Wednesday, May 16, 2007

An Open Letter to Mohammed Fadhil

I just came upon this eye-opening article via one of Gateway Pundits's links, which claims that the withdrawal plans by democrats are racist in nature. Highlights:

[...]If I were you Mohammed, I would also wonder why, given the enormous sacrifices America has made on behalf of Europe, we would abandon you when we could massively increase our effort and not come close to the cost of even one year of WWII.

There are several answers, many are almost irrelevant, such as we were lied to, or the occupation has been incompetent, political hatred of Bush, etc. They are irrelevant not only because those objections are about the past rather than what is the best move going forward, but because one would assume that we wouldn’t have abandoned the fight against Hitler just because we decided Roosevelt was a bad President. We pointedly refused to allow Hitler to agree to something other than total and unconditional defeat. So it wasn’t about whether he was any longer a direct threat to the United States. No, we decided the enormous cost of achieving that victory was worth it because we didn’t want him ruling over anybody in Europe. These excuses are only valid to the people making them because they are willing to allow the forces you are struggling against to rule over you.
Others are more on point.
One contention is that Iraq, unlike Germany, Italy and Japan is not ready for democracy. I have some sympathy for that, though the evidence to doubt all three of those powers readiness for democracy was pretty prevalent both before, during and after WWII.
I also am not so sure that Iraq is unready either. I think Iraq is not ready while surrounded by forces from without sending in fighters, and financially supporting those who would resist it. If Iraq were able to deal with its resistance without outside interference it would probably already have conquered its major demons with our help. Germany’s resistance after major military operations were over was thoroughly isolated.
That is of course not a reason to ignore. Reality dictates that however worthy a cause, the costs of that effort have to be weighed, and the inability to restrain outside meddling is certainly a major issue. However, as you have pointed out, the resources to absorb the cost of doing so is well within our reach. So that is not the core issue.
The real reason is we don’t care enough. Why would we value you and your family less? It is a hard thing to say to you, though I have no doubt you know it in your heart. Europe was not only the home of most of our ancestors, the source of the intellectual, philosophical and spiritual traditions which guided us, but it is familiar and comforting to us as well. You, however, are far more culturally, spiritually and historically divorced from us, or at least we believe that to be true. You are the other, Europe is related. I have written of the way we tend to view these things, and it is human nature. Some of us see the gap between our caring for our family, country, and countries we are more familiar with, in descending importance, as smaller than others do. I cannot honestly say I don’t feel to some extent the same way, but the difference isn’t as large as it is for most Americans or Europeans apparently. Iraq was fine when it was thought (foolishly) that it would be quick and easy. Unfortunately Americans are not willing to spend 1/20th of what we would to save Europe in resources, and we are not willing to spend 1/1000th of what we would in casualties, for Iraq. That is the cold hard truth.
I tried to have this conversation with a blogger here in America who is one of the most extreme in her desire for withdrawal. I presented a situation quite analogous to the Middle East, but placed the issue in Europe. In that circumstance she was more than willing to say she would support our involvement. When I pointed out that that was exactly the situation we faced in the Middle East, she abandoned the conversation. She didn’t want to face the implications of it, but we all know it is true.
I will point out I am not immune to this, I would be more willing to defend democracy and take on terror in Europe as well. I acknowledge it, though I cannot justify it except to the extent I do in the post I linked to above. I am also not comfortable with that truth, and it embarrasses me to say it to you, but it is the truth. All I can say is that the difference is not so huge in my case, and for now I am with you. Unfortunately for most Americans the difference is not merely large, it is a chasm. That even goes for many who support our continued presence in Iraq, they don’t care about you, but about how defeat affects us. I do care, a great deal, but I understand, due to my own prejudices on this, exactly where most of my countrymen are coming from, even if I care far more than they. I am sure you actually know this as well, I am sure that even the most progressive of Iraqi’s recognize this type of prejudice amongst themselves.
I wish you the best, and you have my support,
Lance


Thoughts?

