Dear Mr. President,
I'm really terrible at dating. I'm making my peace with this, slowly. I tend to make all of the classic missteps- I come on too strong when I should be cautious, I get too frightened or shy when I should be bold and direct. I panic unnecessarily and I talk way too much. I'm secretly convinced that if I were tiny and blonde and traditionally feminine I'd have no more problems, but I'm sure that being this insecure is just as unattractive wrapped in tiny, blonde packages. The advice I get from friends can be succinctly summed up: calm down, be brave, and stop acting so desperate.
Reading through the Wikileak diplomatic cables, and reading the latest news from the non-existent Isreali/Palestinian peace talks, I can't help but notice how we could really apply this advice to foreign policy. America seems alternately too aggressive and too passive, quick to throw itself without shame at allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and completely prone to panic over Iran. (Oh, and we definitely talk too much.) American foreign policy shouldn't seem this desperate. James Zogby has an eloquent essay discussing the highly illogical (and counter-productive) strategy of bribing Israel with aid money, arms sales and UNSC vetoes in order to get them to agree to abide by international law. Despite our boasting of our military, economic and moral prowess, we seem too cowed to stand up even to the countries we call our friends.
Sure, it's easy for me to give advice that I'm too thick-skulled to follow, but, seriously, one of us should start showing some self-respect, and soon. I'm thinking that it's a much bigger deal if America keeps getting pushed around on the international stage (or making a complete fool of itself) than it is if I stay single for a few more years. So, in full acknowledgement of my own hypocrisy, I think that you (and Secretary Clinton) need to calm down, be brave, and stop acting so desperate. The United States is a superpower (for now) and we ought to remember that, and use our clout responsibly. We should expect our allies to live up to their human rights obligations to their own citizens and to their neighbors. We should not sensationalize the threat posed by rogue states like Iran and North Korea, but should calmly and rationally rally the international community against these threats. It might be easier if we were tiny and blonde and popular like Switzerland, instead of the world's police, but I think we could manage our awkward and often unlikable tasks with a lot more dignity. Maybe America will still end up as whatever the country equivalent of a 40-year old spinster with tons of cats is, but at least we will conduct ourselves abroad with something like self-respect.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Day 219- The coming nuclear holocaust
Without a doubt the best thing I've ever seen Rick Larsen do:
Oh Rick, I take back (almost) every thing I said about your spinelessness in 2006. Now if only you could take back your vote on the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act.
Dear Mr. President,
Just last night two friends and I were debating the respective cases for Kim Jong Il or President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad being the best crazy dictator. Today I feel pretty guilty for not even mentioning Fidel Castro, but even when accusing you of leading the world toward nuclear holocaust, he sounds considerably more reasonable than the leaders of either North Korea or Iran. Castro warns that it is up to Cuba and other nations to convince the US not to use the bomb.
The sentiments in this statement are hopeful and even encouraging. While I may cling to my faith that you are not in fact trying to start a global nuclear war, I'm glad to know that Castro at least has the optimism to believe that you can be talked out of it. That your better angels might be reasoned with, even by nations of less geo-political power. Considering that Glenn Beck recently compared America under your administration to the Planet of the Apes, I think that Castro is actually sounding more reasonable than much of the FOX news staff.
For the first time since we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, the US is participating in the memorial service. To me, this is a moving symbol of the healing that has occurred since the war's end; a sign, even, of your administration's commitment to a future without nuclear weapons. I didn't realize this might be controversial. FOX posed this issue to readers on its website:
Possible answers to this question are:
The poll is not scientific by any stretch, but 85% of almost 25,000 responses were "No -- America has nothing to apologize for, and this is completely inappropriate." This actually frightens me more than Iran, North Korea and Cuba combined. Our inability to apologize for the terrible things we have done, even decades later, when it doesn't hurt any one or cost us anything, astounds me. The war with Japan was complicated and horrific for both sides- I would never make the argument that I know, for sure, that President Truman made the wrong call. Using the atomic bomb may have ended the war and ultimately saved lives. But it was still an awful, world-altering thing to do. The terrible and lingering civilian toll of that decision is still worth apologizing for. Who does an apology harm? After 65 years, can't we just be satisfied that we won? I don't understand the mentality that says victory at war excuses, justifies or exempts us from apology for the means by which we achieved that victory.
