I'll Just Put S. Baldric
Wow. This is worth reading.
Usually, I pick letters for the newspaper that are ridiculous and misinformed, but today is a little different. I came across Stephen's letter in the paper today, and it really made me think. This is something I'd never really pieced together before, but you have to admit, it makes a lot of sense. I think Stephen may really be on to something here, and in light of this brilliant pontification, I may have to really reevaluate my stance on the occupation of Iraq.
No, no, just kidding. Obviously Stephen's theories are about as legitimate as a three dollar bill.
Stephen, as I read your letter, I found myself laughing out loud, and trust me, I wasn't laughing with you. I generally try to separate the politics from the person, but in this case, there aren't any real politics to be separated. This is just nonsense, and if you're going to write batshit letters to the editor, I'm going to have to assume that you're batshit.
You have finally accepted what millions of Americans have been saying since 2003: The invasion and occupation of Iraq stands very little chance of ending up in what we can call a success. In fact, it has been a miserable failure, costing thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, and billions of dollars. For what? Well, the latest spin is that we're helping the Iraqis until they can stand up for themselves. Have we made progress? Well, a little over a year ago, the U.S. military announced that there were three Iraqi divisions able to fight on their own. A few months later, that estimate was lowered to two. Then, last autumn, we were told there was only one mission-capable division. Where do we stand now? A couple months ago, it was reported that there are no Iraqi divisions capable of fighting on their own. Holy shit! In our mission to help make the Iraqis capable of protecting themselves, we've gone from three mission-capable divisions to none. The good news is, things really can't get any worse for us as far as meeting our objectives. You can't really have fewer than zero fully-trained Iraqi divisions.
Obviously, the blame for this outrage must be directed somewhere. Surely it has nothing to do with sending about half the troops requested by military commanders to secure the occupation. You can't really blame those who disbanded the original Iraqi army, creating a large number of unemployed, angry, heavily armed, military-trained Iraqi men. It has nothing to do with the historic tensions between religious sects and ethnic groups in the country previously held in check only by the authoritarian rule of Saddam Hussein. It would be ridiculous to assume it had anything to do with the misappropriation of reconstruction funds, with 8 billion dollars missing and unaccounted for while three years after the invasion, Iraqi infrastructure still isn't at fifty percent of its pre-war state. All of these are nonsense crackpot theories by morons who just happen to be better educated and more intimately familiar with the situation than you. No, no, I think the answer is obvious. The cause of our failure in Iraq is the failed candidacy of a vaguely anti-war candidate who didn't even have enough of an impact in his own country to win the election but somehow managed to completely shift our fortunes halfway across the world.
Stephen, is it possible, maybe even just a little, that when you finally had to accept the reality of our failures in Iraq, you were stuck in a situation where everything you've been arguing for since 2002 had been proven wrong, causing you to almost call into question your own political identity before the defense mechanisms kicked in and misdirected the blame to an outlet you were already comfortable with bashing, namely John Kerry? I mean, obviously you are one of those people whose very identity has been built around right-wing ideology and ignorant self-importance. When that shell was inevitably cracked by the annoying, persistent barrage of reality, you were left not only with a flawed political outlook, but a flawed personality built around it. Ultimately, it's not surprising that you'd lash out at any available target instead of reflecting on your own personal issues. It's not surprising, but it is sad, and yet simultaneously amusing, to observe.
As it turns out, Kerry was absolutely right. Our invasion of Iraq was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was the wrong war, as it was initially waged to root out weapons of mass destruction and al Quaida ties that we now know never existed. It was the wrong place, as there are many other countries that actually do have WMD capabilities and terrorist ties, and since the Iraq invasion was made possible by the fear generated by the 9/11 terrorist attacks, it seems important to point out that none of the terrorists came from Iraq. It was the wrong time because we were already involved in an occupation of Afghanistan, a nation we tried to introduce to democracy but cut out early on the invade Iraq, leaving it to flounder under tribal control and Sharia law. Kerry was absolutely right, Stephen. It's a little bit stupid to blame the messenger, don't you think?
Regardless, and I think this is the most important point, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter even if, as you seem to actually believe, John Kerry's anti-war platform made the difference between a Westernized, democratic Iraq with Caucasian, English-speaking, Christian Iraqis driving SUVs on gold-paved boulevards, and the situation Iraq is currently in. The United States is a nation of free expression, founded on the concept of dissent. Free dissent is a means of protection more valuable than all the permanent bases we could build in Iraq. All governments face dangers, not only from without, but also from within. Corruption and greed are powerful forces, waiting to take control whenever the opportunity arises. It is our right to dissent that protects us from corruption and greed, and we'd do well to remember that we were guaranteed that right, but also given a mandate to employ it. It is the earmark of a totalitarian regime that the will of the leaders and the military security of the nation override the freedoms and liberties of the citizenry. Perhaps you would feel more secure in a totalitarian America, where freedom from is considered more important than freedom to. If so, I contend you are dissatisfied with the very principals the United States was founded on, and while you are free to do so in this nation, you are free to do so only because of the liberties you detest. Patriotic Americans are not the ones slapping cheap ribbon-shaped magnets on their cars, but the ones who are willing to criticize policy, even at the expense of reputation. That is the legacy of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and thankfully it carries forward into today, despite attempts by people like you to smear those who engage in dissent. As Edward R. Murrow once famously said, "We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."
To the Editor:
As I look at the political hate cartoons (March 25), one reminds me that the Iraqis were throwing flowers at our troops, dancing in the streets and pulling down statues of Saddam until J.F. Kerry started campaigning, calling Bush a liar, telling the world that this was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time; the "W" War.