7 comments:

Rosemary Welch said...

Here are my thoughts.

I love ALL of God's children. We live in a country which embraces people from every country. So how could I not love people from other countries? This is absurd! It is discriminitory. I will not allow this to pervert my thinking.

I love the people in Darfur, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, South America, Africe, Australia, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Asia, Europe, North America and everywhere else.

If someone wants to claim they believe in Human Rights, then they should ACT like it. Not just FEEL that way. Feelings suck and they lie to you. Actions, on the other hand, provide the proof in the pudding.

I would also like to mention that it took 5-7 YEARS to quell the insurgencies in Germany and Japan, and we are still finding people that do not know the war is over! IT HAS BEEN OVER 60 YEARS! Explain that one!

Right is right, and wrong is wrong. That is all there is to it. I would also like to send missionaries over there so they can finally meet the One and Only true God. They have such a heart for God, and I am sure God would welcome them with open arms. Imagine what a revival THAT would be!

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately Americans are not willing to spend 1/20th of what we would to save Europe in resources, and we are not willing to spend 1/1000th of what we would in casualties, for Iraq. That is the cold hard truth.

I tried to have this conversation with a blogger here in America who is one of the most extreme in her desire for withdrawal.


I guess I don't see it. Where does he say the withdrawal plan is racist in nature? While we haven't come close to losing as many lives as we lost in WWII, I think it's safe to say we have spent much more money (with inflation). I don't remember if I've said this before, but the advantage of backwardness in an urban setting where crude offensive tactics are not cost prohibitive compared to sophisticated defensive measures backed by 24-7 security.

Diffusion of technology throughout the international system gives insurgent/terrorist organizations the advantage by paying less for the same technology. The imbalance between the Iraq insurgency and the military is so extreme we would have to drastically lower standards on material and logistical support for personnel to make operations economically comparable and politically sustainable. In other words, we can stay in Iraq as long as we're willing to gamble our children's financial future.

If you want racism, look at Darfur. No oil? No reason to wage war.

SERENDIP said...

Lesly: That was gateway pundit calling it racism, however, I agree with him somewhat...but I won't call it racism. I would call it ethnocentrism.

Anonymous said...

That was gateway pundit calling it racism, however, I agree with him somewhat...but I won't call it racism. I would call it ethnocentrism.

It could be both, plus bad planning, WMD lies, extended tours, refusing to reinstate the draft, etc. Insisting we stay in Iraq doesn't necessarily mean you care more than those calling for withdrawal, either. "More rubble, less trouble" isn't my idea of a racially/culturally sensitive person.

I tend to look at this through cost v. benefit. Even the U.S. Civil War has its genesis in economic disputes. President Lincoln eventually realized there was no way he could compete with and beat the South without immoral-izing slavery.

Anonymous said...

The cost-benefit analysis was obviously not done in this case. Or perhaps, what we think were our objectives in Iraq don't necessarily correspond to what Cheney et al set out to do in the first place...

A Jacksonian said...

The US, during the active war years, spent 50% of its GDP fighting in WWII. Today Iraq and Afghanistan, combined, account for less than 4% of GDP and in a peacetime economy at that. Add that to normal DoD spending and we are still not up to the Cold War GDP 8% highs seen during Vietnam and much closer to the lows of 6%. That GDP demonstrates National commitment and the US is not demonstrating it. Using constant dollars the US economy is five times the size it was in 1941 and yet the National commitment to Afghanistan and Iraq is paltry in proportion. That $718 billion put out in 1942 to fund the war would be over $5.5 trillion dollars today in 2000 dollars. Yet the entirety of funding for both conflicts and the DoD is running less than 10% of that. We forget what 'National Commitment' means in the way of dollars.