So Fidel Castro may have misjudged your own hunger for war, but I am truly afraid he has not misjudged the American people's. Far more ridiculous than hating Paul the psychic octopus or dressing like Elvis or even an old man desperately clinging to the illusion of his own significance, our own iron-clad belief in the righteousness of America's conduct is the most dangerous delusion of all. We have made mistakes. We will make more. People will die, and suffer needlessly because of this. It is the cost of being a global power, and if we cannot summon the humanity to empathize and apologize and admit our own culpability, we don't deserve this kind of power any more than Castro. Thankfully, Mr. President, I think that you are a calmer American leader than the world is used to, and I am grateful that we are represented to the world more reasonably than many on the right deserve.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Oh Rick, I take back (almost) every thing I said about your spinelessness in 2006. Now if only you could take back your vote on the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act.
Dear Mr. President,
Just last night two friends and I were debating the respective cases for Kim Jong Il or President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad being the best crazy dictator. Today I feel pretty guilty for not even mentioning Fidel Castro, but even when accusing you of leading the world toward nuclear holocaust, he sounds considerably more reasonable than the leaders of either North Korea or Iran. Castro warns that it is up to Cuba and other nations to convince the US not to use the bomb.
Asked by one parliamentarian if Obama would be capable of starting a nuclear war, Castro replied, "No, not if we persuade him not to." (from Jpost)
The sentiments in this statement are hopeful and even encouraging. While I may cling to my faith that you are not in fact trying to start a global nuclear war, I'm glad to know that Castro at least has the optimism to believe that you can be talked out of it. That your better angels might be reasoned with, even by nations of less geo-political power. Considering that Glenn Beck recently compared America under your administration to the Planet of the Apes, I think that Castro is actually sounding more reasonable than much of the FOX news staff.
For the first time since we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, the US is participating in the memorial service. To me, this is a moving symbol of the healing that has occurred since the war's end; a sign, even, of your administration's commitment to a future without nuclear weapons. I didn't realize this might be controversial. FOX posed this issue to readers on its website:
The U.S., for the first time, is sending an official delegation to Friday's Hiroshima anniversary ceremonies in Japan. There is concern that this change in longstanding policy could be interpreted as an apology. Do you think the U.S. should send this delegation?
Possible answers to this question are:
Yes -- It's been 65 years, and it's time to heal old wounds.
No -- America has nothing to apologize for, and this is completely inappropriate.
Not sure, but I'm curious, why now?
Other (post a comment)
The poll is not scientific by any stretch, but 85% of almost 25,000 responses were "No -- America has nothing to apologize for, and this is completely inappropriate." This actually frightens me more than Iran, North Korea and Cuba combined. Our inability to apologize for the terrible things we have done, even decades later, when it doesn't hurt any one or cost us anything, astounds me. The war with Japan was complicated and horrific for both sides- I would never make the argument that I know, for sure, that President Truman made the wrong call. Using the atomic bomb may have ended the war and ultimately saved lives. But it was still an awful, world-altering thing to do. The terrible and lingering civilian toll of that decision is still worth apologizing for. Who does an apology harm? After 65 years, can't we just be satisfied that we won? I don't understand the mentality that says victory at war excuses, justifies or exempts us from apology for the means by which we achieved that victory.
