Looking Back Ten Years To The Date

Today is the Feast of St Ignatius, July 31, 2013

Ten years ago I was based in Iraq in the opening phase of the Iraq War and wrote of my experiences on that day. Though I have shared the writing with a few, I have not before published it on my blog.

Reading it today made me think back to the issues we faced that summer. Sadaam had been driven from power but not yet captured.  Decisions were made by the Coalition Provisional Authority, largely US military and diplomats. The political situation that later morphed into sectorial violence was still in the future and not foreseen as a matter of great concern.   

It is too early by far to answer so many questions that rightfully will be dealt with by historians. The happenings which I wrote about that day are simply a mirror into one day in that conflict as seen through my eyes.

  

31 July 2003

 

On the Feast Day of St Ignatius,

Amara, Iraq, close to the Iranian border.

Ignatius told us to be in service for others; I think we met that test today. What was starting out to be a "normal day at the office” in Amara turned out to be anything but that.

British Intel advised us early in the morning that there were several hundred refugees on or near the border with Iran in a very isolated area.

We filled all available space in our transport with bottled water, joined our two vehicles with two British Armored vehicles and about an hour later and having traveled through the most in-hospitable areas we arrived at what only can be described as a copy of Ft Zindernuff from Beau Geste.

Much like the opening scene from the movie it was deserted but had not long in the past been the border control point for the Iraqi forces and later for squatter refugees.

There was a scribbled Arabic message dated from a few days ago asking for God’s help. I hope he heard it.

We climbed to the crenellated parapets and used binoculars to stare at the Iranians about 500 m away.  It was just like my experience years back at the Berlin Wall – they stared back at us.

Funny in a way until realizing there were armed British soldiers in our party, the equally well armed Iranians began to wave flags and other gestures to demonstrate that they had no sense of humor.

This picture shows me with Sgt Major and the fort over my right shoulder is in Iran and an identical fort. Such are border areas in the post-Iraqi army period. Largely unpopulated, the British Armored Division, Blues and Royals, patrol but the border is long.

One has to wonder what matter of folk cross unimpeded from Iran and for what purpose.

  

Not wishing to push the matter further, we re-boarded the vehicles and withdrew out of site of the Iranians. I took one of our civilian cars and went forward with and a civilian driver / translator (Farsi speaking) to see if they would be reasonable; they were not so it appeared that all had been in vain and once again we left the border area.

A few miles up road we came across four Iranians who said they were religious refugees heading to Kabala. One claimed to be from Qerta in Pakistan and another from Khormamabad in Iran. He was most impressed when I told him I had visited the clinic there (25 years ago I think). 

They drank water copiously and told us there were refugees hiding in the hills a few miles back up the ravine. The lead army vehicle along with and one of mine drove forward to recon and as we crossed a dried stream bed, there they were: hundreds of them. Suddenly it was as if they all knew we were there and they descended on us.

The Major ordered me to stay with him and Sergeant Major so we could sort out the sick from the dying. Some were terribly dehydrated but responded quickly to fluids and to a mist of cold water from a pump gadget I had bought in St Pete that until then had been the object of laughter! Nothing like a spray of fine cold mist on a parched face – got me kissed by a variety of scratchy-faced old men!

We had sent one vehicle back to round up transport of cars, lorries and whatever we could find and when they came we trucked everyone out of the ravines down to an oasis whose Sheikh generously let them stay (after accepting a little financial encouragement from us).

Under a tree and next to a muddy rivulet I held an impromptu emergency sick call.

One chap thought he had broken his leg and I mused how funny it would be to call on my satellite phone to my old roommate, an orthopopd from Princeton, and let him consult. Gratefully, I came to the conclusion it was not broken and the magic spray again did its job. Miraculously someone in our party had powdered Gatorade and the result of that to some of the elderly was amazing. Kudos to the U of Florida Pharmacy School for developing it though I bet they never guessed this use.

Horribly, the people we had found out told us that bandits in the hills had taken all their money –amazing that people will rob refugees but they are the most vulnerable. We left them with all the water and a few dollars and the promise from the Sheikh – and a lot of prayers from me last night.

