6-30-05 Open Letter to the White House Speech Writers

Dear Sirs,

I recently read and watched the speech that Precedent George W. Bush gave at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. I watched it here.

I just wanted to take the time to point out some of the problems that I noticed, that perhaps you might correct before he gives this speech again. All my quotes are directly from the transcript indicated above.

"The terrorists who attacked us -- and the terrorists we face -- murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent."

Such a totalitarian ideology would indeed be horrifying. I personally have never met anyone who hates freedom. I would challenge you to find someone to stand up and admit that they hate freedom. As far as I know, people prefer freedom to non-freedom. I find it hard to believe that the individual motivation of any soldier is to reduce freedom. In fact, I suspect that the fighters on the other side of this conflict are equally convinced that they are fighting for freedom. I have done a little bit of reading on their rhetoric, and they seem to claim that we (their enemy) are intolerant, and despise dissent.

"Their aim is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyranny and oppression -- by toppling governments, by driving us out of the region, and by exporting terror."

I really like that one - "in their own grim image of tyranny and oppression". This is, as opposed to some other grim image of tyranny and oppression, or OUR grim image of tyranny and oppression.

I looked up tyranny and oppression in the dictionary. Both words have a lot to do with power - absolute power, unjust power, causing a person harm by use of power, and inequality of power. Oppression has to do with inequality of power, wherein the party with more power is the "oppressor" and the party with less power, or lack of ability to exercise meaningful choice or gain in power, is the "oppressed".

Toppling governments and driving power holders out of a region are simply ways in which social, political, and economic change is undertaken. It is, in fact, the course of action we have undertaken in Iraq. The phrase "exporting terror" is a slanted and discriminating terminology denouncing Muslim popular revolutionary movements. When the Us was formed, popular revolution attacked an existing power structure and is now considered heroic, but certainly the power structure attacked (the British) similarly decried the Boston Tea Party as an act of "terror".

I've always been amused by the use of the term "exporting terror". In my opinion, the US is the largest and proudest exporter of terror, in the films of Wes Craven, John Carpenter, the recent "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" remake, "Psycho Beach Party", and all the other terror films we produce every year which reach international distribution. I personally enjoy these films quite a bit, and fully support the US film industry's exports in terror.

"The terrorists believe that free societies are essentially corrupt and decadent, and with a few hard blows they can force us to retreat."

Hopefully, the error in this sentence is self-evident. If a society is corrupt (and decadent), freedom would not be an identifying adjective for that society. Only a great fool would believe that "free societies are .. corrupt and decadent". I think what you are trying to say is that the terrorists believe that OUR society is corrupt and decadent, or that western secular capitalist republic societies are corrupt and decadent - which is an entirely different belief, and not completely dismissible even in our own public forum.

"We're hunting down the terrorists. We're helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror. We're advancing freedom in the broader Middle East. We are removing a source of violence and instability, and laying the foundation of peace for our children and our grandchildren."

This is largely a prediction and not a reporting of events. So far, of course, we have only de-stabilized Iraq. The stability, and the foundation of peace for our children and grandchildren is still theoretical at this point.

"The work in Iraq is difficult and it is dangerous. Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed."

I think it's arguable that "most Americans" see images of "violence and bloodshed". Independent media has criticized the Pentagon over questions of access and real reporting on the human costs of the war. Mainstream media outlets in television, newspaper, and internet do not show a good deal of this type of coverage. I had to search for independent sources to find any photographic coverage of, for example, the invasion of Falluja. My wife and I rented the film POV:War is War to see some of the coverage which seemed to be lacking from the major domestic news sources. Congresswoman Maxine Waters said yesterday that she would be looking into some reports that soldiers who were injured in Iraq, but died in transport to hospitals in other countries, have not been added to the official body count. At the heart of the matter is limited press access to the pentagon's casualty center.

Of course, historically, the Vietnam War was the turning point in the understanding of the power of wartime propaganda. The history of those years suggests that ongoing strong media coverage of the human cost of the war had a detrimental effect on national war enthusiasm, which, in turn, fueled a demand for increased coverage of the human cost of the war.

To state that "most Americans" are seeing "violence and bloodshed" ignores this discussion. I would argue that most Americans are watching American Idol, and remain completely oblivious to the violence and bloodshed.

