An open letter to President George W. Bush

Originally published in Reader Weekly
December 4, 2003

Note: most of the links are no longer available.

Dear President Bush:

You have said dozens of times that you will “do whatever it takes” to win the war on terrorism, the latest being when you signed the National Defense Authorization Act for 2004 on November 24, 2003. (1)  At that time you said, “We will do whatever it takes to keep our nation strong, to keep the peace, and to keep the American people secure.”

I submit that you are not doing everything it takes to do all that you promised.  Here are some ideas of what it takes to leave Iraq satisfactorily and continue the “war on terrorism.”

First, accelerate training in Arabic.  I have read that the Army is short of Arabic translators (2)(3) and I have read how effective good translators are (see Stars and Stripes among others).  I have also seen it reported that troops have killed unarmed people because they could not speak Arabic and had no translator.  However, nowhere in your speech or in the Defense Authorization Act do the words Arabic or language appear.

You should not only accelerate training for more Arabic translators, but you should provide training for all Iraq-based troops to learn as much Arabic as they wish.  This latter could be with CDs, small-classes, or just a mass distribution of phrase books.  I know from personal experience that speaking the local language even a little bit builds better relations.

Second, you should start reading newspapers and magazines and stop depending on your staff to filter the news for you.  The best you can depend on your staff to do is to tell you what they think you want to hear, not what you need to know.  I recommend that you read The New York Times, The Washington Post, The American Spectator, The Progressive Magazine, Stars and Stripes, The Atlantic Monthly, Harper’s Magazine, The Daily Star of Lebanon, and Dawn of Pakistan, especially the editorials in all of these.  They should give you a very wide range of opinions to provide you a much better basis for your decisions.  Among recent articles I highly recommend is “Tour of Duty” in the December issue of The Atlantic Monthly; it includes accounts of now-Sen. John Kerry’s experiences as a Navy officer on river duty in Viet Nam.  It will give you some insight in the disconnect between what is happening on the battlefield and what is happening in the Pentagon.  Read some books on recent Iraq history – an example is Sandra Mackey’s The Reckoning: Iraq and the Legacy of Saddam Hussein.  Iraq is a very complex country with a long history of domination by outsiders.  One cannot make judgments about Iraq without understanding these complexities.

Third, have a long private talk with General John Abizaid, no advisors present, just you and him.  Let him tell you what he thinks needs to be done to get Iraqis governing themselves peacefully.  Not only does General Abizaid speak Arabic, but he has lived and studied in the Middle East.  He also has made a specialty of unconventional warfare using semi-independent units rather than big coordinated units.  This style is much better for fighting small-scale insurgencies such as occur in Iraq on a daily basis.

Fourth, have a long private talk with Senator John Kerry.  Again no advisors.  He should be able to give you a good understanding about what really happens in war.  He understands that what headquarters thinks is happening or wants to happen is not always what is really happening or should happen.

Sixth, rename the “War on Terror”.  The struggle against terrorism really is more a police investigation on a massive scale.  Are you going to bomb Germany, France, Turkey, England, and Canada because they are “harboring” terrorists?  Bombs did not arrest those who were found in these countries, police did. On the other hand bombs dropped on civilians are a good recruiting tool for any resistance.

Finally, don’t worry about re-election.  Which would you rather do - pass your successor in 2005 a plan that is bringing about your goals or pass your successor in 2009 a mess that is spiraling out of control?  Short-term actions that may please a large number of voters may work against long-term interests that would “keep our nation strong, … keep the peace, and … keep the American people secure.”  If you are going to do whatever it takes, do the right thing.

(1) Signing the National Defense Authorization Act for 2004, November 24, 2003, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031124-2.html

(2) "Expert: Lack of Arabic hurts U.S. in Iraq", Washington Times, July 25, 2003, http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20030725-032406-5262r.htm

(3) "U.S. 'desperately in need' of Arabic speakers to hold Iraq", World Tribune.com, July 9, 2003, article no longer available online

P.S. May 26, 2007, one of my sources for this article was "Iraq Today, The Independent Voice of Iraq".  I can find no direct reference to it.  The URL http://www.iraq-today.com cannot be found.  The editor, Hassan Fattah, left Iraq in March or April 2004 when his situation became too dangerous.  See "Goodbye, Baghdad", by Hassan Fattah, published in the July/August 2004 Columbia Journalism Review.  This article is not available directly from CJR.

©2003, 2007 Melvyn D. Magree

Quote of the Day: "Everyone knows"

"If you hear that 'everyone' supports a policy, whether it’s a war of choice or fiscal austerity, you should ask whether 'everyone' has been defined to exclude anyone expressing a different opinion."

- Paul Krugman, "Marches of folly", New York Times, 2013-03-17

A couple of reads for the Independence Day (Fourth of July)

OK, I know it's a bit late in the day to recommend some reading for the Fourth of July, but any day is really a good day to pass these along.

"Bill of Wrongs: The Executive Branch's Assault on America's Fundamental Rights", Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose, 2007

This is mostly about cases that have been brought to court against the Federal or other governments and generally prevailed in one way or another.  These are all from the George W. Bush Presidency's "War on Terrorism".

The other is "Whose Freedom? The Battle over America's Most Important Idea" by George Lakoff.  I haven't started it yet, but all the hype about our "freedoms" has often struck me as insincere.  There are the definite illegal intrusions by government into the private lives of individuals.  The "freedom" meant in too much of the hype is the freedom for corporations to do what they damn well please without regard to the effects on people.  I shall see over the next week or so.