Amazingly the column commander said that the Household Cavalry and the Light Dragoons had discovered a swimming hole not far from where we were –a spring fed paradise with cool water. He had the GPS coordinates. Off we went, my Iraqi driver thinking we had all become victims of the heat and the Brits and me hoping that this was not a joke.

The heat shimmering off the desert floor and there it was!

Stripping down, boots off, diving in – what an amazing feeling – in the middle of nowhere – swimming in the most refreshingly cool water that there was on this planet.  Surreal!

We left Sgt Major on top with a rope to get us out and then later switched him with another noncom.

I will never forget it and God bless the Household Cavalry – I owe them a beer.

I thought for a moment what a paradigm shift it is for them to be riding on horseback next to HM the Queen one day and permanently patrolling a very unfriendly border in this hellish place the next.

The clothes put back on; back we came to Amara and the de jure dinner of kebobs.

It was a good day and glad I remembered Ignatius on his day. We had done as he instructed.

Today is Friday – it is quiet in Amara and I am at British HQ to use the Internet. I miss all of you. Keep these people in your prayers.

A.M.D.G.

Thomas

Amara, Iraq

Le Grenier de Montmartre

 This is an older piece that sadly I never posted.

Nonetheless it is still "timely" as you will read.

As Chevalier sang: "I Remember It Well!"

 

Thanksgiving in Paris

An expectation, a re-living; It was to have been special

 

"Te souviendrais-tu le repas merveilleux à  Le Grenier?"

 

Have you ever awaited a happening so much that it very nearly became an obsession only to have the anticipation evaporate as if it never existed? 

Boston Red Sox fans surely understand this unique emotion as does Charlie Brown.

So now do I.

 

It was a small place this Paris restaurant called Le Grenier, a mottled-green edifice with a disagreeably looking gargoyle perched next to the entrance.  A five-minute stroll from the Montmartre funicular, the café sat unassumingly on Rue Mont-Cenis, just off the Place de la Terte in the anachronistic 18th Arrondissement.

 

A government mandated public notice still proclaims the building is old; one wonders why they had to go to the expense of stating the obvious but this is Paris.

 

A part of me laments writing in the past tense: it is an admission that something that I once thought important has slipped away resulting in the ensuing missive being more historical than contemporary. The reality is Le Grenier has vanished, relocated to some nameless black-hole cosmos reserved for old restaurants.

 

Reflecting further however, I realize that by definition what I write must be in that tense lest I be mistaken for a reincarnation of Nostradamus. Accordingly, this is reminiscence, a collection of memories, memories of a restaurant that for most is long forgotten, but not for me.

 

Such was the character of “The Attic”, there was maybe room for two-dozen clientele, all squeezed onto wooden benches, duty-bound to become close acquaintances before the evening was complete. Faded pictures and hand painted plates balanced on wall shelves.

  

The ceiling was invisible, being camouflaged with a horde of uncountable currency notes, inscribed and tacked monies, the artifacts of decades of diners: Francs and Dollars, Guilders and Deutschemarks, Lire and Shillings. Speckled among the money, were neckties, or perhaps more correctly, the bottom halves of neckties excised from their wearer by the Patron if he found you to be worthy of such an honor, but that is getting head of the story.

  

The evenings would begin quietly in an almost dignified manner, well as dignified as possible considering the surroundings. Food would be ordered and served and multiple bottles of wine proffered and opened.

  

The fare was good, at times remarkable, more so if the kitchen dimensions were appreciated: Coquille San Jacques from La Manche, Coq au Vin from Loire, Cassolettes from Bretagne, the smells intermixing, enhancing the passion of the experience.

”Plus de vin s'il vous plaît” was the common entreaty.

  

Strangers were no more.

  

As the profiteroles were being treasured, two singers materialized, bearing guitars that appeared, as did their owners, to equally merit the same age notice borne by the building.

