Day 348- Secrets and Lies

Dear Mr. President,

I've never been a particularly good secret-keeper. My face gives away every emotion, every lie I try to tell. This might be why I've never had the stomach for any significant subterfuge. I've been another person's secret too many times and seen it end too badly for them and for me to have any illusion about the nobility of secrecy. If a decision cannot bear the scrutiny of others it is probably not a particularly good choice. Michael Moore recently posted bail for Julian Assange, and in his letter explaining his motivation for this decision he says

Openness, transparency — these are among the few weapons the citizenry has to protect itself from the powerful and the corrupt. What if within days of August 4th, 1964 — after the Pentagon had made up the lie that our ship was attacked by the North Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin — there had been a WikiLeaks to tell the American people that the whole thing was made up? I guess 58,000 of our soldiers (and 2 million Vietnamese) might be alive today.

Instead, secrets killed them.

I think that what you once called the "deficit of trust" Americans have in our leaders is brought about by these lies we've been told throughout history. Wikileaks is not the answer to this; a government that doesn't hide behind lies is the answer. Instead of joining the chorus of voices from the right and left calling Wikileaks a terrorist organization, I think that you should take this opportunity to change some of the behaviors you've been so embarrassed to have the rest of the world discover. I think an important (though, for obvious reasons, unsavory) step toward this is to relinquish some of the sweeping expansions made under President Bush to executive powers. Aspects of the PATRIOT ACT, the power to assassinate suspected terrorists without a trial, even the new standards for screening by the TSA all contribute to the sense that the government does not trust the people. It can hardly be a surprise, then, that the people have developed our own system for dealing with a similar mistrust for our leaders. Some one has to blink first. Demonstrating a commitment to responsible, trustworthy leadership is the only way the government can regain our trust.

A friend, while commenting on a previous letter about Wikileaks, pointed out

most of the people whining are old politicians. Our generation has already seen these document releases happen with corporate and personal communication. We have an entire generation (the boomers) that have relied on "security through obscurity", and that doesn't fly in the technological world. This is a rude wake-up call for them.

Perhaps the endearing anecdotes about your addiction to your Blackberry deceived me into thinking you'd be on our side of a generational conflict. Surely the age issue is as false a dichotomy as race or religion or any other of the teams we're told to fight for in life, but I think that my friend is right in identifying an old world view of security and the conflict between those who cling to it and those of us willing to view security in a modern light. Secrets and lies may have worked (at least for a little while) for previous administrations, the unprecedented level of individual access to information simply will not allow it to continue. Secrets and lies have created the current state of international affairs, the mistrust of Americans for actions our government has taken on our behalf and often without our knowledge.

Michael Moore and Julian Assange certainly have their share of faults. They also don't have the complicated, difficult job of running a country or trying to keep the free world safe. But the burdens of your position don't justify the lying and they don't justify defending a system that is based on mistrust of Americans. Even if you can't publicly defend Wikileaks or Assange, you can take steps to change the way our government keeps its secrets and the way it spies on the American people. We can't trust a government that doesn't trust us, and it's up to you to change that.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 347-Richard Holbrooke

Dear Mr. President,

Richard Holbrooke's death is a loss for his family and for the international community he spent his life serving. Reports of his final words "You've got to stop this war in Afghanistan" left me wondering who he'd intended them for. Were those words for you, the one person who might be able to do it alone? Or were they for all of us, each person with our own, considerably reduced, ability to bring the conflict to an end. I had to consider the wisdom of this man, his life spent experiencing first hand the international drama I study in classrooms. Was he speaking to me, then? Did he believe that the war even could be stopped?

I may not always trust my own naive beliefs about war, but I don't think that Mr. Holbrooke suffered from naiveté. His call for an end to this war joins a chorus of other well-informed voices demanding that we end this senseless, counter-productive and expensive conflict. I don't imagine that any last words, even those of such a distinguished diplomatic heavyweight, will change your position on the war so dramatically.