"They fight because they know that the survival of their hateful ideology is at stake.

Wouldn't they claim that our ideology is hateful?

They know that as freedom takes root in Iraq, it will inspire millions across the Middle East to claim their liberty, as well."

Again, this is future speculation. For all we know, the rest of the Middle East will view the new state in Iraq the way it views Israel. After all, through the US influence, they would presumably be allies.

"And when the Middle East grows in democracy and prosperity and hope, the terrorists will lose their sponsors, lose their recruits, and lose their hopes for turning that region into a base for attacks on America and our allies around the world."

This is a bold statement, very speculative, but I happen to believe it is true. If the Middle East were to grow in democracy (rule by the people and not by an elite, aristocracy or business class) prosperity (marked by uniform income distribution and increased economic standard of living for all people) and hope (security in a peaceful and prosperous future), then revolutionary religious movements would indeed decline.
The question is: Can the US military and US government power structure bring democracy, prosperity, and hope to the Middle East? Of course, this remains to be seen. It should be noted that to do so would be a historical landmark. Throughout the history of the world, a foreign military invasion and overthrow (of a non-revolutionary country, one in which a civil war is not in progress) has yet to result in a democracy, prosperity, and hope. No US led invasion to date has ever accomplished this goal. I don't mean to say that it is impossible, but I would think that it's far from certain.

"The terrorists know that the outcome will leave them emboldened, or defeated. So they are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take."

This is an example of a double standard. When civilians die by US activities or by resistance activates, which one is a "murder". When a building is destroyed by a US bomb or a car bomb, which one is "destruction". And, if there is "no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take", what is the limit of innocent lives that US forces are willing to take? And, what constitutes an innocent life? Is it a Iraqi civilian? Is it a US soldier?

"We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who exploded car bombs along a busy shopping street in Baghdad, including one outside a mosque. We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who sent a suicide bomber to a teaching hospital in Mosul. We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who behead civilian hostages and broadcast their atrocities for the world to see.These are savage acts of violence, but they have not brought the terrorists any closer to achieving their strategic objectives."

Again, this is the double standard, this time laid on much thicker. If the "nature" of a people or group of people is to be seen in their wartime activates, then that standard should be applied universally, and we, too, should be judged by the corpses we produce.

This, to a certain extent, is happening on an international scale. Regardless of the standards we judge ourselves by, the world is looking to Abu Grade and Guitanimo Bay., They "see the nature" of Americans there.

Another very important omission from this discussion is that of the relative strategic position of the two armed forces in the conflict. The US military is the most technically, strategically, and organizationally advanced military force ever assembled in the history of the planet. The Iraqi resistance is out-numbered, out-gunned, out-organized, and out-funded. They are underdogs in every department. They will naturally resort to guerilla methodology, since they are sure to be overpowered in face to face combat.

This is actually the theory of guerilla war. Guerilla techniques were developed to exploit certain strategic advantages an underdog can take. This is the "War of the Worlds" lesson. If the Martians invaded tomorrow with an amazingly superior military force, we'd take up guerilla tactics to preserve our way of life. It is the natural strategy for the underdog. The "savage acts of violence" that are spoken of here are guerilla tactics. Since the Iraqi resistance lacks the ability to run 1,000 tanks into a US town, they need to make what little they do be as loud and effective as possible: hence the beheadings.

"In the past year, the international community has stepped forward with vital assistance. Some 30 nations have troops in Iraq, and many others are contributing non-military assistance. The United Nations is in Iraq to help Iraqis write a constitution and conduct their next elections. Thus far, some 40 countries and three international organizations have pledged about $34 billion in assistance for Iraqi reconstruction. More than 80 countries and international organizations recently came together in Brussels to coordinate their efforts to help Iraqis provide for their security and rebuild their country. And next month, donor countries will meet in Jordan to support Iraqi reconstruction."

The international community has also raised some pretty loud voices denouncing the war in Iraq.

