Dear Mr. President,
The Cote d'Ivoire is, according to UN ambassador Youssoufou Bamba, on the brink of genocide. Ideally, I would think that the impending social implosion of an African nation a good reason to use US military power to protect civilians caught up in the violence. Of course, as we've overextended ourselves in Afghanistan, Iraq and our forays into Yemen and Pakistan, we simply don't have the military assistance to offer. We can hope that the UN or the African Union are able to keep peace and protect the innocent, but there is little, practically, that the US can do.
Perhaps it is naive of me to think that we should only use our troops to protect civillians, avoid genocide and keep peace. Perhaps chasing Bin Laden & the Taliban through caves is, in fact, a more effective use of our might, but I don't think our current military strategy has made us safer- indeed the number and complexity of our military engagements abroad seem to have left us in a strategically weakened position.
I'll admit that the proximity of The Cote d'Ivoire to Burkina Faso is heightening my anxiety about the crumbling political situation. I might not be so afraid if my best friend wasn't right next door. Still, I think that military force is best used to protect the weak preyed upon by the strong, to prevent the innocent from suffering whenever possible. I would rather see our troops in Cote d'Ivoire and Haiti than in Afghanistan and Iraq, where more stability could be achieved through education and infrastructure investment than any amount of troops and bombs.
I will hope that the Ambassador Bamba is incorrect in his assessment of the outlook for The Cote d'Ivoire, but should he prove correct it will be all the more frustrating to watch, helplessly, while my country is able to do nothing to stop it.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Showing posts with label military force. Show all posts
Showing posts with label military force. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Day 325- Murder and Masculinity
So the question is this: when are we going to start awarding the Medal of Honor once again for soldiers who kill people and break things so our families can sleep safely at night?
Dear Mr. President,
I hope that you have not heard of Bryan Fischer, the moronic right-wing blogger for the American Family Association, but if you have, I'm sure you also heard about his recent lament about "the feminization of the Medal of Honor." Fischer, while acknowledging the heroism of Army Staff Sgt. Salvatore Giunta, cites Giunta's life-saving efforts as proof that we just don't reward killing the way we used to. While I, rather predictably, think this man is out of his mind, I was particularly surprised to see the comments on his original post. Without exception, the responses were negative, ranging from "I'll pray that you stop being such an ignorant person" to "You are actually evil and I hate you." A few even acknowledged the near-uniform blowback, pointing out that rage at Bryan Fischer is the most united the right and the left have been since 9/11. Fischer attempted to clarify his remarks (twice, actually) and seemed to genuinely believe that no one who actually understood what he was saying would be offended. But in all three posts, rewarding life-saving action (or not rewarding aggressive action,) was described as feminine.
The implication that killing is masculine and aversion to killing is feminine is really fine by me. As a woman, I have no problem with the heroic actions of (or the decision to honor) Staff Sgt. Giunta being described as feminine. However, it seems problematic to so closely link masculinity with the taking of life or the celebration of the taking of life. For one thing, most men in America would not qualify as "masculine" under this definition. Most men I know haven't killed any one and don't generally wish to see more of it. Perhaps I surround myself with especially effeminate men? I think some of my loss-prevention colleagues might object to this. I know a number of people (male and female) with really incredible numbers of killed aliens, zombies and other video-game creatures, but I don't know that most of them would meet Fischer's idea of traditional masculinity. Defining masculinity this way just makes it so much harder to feel manly in a world that increasingly frowns upon killing.
I'm not Christian, so when Fischer cites scripture as evidence that Jesus, even in crucifixion, was actually aggressively killing the forces of evil, I really don't have any basis to object. (Though I'm sure my Christian friends could probably find some problems with this argument.) My objection comes at the comparison of Christ vanquishing the forces of evil with US soldiers killing Afghan soldiers. Especially in light of a recent study demonstrating a vast majority of Afghans don't know about 9/11 or America's use of it as justification for war against the Taliban. We've been fighting for nine years against an enemy that has no idea why we invaded their country and killed so many innocent civilians. I just don't quite see the decision to take up arms against an invading army (especially when you have absolutely no idea why they are invading) as equal to the Dark Forces of Evil and Sin.
Which isn't to say I think we should do a better job of explaining to people why we're going to kill them before we kill them, but that maybe, just maybe, killing isn't the most effective way to keep ourselves safe. Maybe we're not only fighting the wrong enemy but fighting it the wrong way. I don't see there being all that much glory in the killing of some of the poorest and least-educated people on the planet by the most fearsome, best-quipped military on the planet. It certainly doesn't seem all that manly. And my family, for one, doesn't sleep any easier knowing it's being done. Would it be too feminine to suggest that maybe building schools and infrastructure and economic development might not have been a more effective way to make the world a little safer? I don't get to make these decisions, and neither do the men and women that you send to do all of the killing and dying that Fischer and his ilk see as so manly and Christlike. In that situation, doing your best to keep your fellow soldiers from getting killed certainly seems like an act of (completely gender-neutral) heroism. So I'll sleep tonight, grateful to Giunta and all of the other soldiers trying to protect their fellows in battle, because any one working for less death and destruction is pretty badass, in my humble opinion. I'll be content with the knowledge that most Christians (at least the ones commenting on the AFA website) think that Fischer is full of it. And I will wish for the promotion American concept masculinity based not on the destruction of life but the protection of it.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Day 318-It's not murder, it's a metaphor
Dear Mr. President,
While reading an article about the way our brain reacts similarly to the literal and metaphorical feelings of pain and disgust, I cam across this passage about Palestine and Israel:
This got me thinking about the military aid offered to Israel in exchange for a 90-day extension of the settlement freeze. The terms of the freeze are largely symbolic; settlement construction could continue in East Jerusalem, the ostensible future capitol of a Palestinian state, and no extension of the freeze would be requested after 90 days. The objections to this plan from the Israeli right are largely symbolic, as well. It makes me wonder how much we'd be willing to pay for symbolism. 3 billion a year in aid? Unlimited cover at the UN? What about any potential future peace in the region?