If there is one thing that I am saddest about after all of these letters is that I no longer believe you're capable of listening to the anti-war voices in your rush to please the right. Even when those voices come from true American heroes, you seem to have accepted the argument that being anti-war is being anti-American. In the cacophony of discussion about strategic values, public perception and geopolitics I think the simple statement that this war is just wrong will inevitably be lost.

As we mourn the passing of a great man who served his country well, I know that I, at least, won't be mourning just his death but also the sad knowledge his dying words have fallen on deaf ears.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 339-All in

Dear Mr. President,

Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas has stated that he will dissolve the Palestinian government and force Israel to take responsibility for the West Bank. Abbas is clearly a much better poker player than I would have given him credit for.

If Israel does not stop settlement construction, Abbas would be wise to follow through on this threat. Abbas is correct when he says that he cannot be expected to lead, to be responsible for a territory he has no real control over. Israel bears little of the financial or regulatory responsibility for its occupation, and forcing the government to pay (literally and figuratively) for its policies is the only way to compel change. The threat may frighten Israeli leadership enough to get an actual settlement freeze or could pave the way to a more just single-state solution, should the Palestinians begin lobbying not for statehood but suffrage.

I certainly don't envy the headache Prime Minister Netanyahu must be suffering as a result of this announcement.

With Israeli and Palestinian firefighters working together to battle a forest fire, I hope that government officials on both sides recognize the potential for all of the people in this region to live side by side, to work together, in peace. It can happen, but such an outcome is absolutely contingent upon civil rights, economic stability and personal security for all people, regardless of race, religion or ethnicity. It cannot happen under occupation, and I am glad that Abbas, at least, recognizes this. I hope that peace talks resume in a manner that is fair and respectful of both sides, but, should the intractable commitment of the Israeli right to continue the construction of the settlements prove to be insurmountable for Netanyahu, I fully support the return of administrative responsibilities for the West Bank to the Israelis. Palestinians have long been punished (often violently) for the actions of extremists within their midst while Israel has empowered, protected and elected their own fundamentalists. The price of this hypocrisy ought to be the social, financial and political burden of the occupation and oppression supported by those fundamentalists and spearheaded by settlers in the face of international law, the interest of peace and basic common sense.

Abbas has slid his chips across the table. Netanyahu must go all-in with him, or fold and face the consequences. As Israel's ally and an advocate for peace, (not to mention a leader familiar with the costs of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan,) I'm sure you can appreciate just how difficult Netanyahu's decision will be. Netanyahu should learn from history, freeze the settlement construction and return to the table for peace talks more willing than ever to compromise for the sake of peace. Call your friend, Mr. President, and tell him it's time to fold.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 338-The Moral Lie

Dear Mr. President,

While I am generally opposed to lying, and do not tell many lies, there are certain lies I tell all the time. I don't think this makes me much different from most people, and I usually carry on with little notice of this hypocrisy. The polite constraints we expect of one another in most casual conversations compel a certain amount of dishonesty. I think that most of the lies I tell are for the sake of politeness. But, today at least, dishonesty weighs heavily on my conscience.

I have been staring at this page for hours now, wondering if I have the courage to finish this story. I have written before about stigmas surrounding mental illness, the way a frank admission of depression and its effects can change the way people look at you, the way they treat you and the esteem they hold for you. I have experienced both sides of this disdain and am loathe to subject myself to it. To be honest about my struggle, to be honest about my history would be uncomfortable for me and for those who think they want to know about it. And so I lie, for every one's comfort. Or so I tell myself.

