Sara Gould's article points out some of the painful consequences of war that don't get much attention in our media. And why is that?

George Lakoff, in his book "Whose Freedom?" discusses the distinction between direct causation, the guiding concept in the conservative worldview, and complex causation, which occupies a prominent place in the worldview of liberals.

Simply put, direct causation is the one-to-one correspondence between intentions and results. Complex causation is the recognition that our actions have many unintended consequences.

Not only conservatives, but our corporate media generally focus upon direct causation and often ignore complex causation. For example, if we do not intend to inflict civilian casualties, then our media see no reason to report them either. That they are a predictable result of our policy of relying on air war to enforce our "good intentions" is seldom mentioned, though you'd think this would be an important part of the truth that we most need to know in order to decide whether a war, or a military occupation, is justified.

Sara Gould's sobering statistics about domestic violence are another example of complex causation. Nobody who voted for the war in Iraq -- least of all a normally savvy and woman-friendly public policymaker like Hillary Clinton -- intended spousal abuse to be one of the consequences of this war. But as a matter of fact, it is, and more attention to the unintended consequences of this war and other wars will no doubt reveal that it is a predictable consequence.

We must be aware of all of these things and place them in the "costs" column whenever we consider the use of our military for any purpose, however "pure" our intentions may be.

"Sara Gould's sobering statistics about domestic violence are another example of complex causation."

Isn't this an example of *both* complex *and* direct causation?

"Nobody who voted for the war in Iraq -- least of all a normally savvy and woman-friendly public policymaker like Hillary Clinton -- intended spousal abuse to be one of the consequences of this war."

It's also a consequence of men choosing to beat their wives. As the article said,

"the wife of a veteran who sports the bruises of both her husband's anger and the country's callous treatment of young, often low-income men of color in this country who are recruited into the military with cash cards and free lunches."

You can acknowledge the callous treatment of young, often low-income men of color in this country *without* assuming they must be mindless bags of hormones helplessly unable to keep their own fists out of their wives' eyes...

I think that Sara Gould's piece raises some interesting points that need to be discussed much more than they are. I would also like to point out that, while there is no easy solution to the Iraq war, we aren't going to find the solution by looking at the same things over and over again - we KNOW that thousands of people are losing their lives in a war that never should have been started. We KNOW that every time our soldiers rebuild something, it gets blown up. What we need to look at is why. We (America) need to swallow our pride and admit that we did something wrong, and take responsibility for what we've done. Then, we can go to the countries we told to piss off and ask them to please help us make it right. If the Iraqi people are able to see that there is a collaborative effort to rebuild their country, rather than an imperialistic effort by the United States to exploit their resources and control their government, then maybe something could get accomplished. Then maybe we could make some headway in restoring stability, which would, in turn, decrease the amount of violence against women, which inevitably rises during times of war, as women are the ones that the anger at the injustice of the situation gets taken out on.

There is no easy solution, and Sara is right - it definitely requires deeper thought and "a vision of a just and inclusive democracy that invites the perspectives and participation of those traditionally excluded from centers of power--including women. Those who are also, not surprisingly, most impacted by war."

P.S. the panel discussion last night at Eastern was phenomenal - definitely worth the two hour drive!