So Fidel Castro may have misjudged your own hunger for war, but I am truly afraid he has not misjudged the American people's. Far more ridiculous than hating Paul the psychic octopus or dressing like Elvis or even an old man desperately clinging to the illusion of his own significance, our own iron-clad belief in the righteousness of America's conduct is the most dangerous delusion of all. We have made mistakes. We will make more. People will die, and suffer needlessly because of this. It is the cost of being a global power, and if we cannot summon the humanity to empathize and apologize and admit our own culpability, we don't deserve this kind of power any more than Castro. Thankfully, Mr. President, I think that you are a calmer American leader than the world is used to, and I am grateful that we are represented to the world more reasonably than many on the right deserve.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Friday, July 23, 2010
Day 204-HR 1553
Dear Mr. President,
What we absolutely need right now, more than anything, is a war between Israel and Iran. This is why I was so pleased to see House Republicans doing their legislative best to egg on the most hawkish elements on either side. Do the ramifications of their votes, the lives and blood and suffering that they are calling for ever occur to them? Or does it stay hidden, disguised in legislative language and washed out in clean black letters on clean white paper?
Like school boys crowding around two arguing fellows to scream "FIGHT!", these petty, small-minded individuals are playing politics with the kind of war that people of Iran (and, for that matter, much of Israel) live in constant fear of. It's disgusting and it is beneath even the House of Representatives, who, in their childishness, cannot claim that about very much, these days. While I am gratified to see that leveler heads are prevailing, at least at the DOD, I am still too afraid of the power of neoconservatives lusting after more Islamic blood. John Bolton, and every Republican signing on to this bill, ought to be made to spend one night as a civillian in a war zone before they ever call of that kind of violence with this kind of casual disregard for the consequences.
While I am optimistic in thinking that this bill will not make it to a general vote, I sincerely hope that, should it gain more traction, the White House will put its political influence to use and discourages any Democrats from supporting this awful piece of legislation. This is not what I elected my public servants to do. Mr. President, I understand that you cannot possibly dignify every republican spasm of absurdity that comes out of the House of Representatives with a response, but I hope that you will do what you can to see that this bill is not allowed to reflect the views of the government, or the people, of this country.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Send your letter demanding that House Republican Leader John Boehner denounce the Iran War Resolution
Click here for a list of co-sponsors to see if your representative is on the list.
What we absolutely need right now, more than anything, is a war between Israel and Iran. This is why I was so pleased to see House Republicans doing their legislative best to egg on the most hawkish elements on either side. Do the ramifications of their votes, the lives and blood and suffering that they are calling for ever occur to them? Or does it stay hidden, disguised in legislative language and washed out in clean black letters on clean white paper?
Like school boys crowding around two arguing fellows to scream "FIGHT!", these petty, small-minded individuals are playing politics with the kind of war that people of Iran (and, for that matter, much of Israel) live in constant fear of. It's disgusting and it is beneath even the House of Representatives, who, in their childishness, cannot claim that about very much, these days. While I am gratified to see that leveler heads are prevailing, at least at the DOD, I am still too afraid of the power of neoconservatives lusting after more Islamic blood. John Bolton, and every Republican signing on to this bill, ought to be made to spend one night as a civillian in a war zone before they ever call of that kind of violence with this kind of casual disregard for the consequences.
While I am optimistic in thinking that this bill will not make it to a general vote, I sincerely hope that, should it gain more traction, the White House will put its political influence to use and discourages any Democrats from supporting this awful piece of legislation. This is not what I elected my public servants to do. Mr. President, I understand that you cannot possibly dignify every republican spasm of absurdity that comes out of the House of Representatives with a response, but I hope that you will do what you can to see that this bill is not allowed to reflect the views of the government, or the people, of this country.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Send your letter demanding that House Republican Leader John Boehner denounce the Iran War Resolution
Click here for a list of co-sponsors to see if your representative is on the list.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Day 145- Tin-foil hats and Scud missiles
Dear Mr. President,
Is something happening to Lebanon soon? I don't mean to sound like some crazy, tin-foil-hat wearing conspiracy theorist, but I couldn't help but notice you and Vice-President Biden have reached out to Prime Minister Hariri twice in as many days. This seemed odd, in and of its self, but then I read about the missile drills Israel is staging this week, which are being taken by the Lebanese government as preparation for war. Hizbollah's ties to Iran might also indicate that something is possibly about to happen to Iran, instead. Either way, I hope I'm just being paranoid. If I'm not, just in case it doesn't go without saying, I'm hoping that you exhaust all of our options to help avoid another conflict that will only cause the innocent to suffer.