Like a duet of Gilbert and Sullivan’s Nanki-Poo’s, they began a series of ditties, repeating what they had for countless nights but never lessening in panache.

  

Magically, it seemed as if a miasma enveloped the guests and there we were, singing and swaying and linking arms as if some delightful apparition  had brought us all to this spot.

Inhibitions were set aside and for a minute maybe you were not in Paris but in Rick’s in Casablanca, or Harry’s in Venice or Raffle’s in Singapore.

  

Whatever uncertainties you brought in vanished with the pulse of the Gallic songs, the character of the evening advancing with each Piaff and Chevalier chorus.

Recompense was permission to add yet another piece of currency to the generations of those above. The sanction was not mandatory, and was never taken lightly, nor was the even greater reward: your tie separated from your neck by the swift scissors of the proprietor who then with appropriate applause would hold it aloft like a trophy before adding it to the ceiling collection. No one was immune.

Over the years I shared the experience of Le Grenier with many:  a very special friend; business colleagues; clergy members of my family; my son’s high school rugby team.

  

Each experience was unique.

 

 

 Au revoir Le Grenier; merci pour les mémoires

 

 

Montmatre, Paris, October 2004

 

 

 

 

Personal Thoughts on the Papal Conclave

In a few short days the Conclave will begin and, hopefully, within an equally few days white smoke will appear, church bells will sound all over Rome, and the cry “Habemus Papum) will be heard from the balcony at St Peter’s. Who will emerge in his hastily fitted Gammarelli white cassock, no one knows but looking back over the consistories in "modern" times, there are instances when it appears the Pope was chosen for a specific purpose (es) and not often from the "papabile", the list of potentials as seen by those other than the voting cardinals.

The exception was Pope Pius XII. As Secretary of State, Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli was seen as the natural successor to an aging Pontiff. He had an in-depth understanding of fascism both in his own Italy and in Germany in the immediate period before his election when he met with its leaders. Shortly before his election, he had visited the US, something that no other potential Pope had done and was well received. Now, whether or not his pontificate was beneficial to the Church or to the world is still an area of great debate, especially as to his silence on the pogroms against the Jews in Italy, let alone the rest of Europe.

John XXIII was initially seen as an interim Pope, an older chap who would be the breathing space before a long term successor was chosen. He was that but much more as it was he who called for the convening of Vatican II and as such probably changed the Church more than it had been in centuries. He also reached out to other faiths and began the process of inclusion of other Christian denominations along with the Roman Church into a “Christian Community”. He even “loaned” the Pieta to America for its World’s Fair, something that could not even be considered a few years before.

Writing during the Cuban Missile Crisis, he implored: “We beg all governments not to remain deaf to this cry of humanity.” It became the headline story in Pravda and with his plea, John XXIII had given Khrushchev a way out.

Paul VI continued these efforts and opened the management of the Church to include lay persons at the parish level. Still no way like our other Christian brethren do but it was a start. He also travelled outside the Vatican in a way that no other Pope had done and established for the first time in centuries, links with the Church of England and other groups.

He began the process of involvement of sub groups to study issues and make his final choice in part on what they found. The one glaring difference was on the subject of birth control where he decided against the views of his advisors. Still, his pushing forward of Vatican II issues was monumental including the vernacular at Mass and a major change in liturgy from the old Tridentate rite that had been with us since the middle ages.

Moreover, he began to interact with the Jewish community in a quiet way that set the path for his successors. However, as he aged and became infirm, it allowed other factions within the church to take advantage and out of that arose the Vatican Bank issues etc. Perhaps it was watching what happened with Paul that was the impetus for Benedict to retire more than John Paul II.

Not much can be said about Cardinal Albino, John Paul I, except for his almost immediate passing, conspiracy theories and all. It also I think this happening made the Church determined to look elsewhere for his successor.

Much like Pius XII and his understanding of the evils of fascism, Cardinal Karol Wojtyla understood communism and had also been a major contributor to Vatican II. His choice was made more for the external needs of the Church, the universal Church, then for the historical and mostly unseen happenings within the Vatican hierarchy.