The deal you've offered is trading just that. You've sent a message to the Palestinians that they have 90 days to make peace and after that they are on their own. No US support for Palestinian statehood unless it is on Israel's terms. No US diplomatic pressure to keep the settlements from expanding again in 90 days. The unconditional agreement of those new bombers, which the US will provide to Israel regardless of a peace deal being signed or not. It's an offer so good, it should have it's own infomercial. The unfairness of the whole situation, and the utter absurdity of the Israeli right balking at such an offer is mind-boggling.
Instead of settling for symbolism, why didn't you decide to leverage our special relationship for an agreement that would have practical results? It seems as though you'd settle for the illusion of progress so long as it makes every one (except, of course, the Palestinians) feel better and look good, rather than a less popular, more difficult long-term plan that will actually hold Israel responsible for curtailing settlement activity? Instead of trading away a guarantee to do everything in our (not inconsiderable) power to prevent recognition of Palestinian statehood by international organizations, why wouldn't we threaten to do everything in our power to support it, if Israel doesn't follow international law? I just don't understand.
I would never argue that this conflict is simple or that achieving peace won't be a complicated process. But when lives and homes and the basic human rights are at stake, we can't afford to sacrifice the protection of these things for the sake of symbolism. Water rights, housing demolitions, settlements and security are practical points of disagreement that must be addressed seriously and with respect to the needs of people on all sides. Instead you have practically increased Israel's capacity for violence and symbolically granted the political cover to wield it with impunity. Symbolically, and practically, this was a total failure.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
While reading an article about the way our brain reacts similarly to the literal and metaphorical feelings of pain and disgust, I cam across this passage about Palestine and Israel:
in a world of sheer rationality where the brain didn’t confuse reality with symbols, bringing peace to Israel and Palestine would revolve around things like water rights, placement of borders, and the extent of militarization allowed to Palestinian police. Instead, argues Axelrod, “mutual symbolic concessions” of no material benefit will ultimately make all the difference.
This got me thinking about the military aid offered to Israel in exchange for a 90-day extension of the settlement freeze. The terms of the freeze are largely symbolic; settlement construction could continue in East Jerusalem, the ostensible future capitol of a Palestinian state, and no extension of the freeze would be requested after 90 days. The objections to this plan from the Israeli right are largely symbolic, as well. It makes me wonder how much we'd be willing to pay for symbolism. 3 billion a year in aid? Unlimited cover at the UN? What about any potential future peace in the region?
The deal you've offered is trading just that. You've sent a message to the Palestinians that they have 90 days to make peace and after that they are on their own. No US support for Palestinian statehood unless it is on Israel's terms. No US diplomatic pressure to keep the settlements from expanding again in 90 days. The unconditional agreement of those new bombers, which the US will provide to Israel regardless of a peace deal being signed or not. It's an offer so good, it should have it's own infomercial. The unfairness of the whole situation, and the utter absurdity of the Israeli right balking at such an offer is mind-boggling.
Instead of settling for symbolism, why didn't you decide to leverage our special relationship for an agreement that would have practical results? It seems as though you'd settle for the illusion of progress so long as it makes every one (except, of course, the Palestinians) feel better and look good, rather than a less popular, more difficult long-term plan that will actually hold Israel responsible for curtailing settlement activity? Instead of trading away a guarantee to do everything in our (not inconsiderable) power to prevent recognition of Palestinian statehood by international organizations, why wouldn't we threaten to do everything in our power to support it, if Israel doesn't follow international law? I just don't understand.
I would never argue that this conflict is simple or that achieving peace won't be a complicated process. But when lives and homes and the basic human rights are at stake, we can't afford to sacrifice the protection of these things for the sake of symbolism. Water rights, housing demolitions, settlements and security are practical points of disagreement that must be addressed seriously and with respect to the needs of people on all sides. Instead you have practically increased Israel's capacity for violence and symbolically granted the political cover to wield it with impunity. Symbolically, and practically, this was a total failure.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Day 315-Veteran's Day
Dear Mr. President,
Today we honor those who have fought and died for our country. I'm grateful for more than just the excuse to sleep in and miss class. I'm grateful for those who served in the armed forces, for the sacrifices they have made and the service they have done our country. I say all of this as an unapologetic critic of the wars we currently wage, the conduct of some of our troops therein, and of the military's anti-gay policies. I do not believe that my gratitude and my criticism are mutually exclusive.
On the contrary, I believe that the best way to support our troops is to never ask that they put themselves in harms way unless it is absolutely necessary. Unless our survival or our very humanity compels it. That we never put them at risk of torture by torturing our own enemy prisoners. That we never order them to kill in the name of an unjust war. I believe that we support our troops when we insist on allowing openly gay soldiers to serve. When we fully fund rehabilitation programs, health and especially mental health programs, education and employment opportunities for veterans. This is how we walk the walk of those yellow ribbons we wear.
I hope that today you reflect on the wars you inherited and the way they have been waged. On the kill lists, the interrogation methods, the civilian deaths that put our own troops at risk and destroy so many lives (and so many minds) on both sides. On the mistakes made, the mistakes perpetuated and the lies told to cover them up. I hope that you reflect on these things and conclude, as so many of us have, that our troops deserve better.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Today we honor those who have fought and died for our country. I'm grateful for more than just the excuse to sleep in and miss class. I'm grateful for those who served in the armed forces, for the sacrifices they have made and the service they have done our country. I say all of this as an unapologetic critic of the wars we currently wage, the conduct of some of our troops therein, and of the military's anti-gay policies. I do not believe that my gratitude and my criticism are mutually exclusive.