When I worked at Borders in downtown Washington, I once rang up a woman for all of our remaining copies of Killing Mr. Lebanon, a book about the assassination of Rafik Hariri. Her distress was evident, and so I asked her about Mr. Hariri, who, she said, had been her boss. She tearfully told me about working in his government, how much she'd admired him, and how much she missed him still. It was moving to see her affection for this man, both on a personal and on a political level. Her grief came, in part, at the immense loss her country had suffered. This was not long after the 2006 war that destroyed so many lives and so much of her country. Maybe it's easy to say this, when the tragic history of this place is given a face in my memory, but I think Lebanon has been through enough. We (and, more importantly, our allies,) could maybe let Beirut stand for more than 4 years before trying to knock it all down, again.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Monday, May 3, 2010
Day 123-Predators
Dear Mr. President,
I enjoyed watching your jokes at the correspondent's dinner. While I think that Jay Leno was a poor choice, I respect that other people may have different tastes than mine. I assumed that, with a major environment crisis in the Gulf, a foiled car bomb in New York, an election imminent in the UK, several contentious state primaries, and the legislation aimed at the torment of pregnant women passed recently in Oklahoma, people would have more important things to talk about than the jokes you told at dinner. But I was wrong. (This is sort of your fault. If you hadn't encouraged me to embrace the spirit of civility by reading the Drudge Report, I'd never have found out about this.)
Anyway, it seems that some people feel that your Jonas Brothers/Predator drone joke wasn't really a laughing matter, considering the number of people even less threatening than the Jonas Brothers who are actually killed by these weapons every year. I'm a big fan of the "politically correct" and even I don't get this. Back in high school my dad used to joke about his gun collection/police buddies/access to criminal background checks to any boy who wanted to date me. It's lame dad humor. Every dad jokes about that, right? No one believes you're actually using the Predator drone as your own personal play-toy, right? I think the wars we're waging abroad are awful, morally baseless and catastrophically unfair, but I think getting upset over people actually getting killed is a far more useful way to spend one's emotional energy than to get upset over a joke that (no offense) was certainly not an original one.
Speaking of fatherly humor, I read some remarks by the First Lady about your daughter Malia's concern for saving the tiger population. I thought you should know that you're getting outpaced by Russia and Iran on this issue, or at least missing out on the heads of state big cat exchange. I'm sure Malia would agree with me that getting a Persian Leopard would be pretty freaking cool, so maybe you and Ahmadinejad could work through your differences and get Bo a new playmate? I'm sure the question "Dad, why can't you be more like Vladimir Putin?" is not one you want to hear over dinner.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I enjoyed watching your jokes at the correspondent's dinner. While I think that Jay Leno was a poor choice, I respect that other people may have different tastes than mine. I assumed that, with a major environment crisis in the Gulf, a foiled car bomb in New York, an election imminent in the UK, several contentious state primaries, and the legislation aimed at the torment of pregnant women passed recently in Oklahoma, people would have more important things to talk about than the jokes you told at dinner. But I was wrong. (This is sort of your fault. If you hadn't encouraged me to embrace the spirit of civility by reading the Drudge Report, I'd never have found out about this.)
Anyway, it seems that some people feel that your Jonas Brothers/Predator drone joke wasn't really a laughing matter, considering the number of people even less threatening than the Jonas Brothers who are actually killed by these weapons every year. I'm a big fan of the "politically correct" and even I don't get this. Back in high school my dad used to joke about his gun collection/police buddies/access to criminal background checks to any boy who wanted to date me. It's lame dad humor. Every dad jokes about that, right? No one believes you're actually using the Predator drone as your own personal play-toy, right? I think the wars we're waging abroad are awful, morally baseless and catastrophically unfair, but I think getting upset over people actually getting killed is a far more useful way to spend one's emotional energy than to get upset over a joke that (no offense) was certainly not an original one.