When I was very young, and for years after I was old enough to know better I was troubled with compulsive self-injury. It may ring falsely to those who do not understand this, those who see only the stigma, the cliché, to describe myself as passively affected, the direct object of such acts rather than their perpetrator. And I am theirs to judge, I suppose. My history with it is long and complicated and over. I have shut the book on that struggle, on that part of my life and, most importantly, on that behavior. But the evidence of it remains, and will likely remain on my skin for the rest of my life. I don't think it is fair that I should be judged by the mistakes of my younger self, that I should be defined by this aspect of my past, no matter how far it is behind me. When questioned about these old scars, I tell myself that those who ask really do not want to know the story behind them, and it gives my conscience no trouble lying to them. It is, after all, for their own good.

Today I was asked by some one I have slowly come to trust and I lied anyway, almost without realizing I was doing it. I don't imagine he is the type of person to ask questions he does not actually want the answer to. Because I look for his approval the same way I would look for that of a role model or mentor or even a brother, I realized even as I was in the process of lying that I was doing it for my own protection and not for his. I was lying because it is important to me not to be seen as weak or emotionally disturbed. I was lying because of my own ego, my own fear, and I could not pretend that there was any nobility, any honor, in this fiction.

Which brings me, once again, (and rather oddly,) to Wikileaks. As I hear each new story, as each new lie is revealed, I find myself wondering not at the government's dishonesty but at its justification for this dishonesty. The gossipy diplomatic cables I understand. I don't care if a US diplomat thinks Vladimir Putin is Batman and doesn't want the world to know. (Honestly, I'd be more surprised at this point if Vladimir Putin wasn't Batman, but I can see how it might cause some discomfort.) These are polite obfuscations that help every one save face. The body counts in Iraq, the corruption in Afghanistan, the 22 dead children in Yemen, however, are not lied about because they are impolite topics of conversation. These are lies of ego, lies of fear, lies born of the greater self-delusion that they are kept from the American people for our own good. Even the idea that bringing these crimes to light will put American troops in greater danger is, I believe, misguided. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan (and Yemen. And Palestine. And God knows how many other places.) know who is killing their children and empowering their corrupt leaders. This information is only secret to the American people, and it is kept secret from us not to protect us but to protect our government from our reaction to this knowledge. And there is no nobility, no honor, in these fictions.

My past is full of dark things and terrible stories and many people will not want to hear them. But I cannot pretend I hide the past for the protection of others. I hide because I am ashamed and I hide because I am afraid. And so do you. So does this government. Our greatest lie is not when we hide the truth from others but when we tell ourselves that we lie for a greater good.

I did not write this letter to call you out for these lies. Clearly, I have no moral high ground to claim. We are both liars and we are both deceived by our own lies. I wrote this letter because I have been quick to condemn your dishonesty while slow to notice the same tendency in my own life. I understand why you lie, and why you convince yourself it is the moral thing to do. I just don't think that you really believe it any more than I do.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 335- Dating advice from some one who really sucks at it

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

Day 332- Wikileaks (with a vengeance)

Dear Mr. President,

For a casual student of foreign affairs such as myself, today is basically Christmas come early. Getting a glimpse behind the veil of secrecy that obscures much of the day-to-day unscripted intrigue of international relations can be exciting, even if it likely made the last few day (and the next few weeks) pretty rough for you. While much of the information leaked concerns only trivial possibly-embarrassing frankness, some of the information is already proving to provide a new picture of our current relations with several countries. And, while I take no pleasure at seeing you or your administration embarrassed, I do think that the right of the American people to have access to the knowledge of how we are being represented abroad is more important than the impoliteness of letting foreign leaders know what we really think of them.

Certainly this latest release of information is less damning than the previous revelations about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from Wikileaks. If nothing else, it might be viewed as an opportunity to learn about weaknesses in our government's electronic secret-keeping. We might also take a moment to appreciate the importance of not bribing or bullying other countries, (not to mention mistaking aid money for pay-offs and US diplomats for spies) unless we're cool with every one knowing about it, but even I'm not so naive as to believe your administration capable of learning that particular lesson.