Personally I advocate this strange idea that liberated people should be helped to find freedom and safeguard it and not run from them when we get a few scratches and yet the beast of tyranny is ready to devour them whole. That is what the US was *for* and always has been after war: standing up a society so that it can run itself and then abide by the wishes of their People if they wish not see have us around any more. That can take awhile, as witness Japan, Germany and Philippines where a mere 90 or so years we finally were able to *leave* by common assent and agreement. Japan and the US are finalizing the removal of the last US bases there... while poor Germany just can't seem to get its act together.

I do not support liberating everyone as that is a fools errand... but those Nations that get this fool notion to actually *attack* the US, its Armed Forces, its Government or go after Our Allies and Friends? Why yes, very much so and with avengance. And then to immediately turn and *help* those that have been subjugated by Tyranny, Despotism and Empire to stand up on their own and help protect themselves until we are no longer needed.

Doing anything *else* is a blatant and disgusting abdication of this view that all men are created equal. No one ever expected Imperial Japan with thousands of years of Imperials subjugation to become a democracy... and Fascist Germany and Italy were likewise seen as having poor views on liberty and freedom. And the place where the West has failed in both its Capitalist and Communist guises is right there, in Europe and still unsolved to this day: The Balkans.

One does not need to posit a mythical land of divided religions, multiple ethnicities with long entrenched hatreds, and diverse factionalization and strife in Europe. It exists and is *still*, to this day, a well and truly awful mess that is also becoming home to terrorists and organized crime. Europe never wanted to find a solution to that, and the Communist brutality just put it into a pressure cooker. Now it is our generation's mess and, again, we fail. Now throw in hundreds of billions of dollars in liquid cash and stretch that out from Sinai to Western China, the Empty Quarter to the Steppes of Russia and you have the Middle East. No need for a fantasy part of Europe where we have failed.

We had best learn from that lesson as it is an example of what *not* to do: do not run, do not wash your hands of it, do not walk away. Archduke Ferdinand paid the price of neglect and a world plunged into war... now it serves as the seedbed for more destruction unaddressed as the great crossroads of cultures, people, hatred and money.

We put *trade* before *freedom* and *accountability* in the Middle East and this idea that economic factors drive people, while, in fact, it was people who drive economies. "No taxation without Representation." Notice which is important? We now pay the price of thinking economic factors free people as, if it had been true, the Middle East would be the best proving ground of it as an ideal as *that* is where the US first started practicing it. And the idea that 'international institutions' offer a way to peace. Both of those have been tried and failed in the Middle East, because America was unwilling to stand by her Allies and fight all of their foes with them.

We now pay the piper of those poor dreams of 1917 because we were not willing to commit then to standing by our Allies and freeing peoples. But that means there is no monetary cost on commitment to freedom and helping those who have been freed from tyranny to stand on their own. The cost in blood in America to do that was 10% dead and 15% fled after the Revolution and we *failed* with the first government and nearly collapsed into chaos. Twelve long and brutal years from first shot to final government...

Anonymous said...

Jacksonian: The US, during the active war years, spent 50% of its GDP fighting in WWII. [...] That GDP demonstrates National commitment and the US is not demonstrating it.

The highest percentage GDP used in military spending peaked at 37.8% in 1944.

Our present GDP is enormous by any standard. We had to invest a lot of money and talent into defeating the German war machine in WWII and have sustained our military infrastructure since defeating the Nazis and imperial Japan. Our military budget accounts for almost half of all of the world's military spending combined. In 2003, more than half our federal budget went towards military spending and related projects (building Iraq's infrastructure, for example).

If Iraq was truly vital to our national security we would reinstate the draft, raise taxes, and stop fighting for the repeal of taxes like the "death" tax which, in fact, was passed into law with The Emergency Revenue Act of 1916 in part to finance WWI.

I think this is part of the rational choice argument for staying v. leaving Iraq, but I also think, at least at this juncture, no amount of military spending is going to turn back the clock on Iraq. Especially without a draft to accompany that spending and give Iraq veterans a break from theater. When Washington recycles injured soldiers the elites aren't concerned with the outcome and the best thing I can do is get on Congress' ass to bring them home.