Supporting a sacrilegious sanctuary, scientific society, and solace for Southern secularists.

Misanthropic posted a letter he received via e-mail on his blog.  He described the letter as "thought-provoking" and seemed to find its sentiment valuable enough to post on his blog.  So I read the letter.  And I thought about the letter.  I must confess that I found it to be something of a disappointment.  Perhaps you'll disagree with me, but I thought I would share a few highlights and my thoughts on them. 

Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we
know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes
WWII).

This sounds a bit overzealous to me.  I don't believe I would consider terrorism the most serious threat to our existence.  The author of the letter makes a point about terrorist attacks beginning in 1979.  Which, if my math is correct, means that the terrorists have been aggressively engaged with us for around 27 years or more.  And after 27 years of aggression, how much harm have they actually accomplished?  Not to diminish in any way the horrific nature of the 9/11 attacks, but they were more effective in terms of propaganda than in actual damage to our infrastructure.

2. Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms.  The attacks
happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush
1, Clinton and Bush 2.  We cannot fault either the Republicans or
Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or
their immediate predecessor, President Ford.

The tedious mendacity of this response or any of its variations to the question of why we were attacked is really beginning to grind my grits.  It is possibly the most juvenile rhetorical answer I have heard to what is truly an important question.  By saying they hate our success or hate our freedom, the author is completely discounting most of our history of involvement with the region and refusing any responsibility or accountability due our decisions, policies, and interaction.  What about British colonialism?  What about the establishment of Israel resulting in the displacement of Palestinians? What about continued American preferential treatment of Israel throughout wars and conflicts in the region?  What about American support of the Shah in Iran?  What about American support of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan?  What about American support of Saddam Hussein?  What about Iran-Contra which led to U.S. support of both sides during the Iran-Iraq war?  What about American support of dictatorial regimes when convenient?  What about American support of corrupt regimes that keep the oil flowing?  What about American hypocrisy about bringing democracy to the people of the region while simultaneously supporting totalitarian regimes in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and undermining democratically elected leaders that don't fit our interests?  What about pre-emptive warfare as a policy?  What about civilians killed during conflicts?  What about encouraging Shiite rebels and abandoning them when Saddam attacked? 

You may be able to rationalize all of these decisions.  You may even accept some are justified.  Regardless of their necessity or justification, these all provide scenarios which reasonably could be expected to generate suspicion, anger, or hate toward the West in general and the U.S. inparticular.  Imagine if someone else was king of the hill for a moment.  Many people get bent out of shape at the suggestion of attempts to follow U.N. resolutions and rules to improve U.S. standing in the global community even if it does not directly or immediately favor U.S. goals.  Imagine if another nation threatened us with sanctions,  military engagement, or even regime change if our objectives, our goals based on the best interest of our nation, did not always line up with theirs.  Their objectives take precedent.  Can you imagine a little resentment?  Yet, when we operate from the other end of this scenario and encounter this resentment, the talking heads and pundits want to shout out some self-righteous, ideological, rhetorical horse shit about how they hate our freedoms.  I'm not necessarily advocating a change to all of our policies.  I'm not even commenting on the morality of American policy decisions.  I'm just saying that any responsible adult will accept the consequences of their actions and any responsible citizen will acknowledge and accept the consequences of the actions of their nation.

3. Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

In each case of what?  In each case of Islamic terrorism?  Well of course each case of Islamic terrorism was carried out by Muslims.  Thus it is Islamic terrorism.  Each case of terrorism in the U.S., however, is not Islamic terrorism.  See also Unibomber, Abortion Clinic bombings, Atlanta Olympics bombings, Columbine High School, and Timothy McVey.

1. Can we lose this war?

2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions:

Good start.  Good, thought-provoking questions.

We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the
major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom
the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?

Ok.  So we can lose it by not knowing what it means to lose.  I tend to think that I would know losing a war if I saw it, but I'm willing to give the benefit of any doubt.