On the contrary, I believe that the best way to support our troops is to never ask that they put themselves in harms way unless it is absolutely necessary. Unless our survival or our very humanity compels it. That we never put them at risk of torture by torturing our own enemy prisoners. That we never order them to kill in the name of an unjust war. I believe that we support our troops when we insist on allowing openly gay soldiers to serve. When we fully fund rehabilitation programs, health and especially mental health programs, education and employment opportunities for veterans. This is how we walk the walk of those yellow ribbons we wear.
I hope that today you reflect on the wars you inherited and the way they have been waged. On the kill lists, the interrogation methods, the civilian deaths that put our own troops at risk and destroy so many lives (and so many minds) on both sides. On the mistakes made, the mistakes perpetuated and the lies told to cover them up. I hope that you reflect on these things and conclude, as so many of us have, that our troops deserve better.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Day 297- Israel and the rest of the world
Dear Mr. President,
Eric Cantor has proposed separating US aid to Israel from the rest of the foreign ops budget. Israel already receives an obscene amount of aid, especially in comparison to the rest of the world, and Cantor's proposal is clearly an attempt to safeguard that funding while Republicans seek to cut or abolish aid to other countries all together. Funding a wealthy country's brutal occupation (and insulating the taxpayers of Israel from the true costs of their government's policies) is clearly a high enough priority that Cantor and other Republicans have realized they can't go after foreign aid without safeguarding Israeli aid.
Your administration has already promised $3 billion a year to Israel in aid- a decision I have objected to often enough to accept that we're never going to see eye to eye. However, I believe that you, like me, want to see the aid we send to other countries for agriculture, infrastructure, health and education projects increased, or, at the very least, maintained. If Cantor is successful at disentangling the Israeli aid from the rest of the foreign ops budget there will be nothing to stop Republicans who would see it cut. Foreign aid represents about 1% of our budget and places us well below most developed nations in terms of the amount spent as a percentage of GDP. Jeopardizing this funding further by distancing it from the most politically acceptable segment of our foreign ops budget will not improve America's image abroad, it won't help us to reach the millenium development goals and it absolutely will not make American's safer. As much as it disgusts me to admit this, the stigma against backing off on our support for Israel does help protect the rest of the foreign ops budget. And while I have no problem admitting that I would be happy to see our aid to Israel reduced and even outright suspended, I do not wish to see the rest of the foreign aid money affected.
I think that there are a number of improvements that might be made to the amount of money we spend on projects abroad, and the way that money is spent. Given that my own views are so far outside of the mainstream, I don't expect, realistically, to ever see them in practice. And so expediency compels me to compromise. If we must continue spending $3 billion a year funding Israel's oppression of the Palestinians, we should at least also continue funding the education, infrastructure and health projects in developing countries around the world, as well. Dividing the appropriations imperils the funds that would go to nations unable to lobby congress as effectively as Israel. I hope that you do all you can to see that Cantor's proposal does not go into effect.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Eric Cantor has proposed separating US aid to Israel from the rest of the foreign ops budget. Israel already receives an obscene amount of aid, especially in comparison to the rest of the world, and Cantor's proposal is clearly an attempt to safeguard that funding while Republicans seek to cut or abolish aid to other countries all together. Funding a wealthy country's brutal occupation (and insulating the taxpayers of Israel from the true costs of their government's policies) is clearly a high enough priority that Cantor and other Republicans have realized they can't go after foreign aid without safeguarding Israeli aid.
Your administration has already promised $3 billion a year to Israel in aid- a decision I have objected to often enough to accept that we're never going to see eye to eye. However, I believe that you, like me, want to see the aid we send to other countries for agriculture, infrastructure, health and education projects increased, or, at the very least, maintained. If Cantor is successful at disentangling the Israeli aid from the rest of the foreign ops budget there will be nothing to stop Republicans who would see it cut. Foreign aid represents about 1% of our budget and places us well below most developed nations in terms of the amount spent as a percentage of GDP. Jeopardizing this funding further by distancing it from the most politically acceptable segment of our foreign ops budget will not improve America's image abroad, it won't help us to reach the millenium development goals and it absolutely will not make American's safer. As much as it disgusts me to admit this, the stigma against backing off on our support for Israel does help protect the rest of the foreign ops budget. And while I have no problem admitting that I would be happy to see our aid to Israel reduced and even outright suspended, I do not wish to see the rest of the foreign aid money affected.
I think that there are a number of improvements that might be made to the amount of money we spend on projects abroad, and the way that money is spent. Given that my own views are so far outside of the mainstream, I don't expect, realistically, to ever see them in practice. And so expediency compels me to compromise. If we must continue spending $3 billion a year funding Israel's oppression of the Palestinians, we should at least also continue funding the education, infrastructure and health projects in developing countries around the world, as well. Dividing the appropriations imperils the funds that would go to nations unable to lobby congress as effectively as Israel. I hope that you do all you can to see that Cantor's proposal does not go into effect.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Day 247- Hunger Games
Dear Mr. President,
The last two days I've been completely taken in by a work of fiction in that all-consuming way that still manges to surprise me when it comes in the form of a young adult novel. The Hunger Games series, by Suzanne Collins has had me reading by lamplight far past my bedtime and trying to shut out any nonfictional news of the real world. I had been mostly successful but, alas, enough reality has crept in that I'm aware something terrible must have happened to my college football team. (Thanks, Facebook.) Once my joyful shelter of fiction had been cracked I gave in and read the news.