For example, perhaps we should pay some attention to the charges of the World Tribunal on Iraq, and their meeting held in Istanbul this month, where they listened to evidence from Iraqi civilians and refugees and made the following charges against the US and UK:

1. Planning, preparing, and waging the supreme crime of a war of aggression in contravention of the United Nations Charter and the Nuremberg Principles.
2. Targeting the civilian population of Iraq and civilian infrastructure, by intentionally directing attacks upon civilians and hospitals, medical centers, residential neighborhoods, electricity stations, and water purification facilities.
3. Using disproportionate force and indiscriminate weapon systems, such as cluster munitions, incendiary bombs, depleted uranium, and chemical weapons.
4. Failing to safeguard the lives of civilians during military activities and during the occupation period thereafter.
5. Using deadly violence against peaceful protestors.
6. Imposing punishments without charge or trial, including collective punishment, on the people of Iraq.
7. Subjecting Iraqi soldiers and civilians to torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
8. Re-writing the laws of a country that has been illegally invaded and occupied.
9. Willfully devastating the environment, contaminating it by depleted uranium weapons, combined with the plumes from burning oil wells, as well as huge oil spills, and destroying agricultural lands. Deliberately disrupting the water and waste removal systems, in a manner verging on biological-chemical warfare. Failing to prevent the looting and dispersal of radioactive material from nuclear sites
10. Actively creating conditions under which the status of Iraqi women has seriously been degraded.
11. Failing to protect humanity’s rich archaeological and cultural heritage in Iraq, by allowing the looting of museums and established historical sites and positioning military bases in culturally and archeologically sensitive locations.
12. Obstructing the right to information, including the censoring of Iraqi media, such as newspapers and radio stations, targeting international journalists, imprisoning and killing academics, intellectuals and scientists.
13. Redefining torture in violation of international law, to allow use of torture and illegal detentions, including holding more than 500 people at Guantánamo Bay without charging them or allowing them any access to legal protection, and using “extraordinary renditions” to send people to torture in other countries known to commit human rights abuses and torture prisoners.

"the world understands that success in Iraq is critical to the security of our nations"

The effect of the Iraq war on international security, or even US national security, is arguable. While it can be argued that the war in Iraq has decreased the threat of terrorism, it is just as commonly counter-argued that the war in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism.

"Today Iraq has more than 160,000 security forces trained and equipped for a variety of missions. Iraqi forces have fought bravely, helping to capture terrorists and insurgents in Najaf and Samarra, Fallujah and Mosul. And in the past month, Iraqi forces have led a major anti-terrorist campaign in Baghdad called Operation Lightning, which has led to the capture of hundreds of suspected insurgents. Like free people everywhere, Iraqis want to be defended by their own countrymen, and we are helping Iraqis assume those duties."

"More than 2,000 members of Iraqi security forces have given their lives in the line of duty."

This is an odd number to include in your speech. It freely admits that the number of Iraqi security forces causalities is higher than the coalition causalities. Now, based on the numbers above, there are 160,000 Iraqi security forces, and from the information I can find, there are about 153,000 coalition troops there right now. But you've already said that a lot of the Iraqi security forces are in training, and not operational. So, I have to surmise that there are less combat units of Iraqis than coalition. And, the Iraqi forces didn't even start to form until after we declared victory. It begs the question: why are the Iraqi security forces dying at a higher rate. I've heard some reports that the Iraqi forces are specifically targeted, because the resistance sees them as traitors. But, I've also heard that their centers are less protected, and that they are less outfitted than their coalition counterparts. I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this. Are the Iraqi troops less protected and more expendable than their coalition counterparts in the mission of building better Iraqi troops to accomplish internal stability?

"We've learned that Iraqis are courageous and that they need additional skills."

It's good that we learned this. Of course, to learn something admits that it was previously unknown. So, this line actually admits that at some point in the past, we considered the Iraqi people to be cowards. Nice. I'm sure glad we decided to liberate a people who we considered cowardly.

"Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis, who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done. It would send the wrong message to our troops, who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve. And it would send the wrong message to the enemy, who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out. We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed, and not a day longer."

I believe that Nixon said this about Vietnam, just about word for word. If the goal is political stability, then this is questionable. You're saying that the presence of US troops is a stabilizing force, that a continued military presence will not only stabilize the region, but will do so in a more efficient manner than a troop withdrawal would. This could be challenged. Foreign troops can be a destabilizing factor, and it is equally plausible that we could withdraw right now and the region would stabilize itself in less time than we are able to achieve stability.

"After a constitution is written, the Iraqi people will have a chance to vote on it."

