Once upon a time - I'd like to say that it was when I was younger and more idealistic and thought that marching in the streets was going to affect the course of American politics, but really, it was when I was younger and couldn't think of a better way to express my disgust with the way US foreign affairs were being conducted - I was something of an active demonstrator.  During the build-up to the invasion of Iraq I went to protests in DC, I went to protests in Baltimore.  I marched, I chanted, I held signs.

And I found myself in a difficult position when those activities failed to make any sort of impact on the Bush administration's plans.  The difficulty I found myself faced with was that my belief that the invasion was wrong conflicted with my belief that when you make a mess, particularly a nasty, ugly, infrastructure-and-stability-destroying mess of another country, those responsible for the mess should also be responsible for making a good-faith effort to clean it up.  After the invasion happened, the tenor of protests changed to demanding the immediate withdrawal of military forces, and I didn't think it would be wise or humane to withdraw without re-establishing infrastructure and some degree of day-to-day stability and security in Iraq.  

Then I started in on my thesis research, and reading about the threat that some peacekeeping troops and relief and aid workers represent to local populations began to instill doubt about my position.  Reading studies about the trafficking of women and girls to Bosnia and Kosovo to work in brothels that soldiers and civilian workers frequent, studies about aid workers and peacekeepers exchanging food for sex with refugee women and girls, and the failure of civilian and military organizations to adequately address these issues - these are the sorts of things that made me start questioning my earlier position.  

The latest post on Baghdad Burning only exacerbated this questioning.  River discusses atrocities in Baghdad, including the killing of a young friend of hers and the recent story about American soldiers raping a girl and killing her family (Heart at Women's Space wrote a series of gut-wrenching posts about this story, beginning here), and asks:

Why don't the Americans just go home? They've done enough damage and we hear talk of how things will fall apart in Iraq if they 'cut and run', but the fact is that they aren't doing anything right now. How much worse can it get? People are being killed in the streets and in their own homes- what's being done about it? Nothing. It's convenient for them- Iraqis can kill each other and they can sit by and watch the bloodshed- unless they want to join in with murder and rape.

Just to further complicate matters, I then read this perspective from an Afghan man, reported by Vasco Pajama, a development worker in Kabul:  

For many years, the Russians tried to occupy our country. They sent over a hundred thousand soldiers. About thirty thousand of their soldiers died. Yet, they were not able to control even one province. Now, we only have less than 40,000 international troops. And about the same number of Afghan troops. And we control all the country. Every province and every capital. Insurgents do not have control any of these. How can this be done without the support of the Afghan people? This shows that Afghans want international troops here. In fact, our worry is that they may leave too early.  (emphasis added)

I was interested in this perspective because it echoes sentiments I once heard from Bosnian colleagues about their concern that war would start again if international forces withdrew from their country.  The comments in the thread following this post question and add complications to the picture this quote paints.  In particular, there's a very interesting discussion of who is perceived to have a 'valid' opinion in these matters, and there are contrasting local opinions offered.  

The point of this post?  I don't know.  I'm wary of trying to draw a unifying point from two individual perspectives in two different, difficult and very sensitive situations.  I guess if I have even an inkling of a point, it's one about listening to people, or maybe even more importantly taking the time to ask people for their opinions and then paying attention to what they say.  And paying attention to what opinions you accept as valid - where they come from, what they're saying, how they affect your own perceptions and opinions.  (It's really elementary stuff, all this, and yet I keep getting - and needing - reminders of how very important it is to be aware of where I get my information from and how it's delivered.)  And, of course, I wanted to share a couple of posts I found thought-provoking, which, really, may be point enough.

Added (because comments still aren't working, thanks ever so much for the lovely new system, Tripod), from my mother:  

I was cleaning the basement yesterday and came across the June-July 2002 edition of The Catholic Worker.  There was a tribute to Fr. Rutilio Grande that coincides with your last paragraph.

Fr. Grande served the poor in El Salvador and was a close friend of Archbishop Oscar Romero. Fr. Grande was murdered a month after Romero became Archbishop.

I quote from the article:
One year after [the murder], an old woman was asked what she remembered most about Fr. Grande. 'What I recall most,' she said, 'is how one day he asked me what I thought. No one had ever put that question to me in all my 70 years.'

Later in the article, it says: "there is one constant element in all [Grande's] pastoral work: to seek, always, the greatest possible participation of the people at the base - never to proceed autocratically, but horizontally."