Literary:
The passion of poetry against war
From
Jerome Kugan
Sept 10: Much
hope was lost during the war in Iraq, but much remains. JEROME KUGAN writes.
SHELL
shock, disbelief, utter horror. Death at its most violent and spectacular. War
is the stuff that violent Hollywood action thrillers feed on, in turn feeding
our own insatiable hunger for confirmations of life's fragility.
It's
a strange relationship we have with war. Within war, we feel the purposelessness
of our actions. Without it, we lose purpose altogether.
It's almost as
if we need war (or the threat of it, at least) to give us a reason to exist. Who
doesn't experience a connotation-loaded shiver at the mention of Gallipoli, Midway
Island, Hiroshima, or Saigon? Uttered in the context of war, these names ring
in one's ears as potent symbols of victory or failure, of death and innocence
lost.
Whether you're for or against, war gives you something to fight
for. If you don't take sides, you're just not human.
But whose side could
one take when it came to the Iraqi invasion - less of a war than a playground
bickering between two overblown egos with real guns instead of plastic ones? One
on side, there was Bush, intent on seeking retribution for 9/11, complete with
anti-terrorist, anti-dictatorship rhetoric. On the other, you have Saddam, the
quintessential dictator underdog who stood up to Western military intimidation.
Both are (or if you believe SH was killed in his palace, then "was")
power-mad, eager to leave their names in the history books of stupidity.
Bush instigated the war by claiming Saddam was hiding WMD but everyone knew that
Pentagon had more warheads than all the sheep in New Zealand.
Nobody
wanted WW3. So when American and British troops rained Baghdad with fire (watching
it on CNN more likely), it came as no surprise that international reactions were
strangely fragmented.
Governments and protesters either pleaded to a
paralysed United Nations or claimed neutrality ("neutrality" meaning
indirectly supporting Bush). Most crossed their fingers and hoped for as few casualties
as possible.
But watching CNN footage of not-your-normal-independence-day-fireworks
going off over Baghdad's skyline, it was ironic how everyone knew that it was
an unjust war and yet there was nothing any of us could do. Except maybe, pathetically,
to clutch the remote with our clammy palms and continue watching in disgust, puzzlement,
fury, helplessness. Or even arming ourselves with a tinge of defeatist cynicism.
However, that's not what one gets from reading Iraq 2003: The Reactive Verses,
a slim volume of poetry written by poets from Britain and beyond, and of all backgrounds
too - from lawyers to schoolmasters, United States Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
(whose inclusion is most definitely meant to be tongue-in-cheek) to Beano collectors.
Penang's own Cecil Rajendra contributes an epic, fashioned on Omar Khayyam's
Rubaiyat. The poems collected here, varied as they are in terms of style, tone
and approach, are linked by a very clear outrage that the Iraqi invasion was allowed
to happen in a world that was supposed to have learned from its past mistakes.
There are poems here that directly attack the powers that be.
In
Hail to the Chief, Peter Musgrave writes on the self-righteousness of the American
military. "[...] Folk like us when danger threatens/ Take decisions where
others shirk/ We are free and they are captive/ We will do their dirty work//Donald
Rumsfeld, hero, leader/ I will praise you evermore/ Even if your name is German/
Halleluia! let's make war."
The poet's sarcastic tone leaves no
doubt that Rumsfeld is a hero deluded.
Some invoke the ghosts of wars
past. In 1943 and 2003 - A Paradox, Estelle McCready writes: "Exactly sixty
years ago today I crouched, aged ten/ Beneath our kitchen table; shrapnel clattered/
Echoing down the street. [...]// At least I knew my bogeyman. Malevolence was
Adolf [...]// But under kitchen tables in Baghdad tonight/ Sit children much perplexed:
nice Mr Bush will save/ You from the bogeyman, my dears, so never mind/ Don't
cry: he must be cruel only to be kind."
The poet's juxtaposition
of the London and Baghdad bombings reveals the inhuman horror of revenge. Two
wrongs do not make a right.
Other poems question the outsider's estimation
of another culture's injustices. In Tell me Saddam - by James Bretteville, the
Westerner asks: "[...] What's your redeeming feature? Have you some excuse?
[...]" And an imaginary Saddam answers: "[...] Don't be too hard/ On
tyrants, after all, you've had a few yourselves, you Westerners/ Bismarck, Napoleon,
Franco, Tito, Stalin and Ceaucescu./ Some died in their beds, some people loved
them. Who are you/ To judge?"
Still other poems regard the Iraqi
invasion as yet another tragic bead in the long rosary of wars in our shared history.
Cecil Rajendra's The Rubaiyat of Busblar Saddam records the loss of human lives
against the capitalist interests of the invaders: "[...] XII/Come, fill the
breeches and Fire at will;/Give the blasted Enemy no respite until/ He is pulverized
- Never mind the Cost,/ Their Oil will pay - no matter what our Bill! [...]"
Linguistic bravado notwith-standing, some of the most moving poems are also
the most simple and direct.
In Brave Little Boy by Sumiah Alzeib, attention
is drawn to the victims themselves, in this case a traumatised child and the ones
who caused it. "[...] They think your pain is worth the gain/ they think
your arms have freed some souls/ they think? they think? I do not think!!/ They
feel? I suppose that they just may/ but not for you, only for themselves [...]"
While most of the poems in the collection probably wouldn't pass the rigours
of literary fickleness, the sincerity and immediacy invested in them proves that
while some hope may have been lost through the Iraqi invasion, some of it is still
intact.
However, noble as the cause behind the publication of this brave
little book is, it remains to be seen whether or not poetry can change the world.
Perhaps Raymond Tong's Silent Poet can provide the glimpse of an answer.
"When the Poet remained silent before Sargon/ the king knew the appropriate
punishment./ He ordered that the poet's tongue and eyes/ should be removed [...]//
[...] knowing that while/ even the most carefully worded protest/ can be deftly
scorned or laughed to shame,/ a silent poet is far more eloquent."