His works were monumental, and with the help of Jesuits in DC (including Secretary of State Al Haig’s brother), support was funneled to the insurgents’ movement in Poland and later into other historically catholic countries (Hungary, Baltic States, etc.). He became a world statesman more than any Pope in history but his last several years saw the unwinding of some of the reforms he had instituted not unlike the last years of Paul VI. The scandals that became open discussion points such as pastoral abuse and financial mismanagement were catastrophic.

So then we had Benedict XVI and it is much too early to see his impact except for the decision to resign and even that is too early to judge. Forget the emeritus title, the fact he is still held in reverence by much of the leadership, many of whom he appointed, surely has to influence the choosing of the next Pope.

The election is not a plebiscite, nor should it be and if history is a guide, the fact that the Church has grown significantly in South America and Africa will be ignored. Furthermore, the Church has become increasingly conservative under Benedict and to some extent John Paul II and it is expected that will continue so that eliminates a number of "papabile ".

Where to look? Perhaps again outside Italy. I do not think another Germanic candidate, even a reformer such as Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Austria but Perhaps Cardinal Marc Ouellet of Canada, even though he once said that being Pope “would be a nightmare.”

I do not see an American in part because of the all too-recent (in Vatican terms) cover-up of the sex scandals and the mere fact that Cardinal Mahony is there and voting even as he is been called before a Grand Jury in California.

However, the one name perhaps is the Cardinal of Boston, Sean O’Malley, a Franciscan and thus outside the normal non-religous order candidates. He also cleaned house after Cardinal Bernard Law (who remains an embarrassment to many but will also attend the conclave).

The nuns taught us the Holy Spirit guides the selectors.

Let’s hope they were right.

Response to a Concerned Muslim Friend

A few years ago I had the pleasure of heading up a multi-national team looking at issues relating to HIV-AIDS in Swaziland, a small country in Southern Africa. One of the team members was a Civil Engineer from Nigeria and we became friends as well as colleagues. As the Project concluded, he returned to his duties teaching at a university in Nigeria but we have remained in contact through the marvel of the Internet.

Last week he sent me a Press Release that he had received from a Nigerian group: Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC). titled: ANTI-ISLAM FILM: CRIMINALIZE BLASPHEMY.

The group’s web-site notes: Our motto is "Dialogue, Not Violence". We therefore employ peaceful means to resolve conflicts affecting Muslims”. I must say that the tone of the Press Release and the overview of their site appears to bear this out.

What follows is my response. I know it is long but in this instance necessarily so. We live in troubled times and as such our dialogue must be well thought-out and equally important, presented, as this one is, not only as an informative piece but one supported by established principles. Such my was attempt.

Your comments or criticisms are, as always, welcome.

Thomas Ignatius Hayes

My Dear Friend Abdul Hakeem:

 

I carefully read (several times) the Press Release you sent and rather than send a quick and not-well thought out response, I waited for the weekend to compose and offer the following comments.

 

Let me first say categorically that the “film” in question is an abomination. However, it is not even a film, merely a trailer that was dubbed from English to Arabic (with totally different dialogue) and introduced to the world through social media (You-tube). This is hardly a professional enterprise and yet it has sparked such terrible reactions.

 

·         No one that I know of had ever heard of this “film” before the trailer was released on You Tube. To the best of my knowledge the entire film has not been released and probably will not be.

 

·         From what I have understood, the “actors”, none of whom spoke any Arabic, were give other lines to say and the horrible words that caused so much upset were dubbed in by people (assumingly the producer) to elicit the type of reaction that the entire world has seen.

 

·         I can assure you that until the trailer was shown on Egyptian TV, neither I nor anyone I know or have ever heard of had seen or known about the film.

 

·         I applaud the condemnation by MURIC of the violent demonstrations and destruction of property that occurred.

 

·         There are millions of practicing Muslims in America and there was (to my understanding) no violent or otherwise over-reaction to this clearly provocative and unprofessional video.