Terrorism thrives where law doesn't exist

President George Bush sent many off to create democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he neglected to do much about the lack of democracy in Pakistan. With the reinstatement of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, many Pakistanis are hoping that the rule of law will return to Pakistan. See "Reinstated, Chief Justice Bears Hopes of Pakistan", New York Times, 2009-03-29

Others are not so optimistic. Corruption is rampant in Pakistan and the ability or even willingness of the top to reign corruption in is almost non-existent. Reporters have been killed, promises have been made to find the killers, and nothing is done. See"Our Lawless Land", Dawn, a Pakistani English Language newspaper, 2009-03-29.

A Microscopic Insurgent

Op-ed by Mark D. Drapeau
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/opinion/04drapeau.html

Cholera is a real danger in Iraq with at "least 30,000 Iraqis [having displayed] cholera-like symptoms"

Cholera is spread through untreated water, insurgent areas have less treated water creating poor areas, poor areas breed more insurgents, insurgents make having treated water more difficult, untreated water creates poor areas...

And it doesn't help that insurgents are using chlorine trucks as weapons.

My question is why U.S. and Iraqi authorities don't wage a bigger propaganda campaign on how insurgents are hurting Iraqis more than Americans.

Where has "tough on ..." gotten us?

I sent this sent this email to my Representative, Jim Oberstar.

Apropos "Democrats seem ready to extend wiretap powers", New York Times, Oct. 9, 2007

I would hope that Democrats after all these years would counterattack the Republicans charges of "soft on..." with "we want to be effective on..."

Such is the case with Bush and Company's eroding of the Constitution with their security paranoia. They may have been "tough on terrorism" but they've been singularly "ineffective on terrorism".

From my latest Reader Weekly article, Putting up with putdowns, Sept. 27, 2007

Miracle! Before I sent this column I found the “lost chord”. It is “soft on…” It is an argument that Democrats have let Republicans get by with for too long. The Republicans discussion stoppers have been “soft on crime”, “soft on Communism”, and “soft on terrorism”. This hard-nosed approach has yet to make any of these disappear. Soviet Communism self-destructed but it lives on in Putin’s petro-authoritarianism. And we still have China and Castro.

Creative fallacies

I'm reading George Soros' The Age of Fallibility, and I recently read columns by Diane Ravitch on No Child Left Behind (1) and David Brooks on the co-opting of classical conservatism by the Republican Party (2). Or should I say, the co-opting of the Republican Party by people who are certain they hold the truth.

No Child Left Behind and the "war on terrorism" have created more problems than they have solved and diverted resources away from possibly better solutions. We have looked for the quick fixes, the Father knows best solutions, rather than engage in a sober discussion of what the real problems are. We deal with solving problems with the certainty we know the solutions rather than deal with the uncertainty that we won't have a perfect solution.

For example, peace demonstrations are not the answer to extricating our country from the Iraq war. Demonstrations are more mob rule than governance. A better strategy would be to write columns, blogs, letters to the editor, letters to representatives showing the fallacies of the current course. This strategy would have to also suggest ideas to deal with the problems. For example, what do you do for all the Iraqis that have helped the U.S. forces?

The "war on terror" like the "war on drugs" before it is a misleading choice of words. The "war on terror" has reinforced the view that a military solution will adequately deal with criminals who are certain that their view of the world will prevail. We can't bomb Hamburg because terrorists are living and plotting there.

We need to counter terrorism more with ideas than bullets. The U.S. has blown many chances to show that the bin Laden version of Muslim is contrary to many teachings of the Qu'ran. We need to show that an ideology will not bring about a heaven on earth, but that an open society will give us more opportunities to get closer to a just world. We need to counter certainty with possibilities.

(1) "Get Congress Out of the Classroom", Diane Ravitch, New York Times, Oct. 3, 2007

(2) "The Republican Collapse", David Brooks, New York Times, Oct. 5, 2007

Terrorists are criminals, not combatants

"Why Terrorists Aren't Soldiers", New York Times, Aug. 8, 2007, by Wesley K. Clark, former supreme commander of NATO and Kal Raustiala, law professor, is an important definition of who we're against. When Bush treats Al Qaeda members and suspected Al Qaeda members as "unlawful enemy combatants" he increases their stature. He also sees the military as the counter to such "combatants". On the other hand, if we treat them as criminals and use police forces to counter terrorist activities, we stand a much better chance of reducing their threat.

Are "Wars on..." successful?

First there was the "War on Crime" which had mixed results. Many Mafia leaders were caught and prosecuted, but crime is still a problem in many cities.

Then there was the "War on Drugs" which has filled many prisons. But drugs still come into the country and find buyers.

Now we have the "War on Terror". Some think it is succeeding: "We will keep the enemy on the run." (George W. Bush, October 19, 2006) Unfortunately, he thinks the enemy is in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it is global and growing larger. In fact, the war in Iraq probably helped al Quaeda grow. See "Al Qaeda Strikes Back", Bruce Reidel, Foreign Affairs, May/June 2007.

With the military already stretched thin, Bush is giving hints that he would like to attack Iran. Riedel writes that al Qaeda would like to see Bush attack Iran. Consider that the Iranian weapons found in Iraq may have been smuggled in by al Qaeda with the hope of proking the U.S. to attack Iran.

Would the U.S. leaving Iraq strengthen the terrorists' position or weaken it? If the U.S. leaves, Iran may come in to protect the Shia majority against the Sunni insurgents and the Sunni-based al Qaeda. A good general often lets somebody else do the fighting.