As with every other letter I've written you about Wikileaks, I will conclude this by saying that no damage could be done to a government acting with honest good intentions. And maybe ours is too big, our foreign policy too complicated, for that to always be the case, but leaks like these are shameful because our government ought to be ashamed of how it represents the people of the United States. We share your embarrassment just as we share the responsibility for the foreign policy decisions you would prefer be made in secret. If we're to be represented by our government we have the right to know what it does. Should the day come that our government manages to represent us well, it will have nothing to fear from the truth.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 193-One State

Dear Mr. President,

The "threat" of the one-state solution has long been tossed about in discussion of the fate of Palestine and Israel. I find myself ambivalent on the subject. In some respects I think it is a good idea; it would end the apartheid system of segregated "Arab" and "Jewish-only" neighborhoods and streets (at least in the law, though, obviously, de facto segregation would likely continue.) It would incentivize working together, learning from one another, and mutual respect, as both Palestinians and Israelis became responsible for the fate of their country. I think it might also mitigate the inequitable resource usage, especially regarding water. It would help both sides, economically and educationally. It would offer legitimacy of each in the eyes of their current enemy's allies.

On the other hand, I worry about the backlash. Ethnic and religious violence on a larger scale. I don't imagine the leaders of the Likud party (or even Labor) being too eager to share their nuclear launch codes (and other military secrets) with the leaders of Fatah, or the PFLP, or Hamas. The military would certainly have a had time adjusting, and the mandatory service for all citizens might need to be reconsidered. It would be ugly, difficult, maybe even bloody, for at least another generation. I, for one, am not confident enough in the outcome to be comfortable calling for a solution that would lead to more lives lost. But doing nothing is also a choice, and the status quo of slow partition is also ratcheting up the body count.

In an International Relations course at Boise State University, one the best professors I ever had gave us an assignment. He divided us into three teams- A, B, and the UN. We were given a map, with different symbols for resources and different concentrations of ethnic groups A and B. He said, every one divide up the map, let's see what we end up with. Needless to say, a heated and unresolved argument ensued. Had we been dividing anything besides land, I would have said, let team A divide it up, and let team B pick their half first. But land is not a heard of cows. Land has history, people's homes, holy sites, cemeteries. I never thought to suggest that we forget the partition all together, and neither did any of my classmates. Looking back, I wonder if, at least in simulation, it would have been a wise idea.

I know that your administration is publicly opposed to the one-state solution. But I'd like to know what your ideal endgame looks like. What outcome can you imagine as best? I think, no matter where you draw the borders, Israel and Palestine will have to work together, rely on one another, trust one another, to a degree that does not yet seem possible. South Africa today did not seem possible during the years of apartheid, either. And it has been a long and bloody road to a present that is yet far from ideal, but I don't think that a South Africa White and a South Africa Black would have been a better solution. What are your thoughts on the one-state solution, Mr. President? I don't believe it isn't something you've given thoughtful consideration. Have you, entirely, rejected the possibility? If so, what was your reasoning for doing so? How do you envision the region, ideally, in 10 years? In 50? What does a solution look like, to your mind?

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 103- Nobel Prize, revisted

So I’m going to keep on at it. But I think on all these issues -- nuclear disarmament, nuclear proliferation, Middle East peace -- progress is going to be measured not in days, not in weeks. It’s going to take time. And progress will be halting. And sometimes we’ll take one step forward and two steps back, and there will be frustrations. And so it’s not going to run on the typical cable news 24/7 news cycle. But if we’re persistent, and we’ve got the right approach, then over time, I think that we can make progress. - President Obama, 4/13/2010 Press Conference


Dear Mr. President,

Progress is important, even if it is sometimes too slow. That you brought together the leaders of so many nations and made significant steps toward a safer world this week is impressive; some will say it is not enough, some will say you've compromised our safety, too many will not notice or care. Personally, I feel as though the Nobel Prize you were awarded was given in good faith, in the hope of times like these, when the nations of the world could gather in Washington and discuss nuclear security with honesty, frankness, and mutual respect. The world is, once more, looking to American leadership on this issue, and much of that is due to the improved foreign relations you have fostered since your inauguration.