Speaking of fatherly humor, I read some remarks by the First Lady about your daughter Malia's concern for saving the tiger population. I thought you should know that you're getting outpaced by Russia and Iran on this issue, or at least missing out on the heads of state big cat exchange. I'm sure Malia would agree with me that getting a Persian Leopard would be pretty freaking cool, so maybe you and Ahmadinejad could work through your differences and get Bo a new playmate? I'm sure the question "Dad, why can't you be more like Vladimir Putin?" is not one you want to hear over dinner.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Friday, April 9, 2010
Day 99
Dear Mr. President,
This week, the national conversation about nuclear proliferation has fractured (predictably) along party lines. That there might be reasonable disagreement about an issue as complex as the START treaty and nuclear arms is not surprising; that the criticism from some on the right deviates so sharply from reality is mildly impressive. Your response to Sarah Palin's criticism made me incredibly proud to have voted for you. I trust your judgment and your good intentions when it comes to this kind of arms control; I would like to live in a world where there are no nuclear weapons, but, for now, we have to live in the real world.
The news that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu will not be attending next week's summit on nuclear security is disappointing. That he is so afraid of confronting, directly, the criticism from Egypt, Turkey, and other nations, about Israel's unacknowledged nuclear capabilities speaks volumes, both about the courage of his convictions and the hypocrisy of Israel's (and, for that matter, our own) position on Iran. Israel's nuclear program, (which, by the way, poses a legitimate threat to Iran and, might, conceivably, have something to do with Iran's own nuclear ambitions,) their refusal to sign the nonproliferation treaty, and their reluctance (as demonstrated by PM Netanyahu) to have frank discussions about the reality of their status as a nuclear power ought to elicit criticism from the US. That we offer nothing but complicit silence or even support undermines our leadership and credibility when discouraging other states from gaining their own nuclear weapons.
Israel is a country that, at the time of its creation, had legitimate cause to fear for its own survival. This simply is not the political reality of the present. Israel has long exaggerated the threat posed by the Palestinians and hostile neighboring countries; it has an incredibly capable military and weapons unrivaled by any other country in the Middle East, and its existence is, frankly, a forgone conclusion. Even Hamas officials have walked back the rhetoric, indicating that they would acknowledge Israel's right to exist were the sentiment reciprocated for Palestinians. While Israel may have had very real fears driving it to become a nuclear power in years past, we have to live in the real world now; acknowledging the threat that Israel itself poses to its neighbors is an important step in maintaining our credibility on arms control issues. We ought to use our influence with Israel to encourage responsible conduct as a nuclear power, so that we can continue to lead the world toward a nuclear-free future.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
This week, the national conversation about nuclear proliferation has fractured (predictably) along party lines. That there might be reasonable disagreement about an issue as complex as the START treaty and nuclear arms is not surprising; that the criticism from some on the right deviates so sharply from reality is mildly impressive. Your response to Sarah Palin's criticism made me incredibly proud to have voted for you. I trust your judgment and your good intentions when it comes to this kind of arms control; I would like to live in a world where there are no nuclear weapons, but, for now, we have to live in the real world.
The news that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu will not be attending next week's summit on nuclear security is disappointing. That he is so afraid of confronting, directly, the criticism from Egypt, Turkey, and other nations, about Israel's unacknowledged nuclear capabilities speaks volumes, both about the courage of his convictions and the hypocrisy of Israel's (and, for that matter, our own) position on Iran. Israel's nuclear program, (which, by the way, poses a legitimate threat to Iran and, might, conceivably, have something to do with Iran's own nuclear ambitions,) their refusal to sign the nonproliferation treaty, and their reluctance (as demonstrated by PM Netanyahu) to have frank discussions about the reality of their status as a nuclear power ought to elicit criticism from the US. That we offer nothing but complicit silence or even support undermines our leadership and credibility when discouraging other states from gaining their own nuclear weapons.