I believe if it had not been for the benevolent J.F. Kerry, we would have been out two long years and 2,000 deaths ago.
Stephen
Usually, I pick letters for the newspaper that are ridiculous and misinformed, but today is a little different. I came across Stephen's letter in the paper today, and it really made me think. This is something I'd never really pieced together before, but you have to admit, it makes a lot of sense. I think Stephen may really be on to something here, and in light of this brilliant pontification, I may have to really reevaluate my stance on the occupation of Iraq.
No, no, just kidding. Obviously Stephen's theories are about as legitimate as a three dollar bill.
Stephen, as I read your letter, I found myself laughing out loud, and trust me, I wasn't laughing with you. I generally try to separate the politics from the person, but in this case, there aren't any real politics to be separated. This is just nonsense, and if you're going to write batshit letters to the editor, I'm going to have to assume that you're batshit.
You have finally accepted what millions of Americans have been saying since 2003: The invasion and occupation of Iraq stands very little chance of ending up in what we can call a success. In fact, it has been a miserable failure, costing thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, and billions of dollars. For what? Well, the latest spin is that we're helping the Iraqis until they can stand up for themselves. Have we made progress? Well, a little over a year ago, the U.S. military announced that there were three Iraqi divisions able to fight on their own. A few months later, that estimate was lowered to two. Then, last autumn, we were told there was only one mission-capable division. Where do we stand now? A couple months ago, it was reported that there are no Iraqi divisions capable of fighting on their own. Holy shit! In our mission to help make the Iraqis capable of protecting themselves, we've gone from three mission-capable divisions to none. The good news is, things really can't get any worse for us as far as meeting our objectives. You can't really have fewer than zero fully-trained Iraqi divisions.
Obviously, the blame for this outrage must be directed somewhere. Surely it has nothing to do with sending about half the troops requested by military commanders to secure the occupation. You can't really blame those who disbanded the original Iraqi army, creating a large number of unemployed, angry, heavily armed, military-trained Iraqi men. It has nothing to do with the historic tensions between religious sects and ethnic groups in the country previously held in check only by the authoritarian rule of Saddam Hussein. It would be ridiculous to assume it had anything to do with the misappropriation of reconstruction funds, with 8 billion dollars missing and unaccounted for while three years after the invasion, Iraqi infrastructure still isn't at fifty percent of its pre-war state. All of these are nonsense crackpot theories by morons who just happen to be better educated and more intimately familiar with the situation than you. No, no, I think the answer is obvious. The cause of our failure in Iraq is the failed candidacy of a vaguely anti-war candidate who didn't even have enough of an impact in his own country to win the election but somehow managed to completely shift our fortunes halfway across the world.
Stephen, is it possible, maybe even just a little, that when you finally had to accept the reality of our failures in Iraq, you were stuck in a situation where everything you've been arguing for since 2002 had been proven wrong, causing you to almost call into question your own political identity before the defense mechanisms kicked in and misdirected the blame to an outlet you were already comfortable with bashing, namely John Kerry? I mean, obviously you are one of those people whose very identity has been built around right-wing ideology and ignorant self-importance. When that shell was inevitably cracked by the annoying, persistent barrage of reality, you were left not only with a flawed political outlook, but a flawed personality built around it. Ultimately, it's not surprising that you'd lash out at any available target instead of reflecting on your own personal issues. It's not surprising, but it is sad, and yet simultaneously amusing, to observe.
As it turns out, Kerry was absolutely right. Our invasion of Iraq was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was the wrong war, as it was initially waged to root out weapons of mass destruction and al Quaida ties that we now know never existed. It was the wrong place, as there are many other countries that actually do have WMD capabilities and terrorist ties, and since the Iraq invasion was made possible by the fear generated by the 9/11 terrorist attacks, it seems important to point out that none of the terrorists came from Iraq. It was the wrong time because we were already involved in an occupation of Afghanistan, a nation we tried to introduce to democracy but cut out early on the invade Iraq, leaving it to flounder under tribal control and Sharia law. Kerry was absolutely right, Stephen. It's a little bit stupid to blame the messenger, don't you think?
Regardless, and I think this is the most important point, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter even if, as you seem to actually believe, John Kerry's anti-war platform made the difference between a Westernized, democratic Iraq with Caucasian, English-speaking, Christian Iraqis driving SUVs on gold-paved boulevards, and the situation Iraq is currently in. The United States is a nation of free expression, founded on the concept of dissent. Free dissent is a means of protection more valuable than all the permanent bases we could build in Iraq. All governments face dangers, not only from without, but also from within. Corruption and greed are powerful forces, waiting to take control whenever the opportunity arises. It is our right to dissent that protects us from corruption and greed, and we'd do well to remember that we were guaranteed that right, but also given a mandate to employ it. It is the earmark of a totalitarian regime that the will of the leaders and the military security of the nation override the freedoms and liberties of the citizenry. Perhaps you would feel more secure in a totalitarian America, where freedom from is considered more important than freedom to. If so, I contend you are dissatisfied with the very principals the United States was founded on, and while you are free to do so in this nation, you are free to do so only because of the liberties you detest. Patriotic Americans are not the ones slapping cheap ribbon-shaped magnets on their cars, but the ones who are willing to criticize policy, even at the expense of reputation. That is the legacy of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and thankfully it carries forward into today, despite attempts by people like you to smear those who engage in dissent. As Edward R. Murrow once famously said, "We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."
posted by Zafrod at 5:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home