Frank Rich's column on Iraq was maybe the wrong thing to read after nearly two full days engulfed in a world where the class divide is so extreme the rich and powerful force the poor to offer up their children to fight each other to the death to keep the rest of the population entertained or afraid. Several days ago I wrote to you about the end of the war in Iraq and an old friend responded angrily. He told me something that I had not known; a mutual friend who served in Iraq during the wars early years was in fact being redeployed there. The war, he was saying, is not over. Our friends are still being taken from us. I feel like Frank Rich was sending you a similar message.
I'll own that at first I was stung, stunned, unsure what to call what I felt. Was I angry? At myself for being naive? At you for being misleading? At my friend for pointing it out? I felt something close to guilt, as well, as though my eagerness to take you at your word was the reason that our friend was being sent back. Both friends are, for various and complicated reasons, people I have valued and cared for from afar, keeping their generous natures as far from me as my arms can manage. Perhaps my guilty conscience had more to do with the distance I have forced us to maintain, then, and not related to the war at all. I haven't been particularly close to any other soldiers; perhaps it is the personal cost I manage to keep abstract most of the time. I don't have to be particularly close to any of the men and women serving in Iraq or Afghanistan to feel like I know them. They could be my sisters or my nephew, my cousins or my friends and neighbors. They're someone's children, and they're sent off to kill or to be killed by someone else's children. What do we have to show for it? Two countries full of grieving parents and a number of very wealthy military contractors. I think, Mr. President, that my earlier letter to you was wrong.
Frank Rich and my friend from long ago got it right while I missed the point. You haven't ended the war, you have changed the name. The war will end when the mentality and values system that sent us to war in the first place change. I don't blame you, Sir. You were one of the earliest and most eloquent opponents of the war. When its command passed to you I am sure that necessity required you to compromise some of your more abstract positions. But the war was never an abstraction or a policy position to the people suffering in it. The half of me that feels angry would like to personally track down Cheney and Rumsfeld and John Bolton and all the other neocon architects of this conflict and ask them if they've had their fill of entertainment. The half of me that feels guilty wonders how much my own fear and its resulting inaction is to blame and how much yours is. Tonight, as I think of all the lives we've lost, all that we have irreparably destroyed, I know that there can be no escaping it with a new name or even a convincing work of fiction.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
The last two days I've been completely taken in by a work of fiction in that all-consuming way that still manges to surprise me when it comes in the form of a young adult novel. The Hunger Games series, by Suzanne Collins has had me reading by lamplight far past my bedtime and trying to shut out any nonfictional news of the real world. I had been mostly successful but, alas, enough reality has crept in that I'm aware something terrible must have happened to my college football team. (Thanks, Facebook.) Once my joyful shelter of fiction had been cracked I gave in and read the news.
Frank Rich's column on Iraq was maybe the wrong thing to read after nearly two full days engulfed in a world where the class divide is so extreme the rich and powerful force the poor to offer up their children to fight each other to the death to keep the rest of the population entertained or afraid. Several days ago I wrote to you about the end of the war in Iraq and an old friend responded angrily. He told me something that I had not known; a mutual friend who served in Iraq during the wars early years was in fact being redeployed there. The war, he was saying, is not over. Our friends are still being taken from us. I feel like Frank Rich was sending you a similar message.
I'll own that at first I was stung, stunned, unsure what to call what I felt. Was I angry? At myself for being naive? At you for being misleading? At my friend for pointing it out? I felt something close to guilt, as well, as though my eagerness to take you at your word was the reason that our friend was being sent back. Both friends are, for various and complicated reasons, people I have valued and cared for from afar, keeping their generous natures as far from me as my arms can manage. Perhaps my guilty conscience had more to do with the distance I have forced us to maintain, then, and not related to the war at all. I haven't been particularly close to any other soldiers; perhaps it is the personal cost I manage to keep abstract most of the time. I don't have to be particularly close to any of the men and women serving in Iraq or Afghanistan to feel like I know them. They could be my sisters or my nephew, my cousins or my friends and neighbors. They're someone's children, and they're sent off to kill or to be killed by someone else's children. What do we have to show for it? Two countries full of grieving parents and a number of very wealthy military contractors. I think, Mr. President, that my earlier letter to you was wrong.
Frank Rich and my friend from long ago got it right while I missed the point. You haven't ended the war, you have changed the name. The war will end when the mentality and values system that sent us to war in the first place change. I don't blame you, Sir. You were one of the earliest and most eloquent opponents of the war. When its command passed to you I am sure that necessity required you to compromise some of your more abstract positions. But the war was never an abstraction or a policy position to the people suffering in it. The half of me that feels angry would like to personally track down Cheney and Rumsfeld and John Bolton and all the other neocon architects of this conflict and ask them if they've had their fill of entertainment. The half of me that feels guilty wonders how much my own fear and its resulting inaction is to blame and how much yours is. Tonight, as I think of all the lives we've lost, all that we have irreparably destroyed, I know that there can be no escaping it with a new name or even a convincing work of fiction.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Day 243- A patriot in opposition
“There were patriots who supported this war, and patriots who opposed it. And all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women, and our hope for Iraq’s future.”
"In an age without surrender ceremonies, we must earn victory through the success of our partners and the strength of our own nation. Every American who serves joins an unbroken line of heroes that stretches from Lexington to Gettysburg; from Iwo Jima to Inchon; from Khe Sanh to Kandahar -- Americans who have fought to see that the lives of our children are better than our own. Our troops are the steel in our ship of state. And though our nation may be travelling through rough waters, they give us confidence that our course is true, and that beyond the pre-dawn darkness, better days lie ahead."
