GMG Ghostwriting Services - Writing Samples

Of Motive, Cause and Effect

There exists a consensus in some circles about the Iraq war that those who do not support the underlying motivations for the conflict must, necessarily, not support our troops. War and sacrifice are not just concepts; yet, public judgments are handed down like plebiscites. There is no question that our troops intend the good of our nation and the world. This is what they were told, what they had to do, and must believe in order to subsist. Mass commentaries about the war reside exclusively in the domain of those unarmed and free to question.

Questioning motive is popular today, given our tumultuous era and the urgency for answers. In the quest, there arise many polarized theories about what triggered the war; for example, the need to keep our nation safe, the desire to maintain oil productivity, to halt the potential production of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and/or to assert might in the wrong direction, while evading the guidelines of federalism. Each opinion negates another, without compromise, without rational conclusions. However, to assert an opinion is a matter of right protected by the laws and fundamental principles of our nation. Allocating blame erodes these tenets, thwarts conceptualization and transforms a healthy debate into verbal combat. Perhaps, this is why the nation is so divided. The labels "conservative" and "liberal" have become synonymous with personhood, and have incited a linguistic debacle on our soil. It is as if individuals with diverse opinions stand in separate corners of our national boxing ring, donned with appellations, refereed by an elusive "centrist." The labels conduce to nothing but divisiveness.

If all of us were to come to the table and live the examined life, name-calling would fade away, and only discourse would remain. Communication is our only benign form of self-defense. To be in search not of "truth," per se but, rather, paths to a finding a multilateral solution, leads to solidarity, understanding and, ultimately, peace; for if we are to propound an ideology (whatever it may be), by what more effective means can we do so than with reasoned, measured thought and respect for variegated opinions? Then, and only then, can we effectively question motive, cause, and effect. Only then can we decry or praise those who rally behind the Executive's categorical assertion that Iraq was a threat, that the causal nexus between the September 11, 2001 attacks and the Iraqi regime was very real and led Congress to cast a vote for war. Only then can we be critical of or endorse the converse belief that we have thrust ourselves headlong into a cul-de-sac, a tragic journey under the term "freedom," while the originally intended target makes occasional video appearances and roams, out-of-reach, in a remote corner of Earth.

In the circle of opposing viewpoints, we still possess one commonality which inextricably binds us: the effects of war, the sacrifices, the heroes, the faces of young widows and orphaned children. They are not statistics; they are all of humanity. Therefore, it is essential that we care about our words and each other and maintain ideological and emotional equilibrium. Outside the realm of dialogue, amidst the mortar shells and gunfire, our troops hear us and cry out to our government and its people: "Remember us!" These non-ideologues transcend the ken of analysis. When those of us who are engaged in both sides of the political debate acknowledge their reality (that of moment-by-moment life and death), we live in the space of true unity. Suddenly, we are stripped of diatribes and labels. All questions cease. We weep for our heroes when they fall and when they never come home; and, if we are fortunate, we open the door to embrace them, and understand what is, truly, important.