Amidst the sad news of the Bronx fire that brought tragedy to “an entire Malian and Muslim community” (“Horrific Blaze Unites Cultures in Rituals of Grief,” The New York Times, 10 March 2007), there was perplexity that the residents called relatives and tried to extinguish the fire themselves instead of calling 911 to get the firefighters.

Is it really any surprise in the climate of imprisonment and ruthless deportation that surrounds immigrants in America after 9/11 that a Malian or Muslim woman immigrant would hesitate to call 911? Pervasive legal threats to one’s family and livelihood will produce a reluctance to encounter officialdom in any rational person.

That New Yorkers’ hearts opened to these families is wonderful testimony to the ability of citizens to reach beyond the official paranoia and hostility of their national government. Mayor Bloomberg would do well to build on this heart-felt response to articulate the sound municipal reasons why an immigration policy of fear-mongering is dangerous to civic well-being.

A police chief is quoted, that the U.S. crime surge is an “economic and social” problem: “We seem to be dealing with an awful lot of people who have zero conflict-resolution skills.” (“Violent Crime in Cities Shows Sharp Surge,” The New York Times (9 March 2007).

Not surprising. The entire country, under Bush-Cheney and the neo-cons, has zero conflict-resolution skills. The Iraq invasion and the war threats against Korea and Iran, to name the highlights, have set a tone and provided horrendous examples of how (not) to deal with conflict.

Our children learn from what they observe their leaders doing. Add to this the despair of poverty, the lure of drugs, and the cheerleading of the NRA and some media, and we have the recipe for exactly the kind of social disintegration the police chiefs are having to deal with.

****
Addenda:

After Karl Rove “rejected the suggestion that future presidents might be deterred from the Bush doctrine by the enduring violence and unintended consequences let loose by the invasion of Iraq,” Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser in the Carter administration, said the next President “will have to make serious readjustments with rationality.” [“Rove Doing His Part to Help Shape a Positive Legacy for Bush“The Washington Post (9 March 2007)]

This one says it all:

Gen. Tony McPeak (retired), Member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War: “This is a dark chapter in our history. Whatever else happens, our country’s international standing has been frittered away by people who don’t have the foggiest understanding of how the hell the world works. America has been conducting an experiment for the past six years, trying to validate the proposition that it really doesn’t make any difference who you elect president. Now we know the result of that experiment [laughs]. If a guy is stupid, it makes a big difference.” [“Beyond Quagmire,” Rolling Stone (7 March 2007)]

Bush is quoted telling Latin American reporters, “I go a lot of places and there are street rallies. And my attitude is, I love freedom and the right for people to express themselves.” (“Visit by Bush Fires Up Latins’ Debate Over Socialism,” The New York Times (9 March 2007)

Why, then, does he berate domestic protest of his policies as “unpatriotic”?

I remember studying military coups, and wondering whether that might ever happen in the U.S., or whether our Constitutional traditions are strong enough to preserve civilian control. I don’t recall wondering whether the opposite might occur: that civilian leaders would override the military; it almost doesn’t make logical sense to ask the question that way. After all, civilians are supposed to be in control, right? And the military is presumed to be more likely to want to go to war than the civilians, right? Apparently not.

I think it’s fair to say the Bush-Cheney neo-con regime has staged a coup against the military. The decision to invade Iraq, and all that entails, was made in opposition to senior military advice. A February 25, 2007, report in the Times of London indicates there is continuing resistance and unrest in the highest levels of the military: “Some of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran….”

Debate on this topic is also occurring among military rank & file, as is evident in a discussion on military.com: When columnist Joseph Galloway went out of his way to criticize the Bush-Cheney regime in his commentary on the veterans’ medical care scandal at Walter Reed Hospital, the discussion board lit up with remarks that included debate about the civilian command overriding military advice. While critics were not in the majority at the time I read the board, they were a strong voice.

The invasion is still going on and the Constitution is in crisis; but the increasing concern among military and civilian alike encourages me.