Israel is a country that, at the time of its creation, had legitimate cause to fear for its own survival. This simply is not the political reality of the present. Israel has long exaggerated the threat posed by the Palestinians and hostile neighboring countries; it has an incredibly capable military and weapons unrivaled by any other country in the Middle East, and its existence is, frankly, a forgone conclusion. Even Hamas officials have walked back the rhetoric, indicating that they would acknowledge Israel's right to exist were the sentiment reciprocated for Palestinians. While Israel may have had very real fears driving it to become a nuclear power in years past, we have to live in the real world now; acknowledging the threat that Israel itself poses to its neighbors is an important step in maintaining our credibility on arms control issues. We ought to use our influence with Israel to encourage responsible conduct as a nuclear power, so that we can continue to lead the world toward a nuclear-free future.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Day 87
Dear Mr. President,
You went to Afghanistan! I think secret trips make being President even cooler. I mean, who gets to fly to Afghanistan in the middle of the night just to say 'hey' to Bagram AFB? You do. Because you're the President. I mean, I'm sure there are other perks, but that was, if you'll excuse the phrase, pretty damn stylish.
While I'm glad that President Karzai has made progress toward eliminating some of the corruption that plagues the Afghan government, I don't have much faith in him as a leader. His reelection was carried out under such questionable circumstances, that I certainly would not have much faith in him, were I an Afghan citizen.
What are our goals in Afghanistan? It seems as though our massive investment in the military operation there could be better spent on infrastructure and education. Too much of the Afghan population is kept poor and undereducated because of lingering tribal tensions and the corrupt elitism of the ruling class. We're never going to stamp out the sources of terrorism unless the Afghan people are united in the reward and the responsibility of self-governance.
We seem to make this mistake often in our foreign policy. We arm the party or faction we wish to see in power- from the Shah of Iran, to Fatah in Palestine, we neglect the lessons of our own history time and time again. Instead of providing the tools of war to allow our chosen leaders to rise to power through fear and coercion, we ought to empower them to provide the services and stability that allow people to live and prosper peacefully. Hamas didn't win elections in 2006 because it was better armed than Fatah, it did so because it provided the most reliable and least corrupted social services to the people of Gaza. The Shah's government wasn't overthrown for a lack of weapons, but because the will of the people, the desire for self-determination, was stronger. In Afghanistan, we continue this mistaken belief in the supreme might of military force. The will of the Afghan people, the desire for stability, peace, access to basic services and education will always be more powerful than whatever government we force upon them, no matter how well we arm it. President Karzai must reform his administration and ensure that he is working toward the betterment of all Afghans, or the Afghan people will see that he is replaced-with or without the consent of the American occupation force. Because we have entwined our fate with theirs, we must work to see that the Afghan people are fairly represented and governed and we must do this through investment and support, not through brute force.
Travel safely, Mr. President.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
You went to Afghanistan! I think secret trips make being President even cooler. I mean, who gets to fly to Afghanistan in the middle of the night just to say 'hey' to Bagram AFB? You do. Because you're the President. I mean, I'm sure there are other perks, but that was, if you'll excuse the phrase, pretty damn stylish.
While I'm glad that President Karzai has made progress toward eliminating some of the corruption that plagues the Afghan government, I don't have much faith in him as a leader. His reelection was carried out under such questionable circumstances, that I certainly would not have much faith in him, were I an Afghan citizen.
What are our goals in Afghanistan? It seems as though our massive investment in the military operation there could be better spent on infrastructure and education. Too much of the Afghan population is kept poor and undereducated because of lingering tribal tensions and the corrupt elitism of the ruling class. We're never going to stamp out the sources of terrorism unless the Afghan people are united in the reward and the responsibility of self-governance.