President Barack Obama 8/31/2010
Dear Mr. President,
I thought your speech tonight struck an appropriate and difficult tone. With talks between President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu coming up, I've read several articles praising your ambitious foreign policy goals, even as dismaying violence and hateful rhetoric keep cynics confident in their doubt. After so many years of being sold violent and short-sighted mistakes as the only way to protect ourselves, I can see why there is a reluctance to accept your words on face value. Is the war in Iraq really over? Did it just get a new name? Are the Israel/Palestine talks in good faith, or just more show? I don't feel confident enough to say for sure. Even your reference to American soldiers in the wars of our history, wars which you claim were fought "to see that the lives of our children are better than our own" unsettled me. How did the Vietnam war improve the lives of the next generation of American children? How will the war in Iraq?
There are unjust wars and our country has been involved in several. While I understand the nobility of the soldiers who fight for us, I grow tired of the men who send them to fight lying to them and to us about why they are fighting. The Iraq war is one of the most obvious modern examples of this. The hundreds of thousands dead in this war did not die so that their children would lead better lives; they died because men with enough power were blindly and violently desperate for more. While I respect that the world you inherited and the complex nature of your job requires that you see this conflict differently than I do, I wish that you had not been so quick to link waging of war to our survival as a nation.
I may never have children. If I do, I cannot accept that their wold will be improved through war. That more killing and violence and suffering and lies will make them safer or happier or more fulfilled. I want to believe that the goals you've laid out in Iraq and in Palestine are alternatives to the violence of previous Presidents. I want to believe that you have more than words of praise for the soldiers sent out to do the dirty work of empire. That instead of trying to convince us the death and ruin was for a nobel cause, you will first see that our soldiers are not sent out to kill and to die in vain. This is how I believe our country and the rest of the world will be best served by your Presidency. I don't yet know if I can trust you to this end, but I still have hope.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
"In an age without surrender ceremonies, we must earn victory through the success of our partners and the strength of our own nation. Every American who serves joins an unbroken line of heroes that stretches from Lexington to Gettysburg; from Iwo Jima to Inchon; from Khe Sanh to Kandahar -- Americans who have fought to see that the lives of our children are better than our own. Our troops are the steel in our ship of state. And though our nation may be travelling through rough waters, they give us confidence that our course is true, and that beyond the pre-dawn darkness, better days lie ahead."
President Barack Obama 8/31/2010
Dear Mr. President,
I thought your speech tonight struck an appropriate and difficult tone. With talks between President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu coming up, I've read several articles praising your ambitious foreign policy goals, even as dismaying violence and hateful rhetoric keep cynics confident in their doubt. After so many years of being sold violent and short-sighted mistakes as the only way to protect ourselves, I can see why there is a reluctance to accept your words on face value. Is the war in Iraq really over? Did it just get a new name? Are the Israel/Palestine talks in good faith, or just more show? I don't feel confident enough to say for sure. Even your reference to American soldiers in the wars of our history, wars which you claim were fought "to see that the lives of our children are better than our own" unsettled me. How did the Vietnam war improve the lives of the next generation of American children? How will the war in Iraq?
There are unjust wars and our country has been involved in several. While I understand the nobility of the soldiers who fight for us, I grow tired of the men who send them to fight lying to them and to us about why they are fighting. The Iraq war is one of the most obvious modern examples of this. The hundreds of thousands dead in this war did not die so that their children would lead better lives; they died because men with enough power were blindly and violently desperate for more. While I respect that the world you inherited and the complex nature of your job requires that you see this conflict differently than I do, I wish that you had not been so quick to link waging of war to our survival as a nation.
I may never have children. If I do, I cannot accept that their wold will be improved through war. That more killing and violence and suffering and lies will make them safer or happier or more fulfilled. I want to believe that the goals you've laid out in Iraq and in Palestine are alternatives to the violence of previous Presidents. I want to believe that you have more than words of praise for the soldiers sent out to do the dirty work of empire. That instead of trying to convince us the death and ruin was for a nobel cause, you will first see that our soldiers are not sent out to kill and to die in vain. This is how I believe our country and the rest of the world will be best served by your Presidency. I don't yet know if I can trust you to this end, but I still have hope.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Day 227- Defense spending
Should we really be up in arms over a temporary projected shortfall of about 100 Navy and Marine strike fighters relative to the number of carrier wings when America's military possesses more than 3,200 tactical combat aircraft of all kinds? Does the number of warships we have and are building really put America at risk when the U.S. battle fleet is larger than the next 13 navies combined, 11 of which belong to allies and partners? Is it a dire threat that by 2020 the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China? Defense Secretary Robert Gates
Dear Mr. President,
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has proposed cuts to the defense budget that would amount to a savings of $100 billion over five years. This is, predictably, leading to more than a little hysteria from conservatives on the hill. Senator Saxby Chambliss (demonstrating exactly why the Senate has gone from somber, dignified statesmen to cartoonish, angry old men who are difficult to take seriously) actually claimed that the White House is "willing to sacrifice the lives of American military men and women for the sake of domestic programs." As though cutting 100 billion of a 3.5 trillion budget is going to cost lives. As though lives are not depending upon essential domestic programs. I'm not sure I ever had much respect for Mr. Chambliss, but he certainly isn't demonstrating the kind of tempered wisdom that I'd expect from a member of the US Senate. (Yes, I managed to keep a straight face while typing that last sentence.)
Concern for the deficit is perfectly reasonable. The necessary cuts to spending must be applied across the board and the defense budget should be no exception. There can be no incentive for a more peaceful world when so much of our economy and our federal budget is tied up in the tools of war. Al-Queda pulled off 9/11 with 19 plane tickets and 99-cent box cutters. In this world, there is no amount of money that can ever make us completely safe. We have to have a smarter and more modernized military, and that is exactly what Secretary Gates is proposing. We have to look for alternative ways to defend ourselves; all the weapons money can buy won't do us half as much good as better diplomatic relations, stable global allies and more education at home and abroad. We simply cannot kill our way to a more peaceful world.
