:
Published on Tuesday, September 25, 2001 in the Chicago Tribune A Widow's Plea for Non-Violence by Amber Amundson My husband, Craig Scott Amundson, of the U.S. Army lost his life in the line of duty at the Pentagon on Sept. 11 as the world looked on in horror and disbelief.
Losing my 28-year-old husband and father of our two young children is a terrible and painful experience.
His death is also part of an immense national loss and I am comforted by knowing so many share my grief.
But because I have lost Craig as part of this historic tragedy, my anguish is compounded exponentially by fear that his death will be used to justify new violence against other innocent victims.
I have heard angry rhetoric by some Americans, including many of our nation's leaders, who advise a heavy dose of revenge and punishment. To those leaders, I would like to make clear that my family and I take no comfort in your words of rage. If you choose to respond to this incomprehensible brutality by perpetuating violence against other innocent human beings, you may not do so in the name of justice for my husband. Your words and imminent acts of revenge only amplify our family's suffering, deny us the dignity of remembering our loved one in a way that would have made him proud, and mock his vision of America as a peacemaker in the world community.
Craig enlisted in the Army and was proud to serve his county. He was a patriotic American and a citizen of the world. Craig believed that by working from within the military system he could help to maintain the military focus on peacekeeping and strategic planning--to prevent violence and war. For the last two years Craig drove to his job at the Pentagon with a "visualize world peace" bumper sticker on his car. This was not empty rhetoric or contradictory to him, but part of his dream. He believed his role in the Army could further the cause of peace throughout the world.
Craig would not have wanted a violent response to avenge his death. And I cannot see how good can come out of it. We cannot solve violence with violence. Mohandas Gandhi said, "An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind." We will no longer be able to see that we hold the light of liberty if we are blinded by vengeance, anger and fear. I ask our nation's leaders not to take the path that leads to more widespread hatreds--that make my husband's death just one more in an unending spiral of killing.
I call on our national leaders to find the courage to respond to this incomprehensible tragedy by breaking the cycle of violence. I call on them to marshal this great nation's skills and resources to lead a worldwide dialogue on freedom from terror and hate.
I do not know how to begin making a better world: I do believe it must be done, and I believe it is our leaders' responsibility to find a way. I urge them to take up this challenge and respond to our nation's and my personal tragedy with a new beginning that gives us hope for a peaceful global community.
Amber Amundson is the wife of the late Craig Scott Amundson, an enlisted specialist in the Army.
It is a very hard, sad truth, but it is the truth -- it is either us or them. They have left us with no alternative.
:
While I agree that revenge is wrong, any terrorist attack that goes unanswered, is an open invitation to any and all other terrorist group to come to America and do more of the same.
Amber obviously missed the UN forum on Racism, the joke that it was.
I'm sorry. I'm hard of hearing. Did she say -
"VISUALIZE WHIRLED PEAS" ???
Another favorite spinoff bumper sticker of mine is :
"VISUALIZE NO LIBERALS"
As Gingrich said tonite, "The only thing that allowed Gandhi to preach non-violence so long was he was up against the Brits, if he was up against Hitler, he would have been killed."
Come to think of it, he killed wasn't he? Guess non-violence ain't too healthy.
I have heard angry rhetoric by some Americans, including many of our nation's leaders, who advise a heavy dose of revenge and punishment. To those leaders, I would like to make clear that my family and I take no comfort in your words of rage. If you choose to respond to this incomprehensible brutality by perpetuating violence against other innocent human beings, you may not do so in the name of justice for my husband.
I am sad, Mrs. Amundson, that your husband died.
And I am also sad that you had no understanding of the eloquent words spoken by our nation's leaders at the prayer service in D.C. as well as other places. Let me assure you that 100's of millions of your fellow grieving Americans also heard the same words, but unlike you, none of them ever heard any call to arms against the "innocent human beings" whose lives you are fearing for. The rest of us all heard a call to action against people who cannot in any way, shape or form be described by that phrase.
