tests cannot easily prove where an ounce of gold comes from. Congo's lengthy borders are impossible to police, and certificates of origin are easily forged.

The real problem is not conflict minerals, but the fact that Congo's long-suffering people reap only a tiny share of their country's vast wealth. Yet an alternate example is only a few hundred miles away from Congo's southern border: Diamond-rich Botswana has used its mines, which are partially owned by the state, to fund infrastructure, education, and health care, as well as set aside a rainy-day fund of nearly $7 billion. A recent joint venture between the government and the diamond giant De Beers is even bringing in some of the cutting and polishing work that used to be done in London, generating thousands of jobs. But Botswana has something essential Congo does not: a government known for being both functional and honest.

The author makes a few good points that have crossed my mind many times when it comes to my own "age-old" question of buying either FAIR trade products that come with a heftier price tag thus creating more of a financial burden on me, or buy FREE trade products, which usually come from companies that participate in the RACE TO THE BOTTOM in search of cheap labor:

1. "...it's not clear that a boycott would do much more than put tens of thousands of miserably paid miners out of work." Yes, do we give them at least something instead of nothing?
2. "...Congo's long-suffering people reap only a tiny share of their country's vast wealth." This seems to be a trend throughout the ages and we will continue to see it. The question is what can we do about it? I'm not sure, because I think Americans are seeing it too, just not in this way.
3. "But Botswana has something essential Congo does not: a government known for being both functional and honest." Ah, yes. This seems to be missing in many parts of the world.

Anyway, there is another subset: "Breaking the Curse," for you to read of you want an idea of how to help.