We seem to make this mistake often in our foreign policy. We arm the party or faction we wish to see in power- from the Shah of Iran, to Fatah in Palestine, we neglect the lessons of our own history time and time again. Instead of providing the tools of war to allow our chosen leaders to rise to power through fear and coercion, we ought to empower them to provide the services and stability that allow people to live and prosper peacefully. Hamas didn't win elections in 2006 because it was better armed than Fatah, it did so because it provided the most reliable and least corrupted social services to the people of Gaza. The Shah's government wasn't overthrown for a lack of weapons, but because the will of the people, the desire for self-determination, was stronger. In Afghanistan, we continue this mistaken belief in the supreme might of military force. The will of the Afghan people, the desire for stability, peace, access to basic services and education will always be more powerful than whatever government we force upon them, no matter how well we arm it. President Karzai must reform his administration and ensure that he is working toward the betterment of all Afghans, or the Afghan people will see that he is replaced-with or without the consent of the American occupation force. Because we have entwined our fate with theirs, we must work to see that the Afghan people are fairly represented and governed and we must do this through investment and support, not through brute force.
Travel safely, Mr. President.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Monday, February 8, 2010
Day 39- Iran
Dear Mr. President,
I'm not a fan of President Ahmadinejad. I find his policies infuriating and his rhetoric dangerous. I have strong doubts, if not outright disbelief, in the legitimacy of the election that empowered him. I'm also not a fan of nuclear weapons. I think it's probably a good idea to try to prevent, whenever possible, their creation and use. So, while I clearly agree that it is essential to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power, I don't think you're going about it the right way.
I'll admit straightaway that my foreign policy knowledge doesn't live in the same galaxy as your own. You probably know better. But from the perspective of one who doesn't get daily intelligence briefings, let me just say that I think we could get more success with a different approach. For one thing, it's foolish to pretend that Israel isn't already or at least very close to being a nuclear power itself. Not only does this make our anti-proliferation stand sort of a joke, it overlooks a very real threat to Iran. Israel may be our ally, but they demonstrate, year after year, their willingness to fight threats, real and otherwise, by punishing civilian populations. The people of Gaza, Al-Khalil, and Beirut have experienced this first-hand. The people of Iran may wonder if they are next.
Also, the more we isolate Iran, the more popular support Ahmadinejad will have to go nuclear. For one thing, The Bomb can be seen as the only defense against an alliance of so many other nuclear powers. Wouldn't it make more sense to bring Iran to the table? To work with them directly instead of reinforcing the idea that the whole world opposes them? If Ahmadinejad and his ilk didn't have America and Israel to vilify, where would they generate the fear they need to stay in power?
Maybe it's hopelessly naive, but I honestly think that we'll make more progress by treating Iran as an ally- and expecting the Iranian government to behave accordingly, both with regards to nuclear power and human rights- than by more sanctions and isolation.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I'm not a fan of President Ahmadinejad. I find his policies infuriating and his rhetoric dangerous. I have strong doubts, if not outright disbelief, in the legitimacy of the election that empowered him. I'm also not a fan of nuclear weapons. I think it's probably a good idea to try to prevent, whenever possible, their creation and use. So, while I clearly agree that it is essential to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power, I don't think you're going about it the right way.
I'll admit straightaway that my foreign policy knowledge doesn't live in the same galaxy as your own. You probably know better. But from the perspective of one who doesn't get daily intelligence briefings, let me just say that I think we could get more success with a different approach. For one thing, it's foolish to pretend that Israel isn't already or at least very close to being a nuclear power itself. Not only does this make our anti-proliferation stand sort of a joke, it overlooks a very real threat to Iran. Israel may be our ally, but they demonstrate, year after year, their willingness to fight threats, real and otherwise, by punishing civilian populations. The people of Gaza, Al-Khalil, and Beirut have experienced this first-hand. The people of Iran may wonder if they are next.