I applaud Secretary Gates' efforts to curtail the reckless defense spending that has plagued the federal budget for decades. In a time when congress cites budget issues as cause to hold up funding for treating 9/11 responders' lingering health problems, extending unemployment benefits that sustain individuals and families through the recession, or even ensuring that all Americans have access to affordable healthcare, how can we justify spending so much money on an outdated defense strategy? The way we spend our money reflects our values as a society, and, clearly, those need to be reexamined. Mr. President, please don't allow the hysterics from conservatives to prevent Mr. Gates from implementing these necessary cuts.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Dear Mr. President,
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has proposed cuts to the defense budget that would amount to a savings of $100 billion over five years. This is, predictably, leading to more than a little hysteria from conservatives on the hill. Senator Saxby Chambliss (demonstrating exactly why the Senate has gone from somber, dignified statesmen to cartoonish, angry old men who are difficult to take seriously) actually claimed that the White House is "willing to sacrifice the lives of American military men and women for the sake of domestic programs." As though cutting 100 billion of a 3.5 trillion budget is going to cost lives. As though lives are not depending upon essential domestic programs. I'm not sure I ever had much respect for Mr. Chambliss, but he certainly isn't demonstrating the kind of tempered wisdom that I'd expect from a member of the US Senate. (Yes, I managed to keep a straight face while typing that last sentence.)
Concern for the deficit is perfectly reasonable. The necessary cuts to spending must be applied across the board and the defense budget should be no exception. There can be no incentive for a more peaceful world when so much of our economy and our federal budget is tied up in the tools of war. Al-Queda pulled off 9/11 with 19 plane tickets and 99-cent box cutters. In this world, there is no amount of money that can ever make us completely safe. We have to have a smarter and more modernized military, and that is exactly what Secretary Gates is proposing. We have to look for alternative ways to defend ourselves; all the weapons money can buy won't do us half as much good as better diplomatic relations, stable global allies and more education at home and abroad. We simply cannot kill our way to a more peaceful world.
I applaud Secretary Gates' efforts to curtail the reckless defense spending that has plagued the federal budget for decades. In a time when congress cites budget issues as cause to hold up funding for treating 9/11 responders' lingering health problems, extending unemployment benefits that sustain individuals and families through the recession, or even ensuring that all Americans have access to affordable healthcare, how can we justify spending so much money on an outdated defense strategy? The way we spend our money reflects our values as a society, and, clearly, those need to be reexamined. Mr. President, please don't allow the hysterics from conservatives to prevent Mr. Gates from implementing these necessary cuts.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Day 224- In praise of Wikileaks
Dear Mr. President,
I have been reluctant to write to you about the recent Wikileaks controversy. I've followed Wikileaks for several months now, and, during the buildup to the release of the secret documents I was certainly anxious to find out what information they would contain, even as I was hesitant about the idea of leaking military secrets. I understand that you can't be expected to be happy about the release of secret documents, no matter how harmless they might seem, but I do think that Wikileaks serves an important purpose.
Our government is meant to be open to public scrutiny. I understand the need for national security and the secrecy that goes along with it, but the American government has become too comfortable misleading or outright lying to the American people. This deception seems especially widespread in military matters, and the kind of information released in the Wikileaks documents demonstrates that often these lies are for the simple purpose of painting military action in a more favorable light. A disturbingly large amount of our tax dollars goes to fund the Defense Department without significant public scrutiny. (Go ahead, Mr. Gibbs, say what you will, but I'm not for eliminating the Pentagon and I'm not using drugs.)
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I would like to know what my tax dollars are buying, and how successful the operations being funded are. Beyond the monetary issues, there is a moral imperative for every American to know how, exactly, our country is representing itself in times of war. By allowing the public to access this information on Afghanistan, (or revealing evidence of US troops targeting civilians in Iraq,) Wikileaks is doing it's part to ensure that this government continues to be of and by and for the people. It's the American public's way of telling our government that we simply can't be cut out of the loop and fed a palatable bedtime story. We will find out the truth.
Perhaps people would rather be told lies, so long as they are safe and aren't asked to think too much? I think that is an incredibly cynical way of looking at the American people. Some of your most eloquent writing is on the need to leave behind our cynicism and do our part to make our country stronger. How can you ask us to do this for a government that lies to us? A government that told us the truth about our military operations, even if that truth was ugly or hard to hear, would not risk this kind of exposure. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been awful, world-changing events that will forever alter the way the world views Americans. It is the responsibility and right of every American to know exactly how and why this war is being waged. I know that you cannot publicly do anything but denounce Wikileaks, but you ought to strive to lead a government that would not engender this kind of necessary mistrust of the stories we're being told. A site like Wikileaks could not exist if the government didn't make it absolutely necessary.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I have been reluctant to write to you about the recent Wikileaks controversy. I've followed Wikileaks for several months now, and, during the buildup to the release of the secret documents I was certainly anxious to find out what information they would contain, even as I was hesitant about the idea of leaking military secrets. I understand that you can't be expected to be happy about the release of secret documents, no matter how harmless they might seem, but I do think that Wikileaks serves an important purpose.
Our government is meant to be open to public scrutiny. I understand the need for national security and the secrecy that goes along with it, but the American government has become too comfortable misleading or outright lying to the American people. This deception seems especially widespread in military matters, and the kind of information released in the Wikileaks documents demonstrates that often these lies are for the simple purpose of painting military action in a more favorable light. A disturbingly large amount of our tax dollars goes to fund the Defense Department without significant public scrutiny. (Go ahead, Mr. Gibbs, say what you will, but I'm not for eliminating the Pentagon and I'm not using drugs.)