This is the kind of American leadership that I'm happy to represent to the rest of the world when I travel. I do not agree with either war we are currently waging, nor with our general policy toward the Palestinians; however, I feel that all three situations were inherited and have, at the very least, benefited from your measured and thoughtful approach. Even if I don't always agree with your approach to foreign policy, I feel as though you have a willingness to explain your thinking and to allow for dissent from your citizens and from allies that brings people together. I think this is exactly what they had in mind when they chose you for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

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

Day 97- Haiku

This inspired me
for today's letter. Go on,
count the syllables.

A Haiku Letter:

Dear President Obama,
It's a slow news day.

Coup in Kyrgyzstan.
Diplomats smoking on planes.
Flooding in Brazil.

Threats on the Speaker,
economy still struggling,
internal unrest.

Never a slow day,
in the situation room,
it's always morning.

Glenn Beck's Tea Party,
Limbaugh's expatriation,
McCain's heels dug in.

How do you manage?
When do you get time to breathe?
Keep your famous cool?

Between enemies;
both foreign and domestic,
constant apathy,

innate corruption,
systematic inertia,
year-round campaigning;

you must get tired.
Even as we elected
Hope, not energy.

Me, so far removed,
just worrying my way from
paycheck to paycheck,

can't begin to say
what, exactly, is best for
me, or our country.

I write you each day,
to question and to complain
express hope, or faith.

I'm not sure that I
ever say what I try to;
that I still have hope

hope that we can change
hope in more than the campaign,
in our government.

for all the danger,
of our troubled world today
I rest easily.

knowing that you will
answer the 3 a.m. calls
while I am sleeping.

For you, there is no
such thing as a slow news day.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

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

Day 83- Jedi chess

Dear Mr. President,

It appears as though the press corps is giving Robert Gibbs quite a rough time about your meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu. This is one of those moments where, watching from the outside, being privy to nothing but what the media and the White House reveals, I have to concede I don't know enough to be certain about what you're doing. It seems as though you might be taking private steps toward toughening our stance on Israeli settlement activity. It seems as though you might be leveraging this latest incident into legitimate efforts at peace talks. But this could just be speculation.

Not long ago, when the battle for health care reform seemed to be getting the best of you, Jon Stewart said "I can’t tell if he’s a Jedi master playing chess on a three-level board way ahead of us, or if this is kicking his ass." I sometimes feel the same way about our Middle East policy. I know that my letters often include unbridled anger, disappointment and outrage. I know that, even if you make radical steps toward restarting the peace process, our foreign relations with Israel will likely still be too close for my comfort. I understand, Mr. President, that we will probably never agree on this. I think that my role as your constituent is to continue asserting my position, asking for more than I expect you to do, in the hopes of somehow balancing the AIPACs of the world. Much of my argument is based on the premise that there are absolute rights and absolute wrongs, and that gross oppression of human rights is an example of the latter. I do understand that the nuanced world we live in does not often lend itself well to absolution, and that you may be justifying certain means to an end I can't see or understand yet.

What I mean, sir, is that while I may be sick with grief at the death and suffering, at the injustice and oppression, while I may be exhausted with the fight and frustrated with our hypocrisy, I have faith that you know what you're doing and that you know what is right. I do not surrender my judgment to your own, but I do believe it is possible that you're seeing more than you're willing to let on.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 73- Wha?

Dear Mr. President,

I'm shocked. I'm dumbfounded. The forces for transparency and justice seem to be winning! Secretary Clinton is upset, demanding answers. Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is setting up a team to investigate this egregious offense. The scandal is all over the news.