Again, this is an interesting concept. Is this saying that the entire eligible voting population will have a chance to vote on the constitution? Wouldn't that be an act of direct democracy? If so, this plan is quite optimistic, particularly given the trouble that the EU has recently had with this type of initiative. According to the state department, this is supposed to happen on October 15, 2005. I'll be watching.

"As Iraqis make progress toward a free society, the effects are being felt beyond Iraq's borders. Before our coalition liberated Iraq, Libya was secretly pursuing nuclear weapons. Today the leader of Libya has given up his chemical and nuclear weapons programs"

During the same time period, South Korea has unveiled a nuclear weapon.

It's always fun to sell short the complex history of a country for a one line bit in a speech. What about the US Libya wars under Regan, the Pan-American bombing, the UN sanctions throughout the 1990s, the UN security council resolutions against Libya and the $2.3 billion dollars requested for the Pan-Am victims, that Libya is still supposed to give up? Let's not fall into the delusion that Libya and the US are buddies.

Nor should we fall into the delusion that the US is in any position to ask any country not to develop nuclear weapons. We are, after all, currently producing them. We have the single largest arsenal of WMDs in the world. We're the only country that's ever dropped a nuke in an act of war (on a civilian population, no less) And, in all our talks about proliferation all around the world, we've never once offered to dismantle a single bomb, or even to stop making them. The double standard is so thick here, it's ridiculous.

"Across the broader Middle East, people are claiming their freedom. In the last few months, we've witnessed elections in the Palestinian Territories and Lebanon. These elections are inspiring democratic reformers in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Our strategy to defend ourselves and spread freedom is working. The rise of freedom in this vital region will eliminate the conditions that feed radicalism and ideologies of murder,and make our nation safer."

Lebanon has been holding elections since 1991. Palestine is not a recognized country according to the US state department (so they don't have an ambassador here). Saudi Arabia held some elections this year, but they were internationally condemned as a joke, and the royal family wasn't up for re-election. Egypt, likewise, may be making some slow progress, but they are hardly a beacon of freedom. Let's slow down in claiming that "our strategy to defend ourselves and spread freedom is working."

"The terrorists do not understand America. The American people do not falter under threat, and we will not allow our future to be determined by car bombers and assassins"

Will we, then, falter under the threat of the social security system crisis, and break our promise to a generation.

"the rise of democracy will be the ultimate triumph over radicalism and terror."

Just like it was in Iran in 1979, right? Remember that one, when the people took power (democracy) and ousted a leader, the Shaw, who ruled in a reign of terror? And, what did they replace him with? Good thing that democracy triumphs over radicalism, else we might still have an enemy in Iran.

Unfortunalty, radicalism and terror are quite possible in democracy, and can persist for quite some time at horrifying levels. Ask any American black person.

"So we'll fight them there, we'll fight them across the world, and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won."

This is the kind of statement that has defense industry contractors lighting up cigars and toasting drinks.

"We know that when the work is hard, the proper response is not retreat, it is courage."

For example, if you are lifting a bus with your hands, and you begin to feel as if the work is hard, the proper response is not to stop, but to have courage and keep lifting.

"The Department of Defense has set up a website -- AmericaSupportsYou.mil. You can go there to learn about private efforts in your own community. At this time when we celebrate our freedom, let us stand with the men and women who defend us all."

I checked the website for a place to post this email. Couldn't find it. I guess I should print it up and take it to one of those events that are posted there.

"I thank our military families -- the burden of war falls especially hard on you. In this war, we have lost good men and women who left our shores to defend freedom and did not live to make the journey home."

It should be noted that those families are largely lower and lower middle class families. It is, indeed, those who will bear the costs of the war.

"And to those watching tonight who are considering a military career, there is no higher calling than service in our Armed Forces."

Priesthood, charity work, work with children, teachers, civil rights campaigning, doctors, nurses, pharmaceutical engineering, elderly care, national park land conservancy, ecosystem preservation and environmental engineering, food production for starving nations, delivering water to Africa.... these are all pretty high callings, but, picking up a gun and heading off to Iraq.... there is no higher calling that that.

It's like they say: the Army is a great job if you want to travel the world, see exciting new countries, meet amazing new people - and kill them.

"When the history of this period is written, the liberation of Afghanistan and the liberation of Iraq will be remembered as great turning points in the story of freedom."

While we're on the subject of how the history of this period will be written, do you mind telling me who will win the World Series next year?