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I would like to know what my tax dollars are buying, and how successful the operations being funded are. Beyond the monetary issues, there is a moral imperative for every American to know how, exactly, our country is representing itself in times of war. By allowing the public to access this information on Afghanistan, (or revealing evidence of US troops targeting civilians in Iraq,) Wikileaks is doing it's part to ensure that this government continues to be of and by and for the people. It's the American public's way of telling our government that we simply can't be cut out of the loop and fed a palatable bedtime story. We will find out the truth.
Perhaps people would rather be told lies, so long as they are safe and aren't asked to think too much? I think that is an incredibly cynical way of looking at the American people. Some of your most eloquent writing is on the need to leave behind our cynicism and do our part to make our country stronger. How can you ask us to do this for a government that lies to us? A government that told us the truth about our military operations, even if that truth was ugly or hard to hear, would not risk this kind of exposure. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been awful, world-changing events that will forever alter the way the world views Americans. It is the responsibility and right of every American to know exactly how and why this war is being waged. I know that you cannot publicly do anything but denounce Wikileaks, but you ought to strive to lead a government that would not engender this kind of necessary mistrust of the stories we're being told. A site like Wikileaks could not exist if the government didn't make it absolutely necessary.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Day 174-Secretary of War
Dear Mr. President,
I think that replacing General McChrystal was a necessary thing. The war in Afghanistan does not seem to be going well, and much of our own conduct has been unacceptable. I don't know that General Petraeus is the best man to replace him, but, as I'm not a military officer, and am in no way qualified to comment on the best way to wage a war I fundamentally oppose, I have no particularly strong feelings about this choice. I hope that, if nothing else, the change in leadership provides an opportunity for us to seriously reconsider and reexamine our entire strategy in Afghanistan. What is our goal? Safety? Stability? I do not see how more weapons, more violence, more destruction, will help achieve these ends. What real purpose is our mission there serving? Do we seek to gain strategic global positioning? Is it conflict for conflict's sake, a vain attempt to slake the bloodthirst that we can't even admit to having? Is it the same death throe delusion that has taken down empire after empire daring to set its sights on this land? Or is it just old-guard military men who want to beat the Soviets, even at empire, hell-bent on completing their cold-war victory even all these decades later? Because, Mr. President, and I confess I am no expert, it does not appear, at least, that we are doing anything more than strengthening the terrorists we claim to be fighting. Osama Bin Laden has not been caught, and even if he is, it does not matter. Our invasion has spread one man's delusion beyond his loyal band of followers and made them a global political and military force to be reckoned with. Were we just looking for another challenge? I don't know what is true, I don't know what I believe, and I don't know what the best solution is. I feel certain, however, that there is more motivating our actions than self-defense. Be it vengeance or greed or a need for chaos, I am uneasy, as an American, being represented that way to the rest of the world.
Today a friend asked about the Secretary of War, a position he read about in Lincoln's cabinet. He was curious as to what it had become. Did the men who decided to change the name of that position think that it would mean less war? Or did they just find the name too impolite for modern sensibilities? We can call it defense, or even homeland security, but war has certainly not become any less fashionable. I may be less involved, and asked to sacrifice even less, than the generations of American civilians who committed their whole selves to the national war efforts, but still I am tired. I am so tired of this war, and I have not been fighting it. I have not been dying or suffering in it, either. Bombs are not dropping in my neighborhood, as they are for countless Afghan civilians, but I am still tired of their sound. This war is exhausting, because it has no clear objective and it has not clear imperative. This war is exhausting because it strengthens the forces we claim to oppose, extending and provoking and ensuring that another generation will pick up the kalashnikovs their fathers are dropping as we gun them down. Because each life lost leads only to more lives lost; the overwhelming suffering and destruction leads only to more suffering and destruction. We are better than this, Mr. President; better than our conduct in this war, better than the petty despots we've propped up, the violence we've perpetuated, or the viciousness of those who attacked us. I know there is a significant and vocal portion of our population that equate war with patriotism and justice and righteousness, but I also know that we are better than that, too.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
I think that replacing General McChrystal was a necessary thing. The war in Afghanistan does not seem to be going well, and much of our own conduct has been unacceptable. I don't know that General Petraeus is the best man to replace him, but, as I'm not a military officer, and am in no way qualified to comment on the best way to wage a war I fundamentally oppose, I have no particularly strong feelings about this choice. I hope that, if nothing else, the change in leadership provides an opportunity for us to seriously reconsider and reexamine our entire strategy in Afghanistan. What is our goal? Safety? Stability? I do not see how more weapons, more violence, more destruction, will help achieve these ends. What real purpose is our mission there serving? Do we seek to gain strategic global positioning? Is it conflict for conflict's sake, a vain attempt to slake the bloodthirst that we can't even admit to having? Is it the same death throe delusion that has taken down empire after empire daring to set its sights on this land? Or is it just old-guard military men who want to beat the Soviets, even at empire, hell-bent on completing their cold-war victory even all these decades later? Because, Mr. President, and I confess I am no expert, it does not appear, at least, that we are doing anything more than strengthening the terrorists we claim to be fighting. Osama Bin Laden has not been caught, and even if he is, it does not matter. Our invasion has spread one man's delusion beyond his loyal band of followers and made them a global political and military force to be reckoned with. Were we just looking for another challenge? I don't know what is true, I don't know what I believe, and I don't know what the best solution is. I feel certain, however, that there is more motivating our actions than self-defense. Be it vengeance or greed or a need for chaos, I am uneasy, as an American, being represented that way to the rest of the world.