And lastly, Mrs. Amundson, I am very, very sad for your published letter, because it can and likely WILL be used by America's enemies against her. They will know how to put it to good use. At the time of your husband's death, he had NOT died in vain. He gave his life for his country, and it WAS NOT in vain. So what makes me the saddest of all is that it is very possible that with just a few strokes of your pen and a 34 cent postage stamp, you have transformed your husband's death into something entirely different - into a call to arms against America by her enemies. I certainly hope that it is NOT the case! But if it is, it would be unspeakably sad ... for a grieving widow to inadvertently transform the meaning of her husband's death into the case where he DID die in vain. That would be the saddest, cruelest irony of all!!
He also suggested that the Jews commit mass suicide and present their throats to Hitler.
With all due respect and condolences to this poor widow, I have a couple of things to say:
1. We are citizens of the United States of America before we are citizens of the world.
2. IMO, it isn't very realistic for an enlisted man to think that he is high enough to effect real change in the military. Armies are meant to fight, not wage peace. Not many would look at his uniform and assume he's bringing a bouquet of flowers
3. Osama ain't visualizin' world peace- if he were, her husband would likely still be alive.
I'm sick of this nonsense. It is the stuff of illogic and bad poetry. Nothing more.
Violence "solves" violence each and every day. When a police officer uses violence to reclaim a purse from a mugger that was taken by violence, violence has indeed "solved" that violence, and righted a wrong. When a sharphooter kills a crazed gunman who is about to claim another victim, violence has again "solved" violence. People who spout this inane mantra are only avoiding making a series of difficult moral and practical judgements. When applied reflexively, it approaches a form of cowardice - and betrays a failure in discerning the difference between physical equivalence and moral equivalence.
Gandhi was successful in most ways, but invoking his methods in support of a "nonviolent approach" implies that his opponents, with whom these methods found success, were exactly the same as our opponents are today.
They are not.
Adolf Hitler would have crushed Gandhi without a second thought. Had Gandhi been a Jew during the Holocaust, his methods would have earned not even an asterisk in the pages of history. We'd likely never even have known his name.
Similarly, the men we deal with now have demonstrated with horrific clarity their thirst for the blood of innocents. If any pacifist thinks that our making flowery overtures to the "better natures" of these men will do anything but invite more American suffering and death, he'd might as well be smoking crack. At least then he'd have an excuse for taking such dizzying license with reality.
And the terrorists' grievances (the American "guilt" we are treated to) are relevant in shaping our violence against them only if one is willing to legitimize the position that our 7,000 dead were not, in fact, innocent lives lost. Any calculus that even considers the those "grievances" is invalid without a necessary assignment of guilt to our dead. Anyone who argues otherwise is simply being dishonest, and attempting to straddle sympathy and blame, innocence and guilt. The deliberate taking of a life is either justified or it is not. It cannot be half-justified, if the idea of innocence is to retain any useful meaning.
We are now, as a nation, that sharpshooter atop the tower, training our sights on the crazed gunman who has already murdered many below. I have no doubt we will take the best aim possible, and avoid hitting innocent bystanders. But if we never shoot, he will kill again.
And pacifism demands we put down our rifle.
No thanks.
An eyes for free for the taking makes the whole world Dachau
Nope -- we intend to engage in violence against guilty human beings. The blood is on their hands, and theirs alone. If any innocents get caught in the crossfire, that too is entirely their fault: it was their choice to use the general population as human shields instead of surrendering or fighting honorably.
President Bush has a most capable cabinet to assist him in his quest to end this subversion of our freedom. Had our Founding Fathers taken on this pacifist attitude, we would not be here today.
I disagree with your analogy. That woman's husband obviously believed in protecting our country or he would not have been in the armed forces. In a way, she disgraces his honor!
Craig was, evidently, useful only for carrying water. Why didn't he join the Peace Corps?