![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Mar. 28th, 2003
in case you were wondering
Mar. 28th, 2003 07:56 am... Clarke's preference for colorful jackets is not a symbolic display of rose-colored optimism to balance the somber war news that she now has to deliver. She has always been more apt to wear geranium pink than charcoal gray. Quite simply, Clarke has decided not to change her professional attire in deference to the war in Iraq.
There are those, however, who think she should. The Defense Department's Office of Public Affairs acknowledges hearing complaints, mostly from men who find pink inappropriate during a time of war.
Through a spokesman, Clarke "politely declined to comment on her wardrobe." It is a personal choice, she said, and she would prefer to keep her personal and her professional lives separate. Although one can understand the desire, the reality is that personal decisions and professional duties collide each time Clarke stands before the cameras to discuss developments in Iraq. It is understandable that some feel uneasy seeing condolences delivered by someone dressed in a pink plaid jacket suitable for Easter Sunday services.
But if one were tempted to deride her penchant for pink or to mock the Mondrian jacket she wore last weekend, one should first know that a senior defense official said Clarke is "colorblind. She couldn't tell you the exact color of what she was wearing."
Colorblindness could certainly explain Clarke's affection for jarring color combinations or the tendency for her wardrobe to look like a collection of prepackaged separates rather than suits assembled based on mood or whims.
Colorblindness may account for poorly calibrated hues of red and orange, but it does not explain Clarke's decision to wear color at all. A dark suit evokes a more traditional aura of gravitas than even the most astutely selected shade of lilac. (And there have been instances in which Clarke has worn a discreet tweed jacket: black with flecks of gray.) The dark suit, in all of its evolved glory, suggests formality and seriousness of purpose. In its purest form, the black suit -- without benefit of provocative cut or indulgent adornment -- blots out individual personality, leaving only the message to be contemplated. It is, for all of those reasons, why attorneys and ministers choose dark suits when they are engaged in their most cheerless duties or when they require a towering authority.
And yet, one can't dismiss Clarke's decision to wear bold colors as wholly inappropriate. (One can feel free to take issue with her plaid suits.) Although Clarke is delivering serious news, she would certainly prefer that it not be construed as disheartening...
There are those, however, who think she should. The Defense Department's Office of Public Affairs acknowledges hearing complaints, mostly from men who find pink inappropriate during a time of war.
Through a spokesman, Clarke "politely declined to comment on her wardrobe." It is a personal choice, she said, and she would prefer to keep her personal and her professional lives separate. Although one can understand the desire, the reality is that personal decisions and professional duties collide each time Clarke stands before the cameras to discuss developments in Iraq. It is understandable that some feel uneasy seeing condolences delivered by someone dressed in a pink plaid jacket suitable for Easter Sunday services.
But if one were tempted to deride her penchant for pink or to mock the Mondrian jacket she wore last weekend, one should first know that a senior defense official said Clarke is "colorblind. She couldn't tell you the exact color of what she was wearing."
Colorblindness could certainly explain Clarke's affection for jarring color combinations or the tendency for her wardrobe to look like a collection of prepackaged separates rather than suits assembled based on mood or whims.
Colorblindness may account for poorly calibrated hues of red and orange, but it does not explain Clarke's decision to wear color at all. A dark suit evokes a more traditional aura of gravitas than even the most astutely selected shade of lilac. (And there have been instances in which Clarke has worn a discreet tweed jacket: black with flecks of gray.) The dark suit, in all of its evolved glory, suggests formality and seriousness of purpose. In its purest form, the black suit -- without benefit of provocative cut or indulgent adornment -- blots out individual personality, leaving only the message to be contemplated. It is, for all of those reasons, why attorneys and ministers choose dark suits when they are engaged in their most cheerless duties or when they require a towering authority.
And yet, one can't dismiss Clarke's decision to wear bold colors as wholly inappropriate. (One can feel free to take issue with her plaid suits.) Although Clarke is delivering serious news, she would certainly prefer that it not be construed as disheartening...
Two major evangelical Christian groups said yesterday that they have amassed supplies in Jordan and are preparing to send relief workers into Iraq as soon as the military situation permits.
The Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest Protestant denomination, and Samaritan's Purse, run by the Rev. Franklin Graham, said they are ready to provide emergency shelter, food aid and medical care to Iraq's mostly Muslim population. The announcements raised concerns among U.S. Muslim leaders that the groups intend to proselytize in Iraq.
Graham, the son of the Rev. Billy Graham, has called Islam an "evil" and "wicked" religion that foments violence.
"I think it's a colossally bad move to have a group whose leader says Islam is 'evil' follow in the wake of U.S. troops in Iraq," said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim advocacy group in Washington. "It would seem to confirm every suspicion in the Muslim world that the war on Iraq and the war on terrorism are really a war on Islam."
Several other Christian groups, including Church World Service and Action by Churches Together, have been providing humanitarian relief in Iraq for years. But they are ecumenical umbrella groups that eschew proselytizing. "We do not in any way see our humanitarian assistance as a means of evangelism," said Rick Augsburger, director of the emergency response program at Church World Service in New York.
The United Methodist Committee on Relief also announced this week that it is raising funds for relief in Iraq, but its chief executive officer, Paul Dirdak, said it will funnel its aid through "established groups that do no evangelizing."