 

I agree with the presented sentiments that 100% that the world in general finds itself caught between Muslim fanatics and Western extremists.  I wrote a blog some years ago about political extremism in US politics and how, after much debate and way too many speeches, we always reject far right and far left views and vote towards the center position.

 

Rather than boor you with the entire essay, the conclusion I drew is as follows:

 

Somewhere we have to remind ourselves that we are, for the most part, a centrist Republic and we can leave broad swings right and left to France and Italy and maybe sometimes to local elections but not in one that counts towards public policy and protection of the Constitution in the spirit that was intended by the founders.

 

I know that is not applicable to the instant reaction of the rioters and protesters but I truly believe that given the chance, the vast majority of people in our world, irrespective of nationality, religion, language, social status, etc., would lean towards the middle ground just like the pendulum of a clock or the clapper in a bell. Sooner or later they stop and it is always in the middle.

 

·         As your submission continues, it is stated:

 

 “We strongly believe that blasphemy against any religion must be criminalized to serve as deterrent against potential blasphemers.

 

This mandates some comments on my part and especially as pertains to America and its Constitution and Bill of Rights. It must be remembered that America was not just a former English colony. Rather it was a haven from its very beginning for those individuals seeking refuge from harsh persecution, from religious intolerance, denial of free speech, and the denial of basic human rights so well stated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:

 

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

 

·         Mr. Jefferson’s philosophy was in part the basis for the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the founding documents of the United States, precepts that have been maintained since their adoption more than a quarter-century ago.

 

The First component of the Bill of Rights specifically prohibits:

 

The making of any laws:

o   respecting an establishment of religion,

o   impeding the free exercise of religion,

o   abridging the freedom of speech,

o   infringing on the freedom of the press,

o   interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or,

o    prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

 

·         As such, the first is notable as it prohibits the mandating of a single religion for the country and the second goes further and allows for the people in America to practice whatever religion they wish.

 

That was and remains one of the unique components of American life. We have Mosques, Synagogues and Christian Churches of many denominations equally protected under the law and no\ne of which can become the state religion. Muslims in America (and there are many and some very well known) enjoy all the freedoms that are provided to any other American, be they Jewish, Protestant, Catholic or even atheistic. In America, no one, citizen, immigrant or visitor has to risk punishment for attending whatever religious service he prefers.

 

This is far different than, for example, in Saudi Arabia where I lived many years ago where not only were there no churches, but even the mention of the word Christmas was punishable. Attending Mass was prohibited by law and when I violated that law by going to Mass at the Irish Embassy I knew the risk. This was usually at the hands of the mutaween (المطوعين، مطوعجية‎) the government-authorized or government-recognized religious police. I felt their lash on my legs more than once.

 

It is interesting that their title translates as “pious man” yet we remember the terrible incident in March 2002, when they prevented schoolgirls from escaping a burning school in Mecca, because the girls were not wearing headscarves and abayas and not accompanied by a male guardian. Fifteen girls died. Again, extremism on its own merit or lack thereof should not be acceptable to our human conscience whether in Saudi or in America.

 

·         The third component, Freedom of Speech, is difficult for people outside (and sometimes inside) America to fully understand. For example: the Flag of the United States is the most respected symbol of the country. There are rules for “flag etiquette” and provisions even made for how worn-out or damaged flags are to be reverentially disposed-of. 

 

Yet even so, the right to burn the American Flag even by American nationals has been upheld by the Supreme Court as being a component of Free Speech. I agree with what you must be thinking. It is on the surface irrational. Sadly, so has the right to protest at burials of returning soldiers from wars. As awful as this sounds, it is a critical component of our history and custom and the cornerstone of our free society.

 

Many times it is hard for most Americans to accept some of the implications of free-speech and there are exceptions. The most obvious is to shout “Fire!” or some other warning in a crowded place to cause panic.

 

Perhaps, just perhaps, purposefully making a film or even other similar actions to cause a reaction that not unexpectedly would lead to violence can be viewed in the same terms as shouting “Fire!” in a theatre.