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war
means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about
our business, like post-Vietnam.  This is as far from the truth as one
can get.

I agree!  I have always thought that realizing a mistake and changing direction is a good idea.  You may not be able to claim victory, but I wouldn't call a change in strategy or even an ill-gone battle equal to losing the war.  Wait...are we talking about the war in Iraq or the War on Terror?  Contrary to our illustrious leader, they are separate issues. Since Iraq was not a haven for terrorists prior to invasion, nor did Saddam possess wmd's, I will not accept a pre-emptive strike, invading a sovereign nation, causing popular unrest that results in increased incidents of terror, including the establishment of terrorist strongholds in a nation formerly denied to them a justification for then declaring that it is part of the war on terror.  It's like a fire in an apartment building during which a couple of fireman rush in and one says, "I think the fire is on the fifth floor".  Whereupon, they rush to the 5th floor only to discover that they are incorrect.  The fireman then lights a match, throws it on some flammable curtains, and declares that they are now justified in bringing their hose to the fifth floor.  So no, like our President said, Iraq is one battle in the War on Terror.  We can concede the battle without losing the war.

What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world.  The attacks
will not subside, but rather will steadily increase.  Remember, they
want us dead, not just quiet.  If they had just wanted us quiet, they
would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us,
over the past 18 years.  The plan was, clearly, for terrorists to
attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.

That really depends on perspective doesn't it.  How does one define the "premier country" in the world?  Militarily?  Economically?  Ethically?  Militarily, leaving Iraq barely scratches our prestige.  Why?  As Dennis Leary put so eloquently, two words- Nuclear fucking Weapons.  No matter what happens, we are still a nation with 10,000 nuclear warheads on long range missles.  It takes a lot to neuter that.

This is war!  For the duration, we are going to have to give up some
of the civil rights we have become accustomed to.  We had better be
prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most
certainly lose all of them permanently.

In which case we are supporting the terrorists right?  After all, everyone says they hate our freedom and want to change the way we live through fear and intimidation.  So, you're telling us the solution is to be afraid and be ready to change the way we live and be ready to give up our freedoms.  Sounds like the author and Osama share a wavelength.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media
regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies
best what I am saying.  We have recently had an issue, involving the
treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our
military police.  These are the type prisoners who just a few months
ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their
hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own
people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.

This goes to the core of our values.  What separates a soldier from a terrorist?  Ask yourself that the next time you hear someone advocating torture or complaining that too much is being made over interrogation techniques.  Principles are the core of what America stands for, not military prowess, not economic dominance, not even the lives of her people, because even those have been sacrificed for the principles of equality, justice, liberty.

Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels!
That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in theUnited States,
but throughout the world.  We are the last bastion of defense.

And you know...they are doing a piss-poor job of it.  Or were before Iraq anyway.  Sure, they killed 3000 people on 9/11.  Scientists at the EPA project at least that many Americans will die every year from soot related illnesses due to the Bush Administrations failure to have the EPA implement the latest recommendations for levels of soot allowed into the atmosphere. 

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some
external military force.   Instead, they give their freedoms away,
politically correct piece by politically correct piece.

Is it just me, or does this not go back to exactly what he was talking about earlier?  Democracies don't have their freedoms taken by some external military force?  They give their freedoms away piece by piece?  Ok.  So  the Muslim goal is to take away our freedom so they can kill us but they don't use military force to take those freedoms away.  What?  From reading this I think the best way to keep our freedom is to not give it away like the author earlier advocated  through slow erosion of rights of privacy, habeous corpus, etc...  That way we don't give it away, the terrorists can't subdue us, and we live.  Are you sure this author wasn't a terrorist in disguise?

In any case.  I found the letter had one or two points, but it started off juvenile and finished incoherent.  I hope that it is a hoax.  Unfortunately, I sometimes think this addled way of viewing the situation is the way many in our current administration view it.

Till next time,
The Southern Fried Skeptic

P.S.  Good Riddence to Rumsfeld