I awoke today to the words of Diane Foley, mama of journalist savagely murdered.
It can be read about and watched here: James Foley’s mother ‘appalled’ by U.S. government handling of case
News outlets headline her Anderson Cooper interview as a criticism of the Obama administration, primarily: woman “embarrassed and appalled” by American inaction.
I wish they’d headlined below the surface.
According to Foley, her family’s “efforts to get Jim freed were an annoyance to the U.S. government.”
“It didn’t seem to be in (U.S.) strategic interest, if you will,” she adds.
If Foley’s correct, our government bases their action or inaction on whether or not the proposed action furthers their strategic interests. And if so, the life of James Foley could hardly be considered a life at all—merely a tool, to be employed at will for the benefit of U.S. strategic interests, or disregarded at will for the same reason.
It reminds me of that spring quarter in college, thesis transforming draft after draft: “A person’s rightful due is to be treated as an object of love, not as an object for use” (Wojtyla, Karol. Love and Responsibility. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1981. 42.) I am a person, not a U.S. strategic interest.
My expertise isn’t in foreign policy, and by no means could I begin to outline a practical response to James Foley’s capture and imprisonment. But I do know that “U.S. strategic interests” should not be a phrase uttered in conversations regarding the threatened life of a fellow human being.
James Foley, you deserved to be loved.