 

That is for our Supreme Court to decide for that is how our Constitution works. I am not alone in hoping that any action that is designed to incite violence and mayhem should be held to the same standard.

 

In America there are existing laws for slander and libel (spoken vs. written) speech, many of which have their precedence in English Common Law. I am not an attorney but I do not believe there are such laws for blasphemy.

 

Perhaps you think there should be and that is the logical and understandable answer. But if we remember the Freedom of Religion clause coupled with Free Speech, it is clear why no such law has been passed, at least has not in 225 years of American government.

 

·         Next we come to Freedom of the Press. This is entwined with Freedom of Speech but also is notable as unlike many other countries, there is no official or even un-official government news publication. There are media outlets with a bias towards the left or the right but again, that is there privilege. During election times, the editor of a newspaper can openly recommend against voting for the incumbent President or Senator or anyone else without fear of retribution.

 

·         The right to assemble has interesting consequences. The best remembered are when a town in Illinois that was home for the largest number of concentration camp survivors, was targeted as a place for a march by the American Nazi Party, replete with swastikas and uniforms. The Supreme Court upheld their right to march under the terms of this clause in the Bill of Rights – with the caveat that it be “peaceful”. It was and is now a little remembered piece of history and, I believe, a credit to the consistency of the Constitution and its application by the courts.

 

·         And the last of the clauses in the First Amendment, the right to governmental redress of grievances. We have marches in front of the White House and other government buildings every day of every year. Some are silly and some are serious but all are allowed. We could and did protest the draft and the Vietnam War in the 70’s; or the right of African Americans to vote in the 60’s or women in the 20’s. All peaceful protests are legal and interesting were legal more than a hundred years before Gandhi and certainly before Dr. King who both called for nonviolent protests.

 

Is the American system perfect? Of course not. Nothing that is man-made is. Remember that our Constitution upheld slavery and denied citizenship for such people for 70 yerars. Further to that, the Supreme Court, even as late as the 1850’s denied even basic human rights to people held in bondage.  It took a terrible Civil War to change that.

 

There are other instances that parallel changes over the years such as the right of women to vote, to declare once and for all by a constitutional amendment that all people born in this country are citizens and further that all citizens, whether born here or naturalized after coming to America, are equal under the law. That is something that is unique to America.

 

I remember living in England for 12 years and holding a position of some public prominence but never saw myself as being a real part of the country. I was told that the difference between the US and UK was that America was a country of immigrants; the UK is a country with immigrants. Interesting difference.

 

·         And finally, your Press Release also stated: The West must unleash some control mechanism on the “advocatus diabolic” within its system. We will hold the West responsible for the recklessness of its citizens until this is done.”

 

First, look at the meaning of the Latin phrase Advocatus Diabolic: “Devil’s Advocate”. It is a Christian term that is the antonym of Advocatus Dei, or “God’s Advocate”. Rather than actual human titles, the terms represent a metaphor indicative of the conflicting sides of human behavior, that is, that all people are pulled in both ways by the forces of good and the forces of evil. I would not at all be surprised if similar sentiments were to be found in the Holy Koran.

 

The point I am making is that there is nothing that I can envisage, nothing of course other than the power of God, of Allah, that has the supremacy to control the actions of the Devil or of the evil that we see in this world. We men are not only servants of God but we are also his chosen instruments to fight evil on His behalf.

 

The question for you is how Allah would wish us to act in his name. Is it violence or hatred? We are taught that God is love, pure love, and if we believe that, then how can violence and wars be in his name?  That question my friend has been asked over the millennia. It has also been prayed over so let us agree to do just that: pray to the One who has made all of us and who gave to us an intellect and a free-will that allows us to determine right from wrong.

 

I thank you for sending me this Press Release as it has made me think deeply and that is always good. I hope that my very human way of trying to explain what is a very complex process can, hopefully, bring our two outlooks closer.

 

Edmund Burke, the famous political philosopher in England hundreds of years ago wrote: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”.

 

I have every confidence that your sending the Press Release and my response represent at the very least “our doing something”.

 

With warm regards,

 

Thomas