Also, the more we isolate Iran, the more popular support Ahmadinejad will have to go nuclear. For one thing, The Bomb can be seen as the only defense against an alliance of so many other nuclear powers. Wouldn't it make more sense to bring Iran to the table? To work with them directly instead of reinforcing the idea that the whole world opposes them? If Ahmadinejad and his ilk didn't have America and Israel to vilify, where would they generate the fear they need to stay in power?
Maybe it's hopelessly naive, but I honestly think that we'll make more progress by treating Iran as an ally- and expecting the Iranian government to behave accordingly, both with regards to nuclear power and human rights- than by more sanctions and isolation.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Day 26
Dear Mr. President,
Today a French commission offered its report on the full-face veil worn by some Muslim women. This report is an appalling demonstration of the ignorant, islamophobic hate-mongering that passes as political discourse in much of Europe these days. I hope that your administration strongly denounces the report, and any move to ban the wearing of the veil. How does a ban on the veil in public places liberate women who wear it? Doesn't this just prevent them from equal access to education, government services, medical care and transportation- necessary aspects of living independent lives as full citizens?
I feel this is particularly heinous because it discriminates against women, while claiming to be for their own good. This is the kind of paternalistic legislative overreach that begs a comparison to the regimes like Iran and Afghanistan under the Taliban, which require the veil for almost exactly the same reason, to "protect" women. I once read that high-heels are damaging to a woman's leg muscles. One could argue that they also impede a woman's ability to move quickly, and can be hazardous during emergency evacuations. Where's the French commission recommending a ban on stilettos?
Behind all the posturing, the legislative language and the outright lies from the French government, the simple truth is that this is nothing more than a manifestation of anti-Islamic feelings, of blatant racism. Muslims, be they immigrants or converts, make the French government nervous. The same way Jews made the German government nervous. Are yellow crescents next? Jim Crow-style legislation to segregate Muslims from public life? Where is the line drawn? How much of a woman's face needs to be visible before she can qualify for an education or medical care? Before she can take a bus to work, or shop, or visit family? How much of herself must she cede to the government's idea of what a liberated woman looks or dresses like?
The report says that all of France says "no" to the veil. What does that say to the women who wear it? You are not French. France says "no", to you. What a progressive, egalitarian thing to say. Mr. President, I beg you, do not ignore or condone this offensive behavior.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Today a French commission offered its report on the full-face veil worn by some Muslim women. This report is an appalling demonstration of the ignorant, islamophobic hate-mongering that passes as political discourse in much of Europe these days. I hope that your administration strongly denounces the report, and any move to ban the wearing of the veil. How does a ban on the veil in public places liberate women who wear it? Doesn't this just prevent them from equal access to education, government services, medical care and transportation- necessary aspects of living independent lives as full citizens?
I feel this is particularly heinous because it discriminates against women, while claiming to be for their own good. This is the kind of paternalistic legislative overreach that begs a comparison to the regimes like Iran and Afghanistan under the Taliban, which require the veil for almost exactly the same reason, to "protect" women. I once read that high-heels are damaging to a woman's leg muscles. One could argue that they also impede a woman's ability to move quickly, and can be hazardous during emergency evacuations. Where's the French commission recommending a ban on stilettos?
Behind all the posturing, the legislative language and the outright lies from the French government, the simple truth is that this is nothing more than a manifestation of anti-Islamic feelings, of blatant racism. Muslims, be they immigrants or converts, make the French government nervous. The same way Jews made the German government nervous. Are yellow crescents next? Jim Crow-style legislation to segregate Muslims from public life? Where is the line drawn? How much of a woman's face needs to be visible before she can qualify for an education or medical care? Before she can take a bus to work, or shop, or visit family? How much of herself must she cede to the government's idea of what a liberated woman looks or dresses like?
The report says that all of France says "no" to the veil. What does that say to the women who wear it? You are not French. France says "no", to you. What a progressive, egalitarian thing to say. Mr. President, I beg you, do not ignore or condone this offensive behavior.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
