Letters and Lines in the Sand

With President Barack Obama sending a letter to Iraq's Shiite cleric, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani,

American myths can be so dangerous. They are often taken out of context and revised. They are changed for the convenience of a self-righteous and us versus them kind of mentality, says Dallas Darling.

trying to persuade him to assist the country's divided political leaders to form a new government, it evoked other letters and lines drawn in the sand. The highly official and presidential letter, which was received by Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani follows a visit by Vice President Joe Biden who met with several of Iraqi political parties in trying to resolve the nation's political impasse. As the US starts to withdraw some of its combat brigades and with Iraq's legislation stalled due to no clear majority, President Obama is anxious to avert increasing tensions and political violence.

Deeply engrained in America's psycho-social imagination is the concept of drawing lines in the sand. Beginning with the Texan commander of the Alamo, Colonel William Travis, during Texas' secession movement from Mexico, which was over the issue of slavery, his forces were outnumbered and his pleas for reinforcements went unanswered. Supposedly, Travis drew a line in the sand asking for volunteers to step over it to say and fight. If not, they would be granted safe passage by Mexico's leader Santa Anna. The line in the sand legend and image became popular in American folklore and literature. It is often used to indicate a willingness to fight to the death, if need be.

The line in the sand also fits nicely into America's historical tapestry, specifically regarding its dualistic good versus evil, us versus them, and either-or thinking. This phrase and type of diplomacy has also been used a number of times in dealing with Middle Eastern nations. Leading-up to the pre-emptive war against Iraq and its alleged weapons program, former President George W. Bush said, "When we say 'This is where I draw the line,' we are of course laying down a definite limit beyond which we refuse to go." His father, President George H.W. Bush, threatened Saddam Hussein of Iraq "not to cross the line in the sand" after invading Kuwait. This time, it was in reference to Saudi Arabia and US oil interests.

So far, President Obama has used this war-like phrase only in regards to President Bush's tax cuts and increased military expenditures. Under Bush's Administration, the working classes suffered while the national debt ballooned. After years of pre-emptive wars and endless lies and military occupations, then, it was a welcomed change for President Obama to write a letter, instead of warning to draw one more line in the sand. President Obama might want to also try responding to Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's numerous letters, including accepting President's Ahmadinejad's proposal for a debate. In fact, the last thing the Middle East needs is another line drawn in the sand, whether it be one of war or one pertaining to more punitive and hurtful sanctions.

Such a letter written in the Middle Eastern and Central Asian sands to Iran would help improve America's standing too, since a recent Arab Public Opinion Poll, released by the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings, revealed 57% of respondents believed Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons would be "positive" as compared to only 29% in 2009. More letters in the sand, instead of lines in the sand, by President Obama would revive Middle Eastern optimism towards peace processes. The poll found too that early in the Obama Administration, 51% of those polled expressed optimism, whereas now 63% are discouraged.

If such findings do not encourage President Obama to write a letter to Iran, as he did with Iraq's Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, then perhaps being reminded of a more significant historical figure, other than Travis and both Bush's, will inspire him. Two millennium ago, a Middle Eastern prophet was tested when political and religious leaders of imperial Rome brought a woman accused of adultery and not her accomplice. Having already discarded the law and demanding her stoning, or execution-which could only be administered by the Roman Empire, this person bent down and wrote his finger in the sand. When he finished, he said, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."(1) After hearing these words, the enraged and self-righteous crowd soon dispersed.

President Obama can start removing generational cycles of us versus them, good versus evil, and either-or thinking by acknowledging nations with nuclear weapons should not be the "first to throw stones," specifically at other nations who want to pursue enrichment for peaceful uses only. He can end America's collective blood-revenge against its past colonial holdings that now declare their own self-determination and independent course. Leaving open the possibility that the US would allow Iran its civilian nuclear program, so long as Iran provides certain "confidence-building measures" to verify it is not building a bomb, is not enough. When will the US (and Israel) verify to Iran that it is completely committed to eliminating its own nuclear weapons arsenals?

This is why American myths can be so dangerous. They are often taken out of context and revised. They are changed for the convenience of a self-righteous and us versus them kind of mentality. Never mind that Texas was seceding from Mexico to maintain its institution of slavery. Forget too what happened to those who fought against Mexican troops at the Alamo, and that once Texas separated, tens of thousands of Mexicans were either killed or forcibly removed from their ancestral lands. Not only did Texas annexation to the United States lead to the geographical expansion and chronological extension of slavery, but it led to the bloody US Civil War and continued to feed the fires of Manifest Destiny.

But at some point, even America's Global Manifest Destiny will meet an impasse and impenetrable nations. This is why it is better to write letters than to draw lines in the sand. It is also more helpful to establish peace by not throwing stones, especially when one lives in a glass, or in this case, a nuclear house. When Travis shouted the war cry, "Victory or death!", and then drew a line in the sand, in the end there was more death than victory. Oh, and by the way: "Go and never again build or maintain nuclear arsenals."

Dallas Darling is the author of Politics 501: An A-Z Reading on Conscientious Political Thought and Action, Some Nations Above God: 52 Weekly Reflections On Modern-Day Imperialism, Militarism, And Consumerism in the Context of John‘s Apocalyptic Vision, and The Other Side Of Christianity: Reflections on Faith, Politics, Spirituality, History, and Peace. He is a correspondent for www.worldnews.com. You can read more of Dallas’ writings at www.beverlydarling.com and wn.com//dallasdarling.

(1) DeYoung, Curtiss Paul, Wilda C. Gafney, Leticia A. Guardiola-Saenz, George Tink Tinker, and Frank M. Yamada. The People?s Bible, New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2009, p.1519.