Both the Southern Baptist Convention and Samaritan's Purse, in contrast, combine relief efforts with evangelization.
Mark Kelly, spokesman for the Southern Baptist Convention's International Mission Board, said some of the group's personnel were already in Jordan and in Kuwait providing items such as blankets, diapers and clothes to non-Iraqis who had fled Iraq. The board has released $250,000 for this effort, he said.
Asked about the sensitivity of Muslims to Christian missionaries, Kelly replied: "I'm aware of the sensitivity of reporters to the issue. But what we've seen is that, where Southern Baptist workers have gone in to minister to human needs, they have been warmly received and people understand we're doing it because we love God and want to minister to human needs."
Kelly said the relief effort was misunderstood. "People who think about Christian missionaries in terms of persuading people to change their religion simply do not understand the Christian faith"...
Well, no. Possibly this might be because some of them are muslims.
Just a thought.
The Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest Protestant denomination, and Samaritan's Purse, run by the Rev. Franklin Graham, said they are ready to provide emergency shelter, food aid and medical care to Iraq's mostly Muslim population. The announcements raised concerns among U.S. Muslim leaders that the groups intend to proselytize in Iraq.
Graham, the son of the Rev. Billy Graham, has called Islam an "evil" and "wicked" religion that foments violence.
"I think it's a colossally bad move to have a group whose leader says Islam is 'evil' follow in the wake of U.S. troops in Iraq," said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim advocacy group in Washington. "It would seem to confirm every suspicion in the Muslim world that the war on Iraq and the war on terrorism are really a war on Islam."
Several other Christian groups, including Church World Service and Action by Churches Together, have been providing humanitarian relief in Iraq for years. But they are ecumenical umbrella groups that eschew proselytizing. "We do not in any way see our humanitarian assistance as a means of evangelism," said Rick Augsburger, director of the emergency response program at Church World Service in New York.
The United Methodist Committee on Relief also announced this week that it is raising funds for relief in Iraq, but its chief executive officer, Paul Dirdak, said it will funnel its aid through "established groups that do no evangelizing."
Both the Southern Baptist Convention and Samaritan's Purse, in contrast, combine relief efforts with evangelization.
Mark Kelly, spokesman for the Southern Baptist Convention's International Mission Board, said some of the group's personnel were already in Jordan and in Kuwait providing items such as blankets, diapers and clothes to non-Iraqis who had fled Iraq. The board has released $250,000 for this effort, he said.
Asked about the sensitivity of Muslims to Christian missionaries, Kelly replied: "I'm aware of the sensitivity of reporters to the issue. But what we've seen is that, where Southern Baptist workers have gone in to minister to human needs, they have been warmly received and people understand we're doing it because we love God and want to minister to human needs."
Kelly said the relief effort was misunderstood. "People who think about Christian missionaries in terms of persuading people to change their religion simply do not understand the Christian faith"...
Well, no. Possibly this might be because some of them are muslims.
Just a thought.
Strong Iraqi military resistance to U.S.-led invaders and continued guerrilla attacks in southern Iraq pose substantial risks to the Bush administration's reconstruction plans during and after the war, U.S. officials and outside analysts believe.
The longer the ruling Baath Party and irregular paramilitary units hold out, they said, the more damage the war is likely to inflict on Iraq and the more complex will be the problems the U.S. administration has pledged to fix.
Most worrisome to one senior State Department official is the potential that Iraqis opposed to a U.S. takeover will wage guerrilla warfare after President Saddam Hussein falls. Attacks that take large numbers of American lives could curtail relief and reconstruction work by private companies and nongovernmental organizations, he said.
"You couldn't even get the NGOs and U.N. activities in there, and rightfully so," the official said. "They don't want to get killed."
The Bush administration has grand ambitions for remaking Iraq after three decades of repressive rule and a dozen years of harsh economic sanctions. From food and water now to schools and hospitals later, U.S. authorities believe they can guide Iraq to representative democracy and relative prosperity.
Relief and reconstruction are not only considered the ends, but also the means to win Iraqi support for the project. It is certain to require years of Iraqi compromises, concessions and collective will.
Don't I remember someone mentioning this possibility?
Oh, right, the CIA and the Pentagon. Well, what do they know about international relations and war.
The longer the ruling Baath Party and irregular paramilitary units hold out, they said, the more damage the war is likely to inflict on Iraq and the more complex will be the problems the U.S. administration has pledged to fix.
Most worrisome to one senior State Department official is the potential that Iraqis opposed to a U.S. takeover will wage guerrilla warfare after President Saddam Hussein falls. Attacks that take large numbers of American lives could curtail relief and reconstruction work by private companies and nongovernmental organizations, he said.
"You couldn't even get the NGOs and U.N. activities in there, and rightfully so," the official said. "They don't want to get killed."
The Bush administration has grand ambitions for remaking Iraq after three decades of repressive rule and a dozen years of harsh economic sanctions. From food and water now to schools and hospitals later, U.S. authorities believe they can guide Iraq to representative democracy and relative prosperity.
Relief and reconstruction are not only considered the ends, but also the means to win Iraqi support for the project. It is certain to require years of Iraqi compromises, concessions and collective will.
Don't I remember someone mentioning this possibility?
Oh, right, the CIA and the Pentagon. Well, what do they know about international relations and war.