No, it's not about the blockade of Gaza that's punishing 1.5 million people for the actions of a handful of militants. It's not about the arrests and attacks on peaceful protesters in Bil'in. It's not even about the illegal construction of 1600 Jewish-only settlements in East Jerusalem. This uproar is over the fact that the settlements were announced during Vice President Biden's visit to Israel. Wait, what? THAT is what we're upset about? THAT is what PM Netanyahu is asking a team to investigate? The timing of the announcement.

Mr. President, please tell me we are all still grown-ups. Who cares if VP Biden was there when it was announced? Would it have been any less awful if he hadn't been? Why are we mustering so much outrage over the impoliteness of this and not the injustice? Forgive me if this letter is just a series of questions, sir, as I am so appalled by the pettiness of my own government that I can't muster an articulate statement about this. This is like being invited to feast on poisoned food and complaining that we weren't given the right dinner fork. Excuse my bluntness, sir, but we pay for them to violate international law, and then cover for them at the UN when it gets ugly- are we really going to cry foul because they dare do it in our presence?

Respectfully yours in utter disbelief,

Kelsey

Day 64

Dear Mr. President,

Michael Moore has written you a letter, asking to be installed in the place of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. When you picked Mr. Emanuel, back in 2008, I remember thinking, "Wow, he couldn't have picked any one more upsetting to Republicans in this country." (It was an admiring thought, not a critical one.) Clearly, I was just asking to be proven wrong.

Mr. Moore is a difficult character for me to embrace. I appreciate his issue-based crusades, his willingness to attack, rather than just play cautious defense. He gave a speech at my school, Willamette University, in 2004 shortly before Bush was re-elected. I recall being buoyed a bit, by his pugnacity, even as it made me uncomfortable. His methods are not always easy to agree with, his tactics often heavy handed and tending toward the ridiculous. But he does force the debate to take place on his terms, something I wish a few more of us on the left were capable of doing.

I can't decide if the rumblings about problems with the White House senior staff are just liberals who can't appreciate the difficulties of governing a country compared to the outsider's struggle just to be heard, or if they have a legitimate point. I think that shouting and grandstanding may help us, when we're in the minority, when we have no reasoned, legislative way to advance our agenda, but as the majority party, it doesn't sit well.

Back in 2008, I had hoped that your appointment of Mr. Emanuel, who is known for his pro-Israel views, would allow you the political cover to take truly drastic steps in repairing our credibility and effectiveness as a mediator with the Palestinians. Sadly, this has not come to pass. That being said, I haven't been disappointed in Mr. Emanuel's performance as Chief of Staff. If one accepts Mr. Moore's premise (and I don't) that your agenda has been completely held up by a lack of assertiveness on the part of the White House, I suppose that could be a good reason to look for a new COS. But I think, ultimately, that the responsibility has to be with you, sir, and not Mr. Emanuel. If a new COS will help advance our agenda, will wake up congressional Democrats and will give the impression of timely and substantial progress, than I support replacing him. (Though, hopefully, not with Michael Moore.) In the end, however, I think we both know that Mr. Emanuel is not the problem. Congress is the problem. Right now, Republicans have the same advantage over Democrats that the insurgents in Iraq had over coalition forces; we have to win, and they just have to keep from losing. I don't relish comparing governing to warfare; I would rather believe that we work with the Republicans, not against them, but their fierce partisanship, their pervasive obstinacy has made this an apt metaphor.

Read the letter from Mr. Moore with a grain of salt. He makes some valid points, which are worth considering, but he is wrong, I think, both about the lack of momentum and its supposed source. He won't be the last to call for a change in the senior staff, to be certain. I never thought I'd be defending Rahm Emanuel, Mr. President, but I think that your Chief of Staff is serving you well in what we all ought to understand is a long, difficult struggle.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

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

Day 33

Dear Mr. President,

It seems as though your administration is going out of its way to upset China this week. Selling arms to Taiwan? Announcing plans to meet with the Dalai Lama? I think these actions are admirable, they demonstrate mature wisdom and the courage of your convictions about human rights. You say that, because our relationship with China is an adult relationship, we can disagree publicly without jeopardizing diplomatic relations. Our disagreements do not demonstrate a lack of respect.