Today a friend asked about the Secretary of War, a position he read about in Lincoln's cabinet. He was curious as to what it had become. Did the men who decided to change the name of that position think that it would mean less war? Or did they just find the name too impolite for modern sensibilities? We can call it defense, or even homeland security, but war has certainly not become any less fashionable. I may be less involved, and asked to sacrifice even less, than the generations of American civilians who committed their whole selves to the national war efforts, but still I am tired. I am so tired of this war, and I have not been fighting it. I have not been dying or suffering in it, either. Bombs are not dropping in my neighborhood, as they are for countless Afghan civilians, but I am still tired of their sound. This war is exhausting, because it has no clear objective and it has not clear imperative. This war is exhausting because it strengthens the forces we claim to oppose, extending and provoking and ensuring that another generation will pick up the kalashnikovs their fathers are dropping as we gun them down. Because each life lost leads only to more lives lost; the overwhelming suffering and destruction leads only to more suffering and destruction. We are better than this, Mr. President; better than our conduct in this war, better than the petty despots we've propped up, the violence we've perpetuated, or the viciousness of those who attacked us. I know there is a significant and vocal portion of our population that equate war with patriotism and justice and righteousness, but I also know that we are better than that, too.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Day 157- The purity of arms
Dear Mr. President,
Today while reading about several Israeli Naval Officers' objections to the attack on the flotilla, I came across a phrase I had not encountered since I was last in college, the Israeli concept of a "purity of arms." While the idea of rendering a weapon impure by employing it in ignoble ways seems as though it is a principle designed to steer a nation toward using force only for "righteous" causes, it seems to me that this ethos leads only to deception. A people who require that an inherently unethical action, violence, be used only for ethical means, are asking only to be lied to and manipulated. I do not, by any means, feel that Israel is the first or only country to employ such an ethos; the United States often seeks to portray our own military actions as being purely righteous and good. Likewise, the American people ask for this deception; we want to believe that we are allowed to possess the weapons and wield the might of our fighting forces, because our cause is just and, even, pure.
I have never been to war, but I don't imagine there is much purity to be found on a battlefield. I don't believe that objects designed to maim and kill can be in a state of purity or impurity; they are weapons and weapons are just devices with purposes and no morality. The soldiers carrying the weapons, themselves devices with purposes handed down to them by men in much more expensive uniforms. It could be argued that these men are guided by the people who elect, appoint, and generally empower them, that their morality is derived only from ours. The power dynamics that support or contradict this could be examined for ages, with no easy or obvious conclusions to be drawn. It is the people's fault; it is the fault of those in power; it is the fault of the human condition; in the end, it does not matter. If our soldiers and their weapons are deployed to kill and to destroy, than we can claim no purity of purpose, regardless of our enemy. They might oppose the terrorists of al-qaeda, or the Janjaweed soldiers in Sudan; at the most individual level it will still be fathers and sons and brothers (and more than a few mothers and daughters and sisters) who are dying.
I am a believer in the paramount righteousness of non-violence, but I am not entrusted to lead any one, much less the United States of America. I understand that you must exist in the "real world" where violence is threatened and done against America and American interests every day. While some would claim that "weakness always begets aggression" I think this is tantamount to blaming the victims of violence for the violence done to them. Furthermore, I don't believe that the use of force is a show of strength, so much as it is of fear. Does our responsibility to protect the weak, to stand for justice and even freedom for all require that we use violence to these ends? I cannot answer this question to my own satisfaction. I want to believe that we could exist in the world as a nation unwilling to use violence and call it righteous, that, if we must defend ourselves with the horrors of our war machine, we might at least be honest about the toll it takes and the complexity of our enemies and our motives.
But I want to believe a great many things.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Today while reading about several Israeli Naval Officers' objections to the attack on the flotilla, I came across a phrase I had not encountered since I was last in college, the Israeli concept of a "purity of arms." While the idea of rendering a weapon impure by employing it in ignoble ways seems as though it is a principle designed to steer a nation toward using force only for "righteous" causes, it seems to me that this ethos leads only to deception. A people who require that an inherently unethical action, violence, be used only for ethical means, are asking only to be lied to and manipulated. I do not, by any means, feel that Israel is the first or only country to employ such an ethos; the United States often seeks to portray our own military actions as being purely righteous and good. Likewise, the American people ask for this deception; we want to believe that we are allowed to possess the weapons and wield the might of our fighting forces, because our cause is just and, even, pure.
I have never been to war, but I don't imagine there is much purity to be found on a battlefield. I don't believe that objects designed to maim and kill can be in a state of purity or impurity; they are weapons and weapons are just devices with purposes and no morality. The soldiers carrying the weapons, themselves devices with purposes handed down to them by men in much more expensive uniforms. It could be argued that these men are guided by the people who elect, appoint, and generally empower them, that their morality is derived only from ours. The power dynamics that support or contradict this could be examined for ages, with no easy or obvious conclusions to be drawn. It is the people's fault; it is the fault of those in power; it is the fault of the human condition; in the end, it does not matter. If our soldiers and their weapons are deployed to kill and to destroy, than we can claim no purity of purpose, regardless of our enemy. They might oppose the terrorists of al-qaeda, or the Janjaweed soldiers in Sudan; at the most individual level it will still be fathers and sons and brothers (and more than a few mothers and daughters and sisters) who are dying.
I am a believer in the paramount righteousness of non-violence, but I am not entrusted to lead any one, much less the United States of America. I understand that you must exist in the "real world" where violence is threatened and done against America and American interests every day. While some would claim that "weakness always begets aggression" I think this is tantamount to blaming the victims of violence for the violence done to them. Furthermore, I don't believe that the use of force is a show of strength, so much as it is of fear. Does our responsibility to protect the weak, to stand for justice and even freedom for all require that we use violence to these ends? I cannot answer this question to my own satisfaction. I want to believe that we could exist in the world as a nation unwilling to use violence and call it righteous, that, if we must defend ourselves with the horrors of our war machine, we might at least be honest about the toll it takes and the complexity of our enemies and our motives.
But I want to believe a great many things.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