Why is this not true of the US and Israel? Why can we not demonstrate the same maturity, the same courage, with regards to one of our supposedly staunches allies? Why can we not speak to Hamas, or provide the necessary political support to Palestine to secure its independence? How can we justify defying the status quo for the Taiwanese and Tibetans, but not the Palestinians? What strategic considerations come into play when determining whose rights are worth fighting for?

In our history we have often compromised the freedom of one group for the progress of another. Subjects of King George were freed while their slaves were not. Black men were given the vote, while women were told to wait their turn. Feminists marched to equal rights, while the gay community must wait for the decriminalization of their love. In all of these cases the powerful masses- be they actively participating in the oppression or merely turning a blind eye for the sake of their own struggle- were either forced by conscience to share power, or threatened with the loss of this power all together. And progress was slow in coming, but progress came. The slaves were freed, women voted, and, I believe, one day, gay couples will be allowed to marry. These equalities were hard-won, but they were also the inevitable product of an enlightened, free society, a society mature enough and courageous enough to embrace change. How does history treat the oppressors, the detractors, those who defended slavery and opposed suffrage?

I feel certain that history will judge the disenfranchisement of the Palestinians just as harshly. It seems inevitable that Israel will either share power or risk losing it. We can respect Israel as an ally, call out their shortcomings in the name of doing the right thing, or we can be painted alongside them, oppressors in kind. I don't want my citizenship to be a source of shame. I want to be proud of my country, I want to believe that we defend human rights, wherever they are threatened, regardless of political expediency.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 6

Dear Mr. President,

Today the clashes at the Egyptian border have me thinking about Gaza. It's been more than a year since Operation Cast Lead. It has been one year, and still the reconstruction has not been allowed to move forward. One year and still the 1.5 million Gazans are kept near-starving by blockade. One year and still the people have not turned against Hamas. You, of course, already know all this. You know how much the people of Gaza suffer, you know the atrocities detailed in the Goldstone report, you know the role the US played in the conflict between Hamas and Fatah that led to the blockade in the first place. You know the punishment America and the rest of the international community were so swift to deal out when the Palestinian people held elections in 2006 & the results were not to our liking.

Not long ago you accepted the Nobel Peace Prize. You were awarded this honor due largely to your return to a diplomacy-based foreign policy, your belief in the power of non-violent solutions. You have reached out to the Muslim world in many ways, the most prominent of which being your speech in Cairo, in which you said "The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own."
But, of course, you know all that, too.

Why, then, am I writing you a letter about things that I know you already know? Why am I writing you a letter about a situation that must weekly, if not daily, require your attention? Because it has been more than a year, sir, and nothing is better. So much, in fact, is only getting worse. On your watch.

Not long ago, I sat in the living room of a Palestinian family in a small town outside of Nablus called Awarta. It was during the end of your primary race with Hillary Clinton, and already clear to us that the general election would be between you and Senator McCain. The father of the family, upon learning that I was an American, advised that I should vote for you. "Both would be bad for us," he said, sadly, "But at least Obama will give you health care."

I understand the political reality that makes supporting Palestine so difficult for you as a president. But that reality is not greater than one year of the needlessly prolonged suffering of civilians, of children, all because Israel may punish without fear of reproach from its allies. How are we acting in Israel's best interest by turning a blind eye to its transgressions? How are we serving peace when we undermine Abbas's authority by pressuring him to defer action on the Goldstone report? What does this accomplish, besides weakening the moderates and perpetuating the bleak reality that radical elements thrive upon?

You know the answer, sir. It has been more than a year. It is time to make your words in Cairo, the spirit of your Nobel Prize, and the promise of your presidency a reality. Do not let another year go by with no hope for Gaza.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey