oxymoron

Dear Undecided Voter,

Thank you for allowing me to make a case for voting John Kerry in the next Presidential election. Although most of our political discourse is filled with vitriol and personal attack, I believe the reasons for supporting a candidate in these troubled times should be based on policy. Therefore, I will constrain my discussion to matters of policy and their underlying values, motivations, and consequences. In fact, I will largely contain my discussion to the single issue of Iraq as I believe that the policy of the current administration will be among the greatest, if not the greatest, disasters in our nation's history. Here goes why:

It is my view that Bush has not been honest with the American public. The reasons for going to war with Iraq were developed by Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Cheney back in 1997 in a document called The Project for an American Century. That is, the reasons were not because of 9/11 nor because of WMDs. The Bush administration merely used 9/11 to supply a rationale for an action his neo-conservative advisors sought anyway. We can see in some of the early actions after 9/11, specifically Rusmfeld's comments as reported by Bob Woodward in "Bush at War" and Richard Clarke's assertion that Bush wanted him to find an Iraq connection, that they were already seeking to find a way to invade Iraq even as Osama Bin Laden was still running free in Afghanistan.

The reason to invade Iraq as articulated in Project for an American Century is to create an era of American international dominance along lines that have never been seen before. The greatest threat to that dominance was perceived to be instability. The greatest area of instability was clearly the middle east. The plan was and is to invade Iraq in order to gain a foothold in the region and begin to import American values, including democracy, capitalism and certain human rights. Now, some of these values I must admit would seem to me to be positive developments. The problem, however, is that these are "our" values and they would be brought into the region by us. In many ways, these values are a threat to the indigenous and traditional culture of the region. Many Arabs, after all, feel a profound ambivalence toward America. Whereas they envy our wealth, think the concept of democracy sounds good, and enjoy our popular culture, they also feel that American culture is non-serious, materialistic and libertine. Moreover, they are used to a more patriarchal and tribal social structure than may be afforded by liberal democracy.

The belief of the Bushies is that by giving the Arab world a vested interest in the status quo--making them capitalists et al--they will be less likely to create instability in the world. In a sense, it is the Bushies goal to "Americanize" the middle east in order that the current situation in which American values as carried by our mighty capitalist, political and military enterprise are ascendant and the American nation can reign over the world. In their minds, this is sort of as a benevolent hegemon in that they see our current American values and nation as the epitome of righteousness. I believe that this part of the equation comes mostly from Bush and his religiosity.

The problem I believe with this approach is that it is fundamentally ethnocentric. It fails to respect the indigenous culture of the region, suggesting the absolute superiority of American values. This, in my view, is actually the cause of terrorism. That is, Islamic Fundamentalists feel as though the West has been messing around in their part of the world for a century. We have tried to control the political and economic condition of the region. In doing this, they believe we are exercising our own self-interest rather than what is truly for their benefit. This is perhaps most apparent in our support for a Saudi regime that stands for everything that is not consistent with our calls for democracy and human rights. Frankly, our record makes it hard for the Arabs to accept that our actions in Iraq are for the benefit of Iraqis rather than our own interest. This is particularly true of a Bush administration who was against the concept of nation-building in the last presidential campaign and has consistently shown itself to act unilaterally for what is perceived as the good of the U.S. rather than in the common interest of the world community. The Kyoto Protocols are merely one example.

It is my belief that the results of Bush's policies are and will be two-fold. In the first place, it is clear that we have alienated our allies. This does not only include the "French" but also our neighbors in Canada and Mexico. Secondly, and more significantly, I believe that Bush has played directly into Bin Laden's hands. Bin Laden paints a picture to his followers of an American imperialist who has come into the Arab lands with our armies, our secret intelligence service and our corrupt culture and used this part of the world for our interests. Bush's aggressive militarism, fairly or not, can easily be used to support this pre-existing notion. It is my view--and this is born out by many studies--that we have created far more anger in the Arabic world than existed before. I do not see how over time this approach can not create more terrorism.

The world today has changed. No longer can you totally defeat a nation in battle and force them to surrender. In fact, the more that a nation is able to humiliate its opponents, the more they are angered. And as we have seen, it only takes a few of them to wreak catastrophic damage.

It seems to me that Bush has set us on a cycle of never-ending violence. The Bush administration wishes America to lead in this world. But the method of leadership that we display is that conflicts are to be resolved through violence. If that is the way we choose to lead, I do not see how we can expect other nations to act any differently.

Of course, we are in a difficult situation. We face a ruthless and dangerous enemy. I am not in favor of appeasing Bin Laden. I am, however, in favor of improving our relationship with the Arab world. The Bushies are too. But, their method is to attempt to make them more like us. I believe that this is plain and simple a matter of disrespect. It is the humiliation of another culture. This I believe to be the greatest and most long-lasting effect of Bush's policy. Think how long and deep people's have held grudges against those they perceived have treated them unfairly over time?

Even if you do not agree with me on the disastrous nature of this policy, there is still the issue of Bush's forthrightness with the American people. I feel the prior intent to invade Iraq and the ulterior motivations found in "The Project" are quite clear. In view of this, I believe that the Bush administration sought whatever justification was sellable in order to garner support for their invasion. Wolfowitz has practically admitted as much in The New Republic. Originally, and with the horror of 9/11 frightening our nation, the Bushies chose the WMD argument as the reason to invade Iraq. They also put out these innuendos about Saddam's link to 9/11. Neither of these arguments have proved credible. Now, of course, we find Bush shifting the rationale to providing liberty to Iraq.

That is plainly revisionist history. That was not the reason that we were sold. While I personally believed Saddam did have some WMDs and I do not think that was an unfair opinion by the administration, it was also not the equivalent of the certainty expressed by Cheney and others. It did not require us to abort the process of Inspection under which Iraq was subjecting itself and which in hindsight appears to have actually been quite effective at eliminating Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Personally, I do not think the American people deserve a President who is not completely forthright about the reasons for sending American soldiers into battle to die. People often try to make this an issue of black and white. Claiming that either Bush lied or he didn't. I don't think the matter is so simple. I do believe that the Bush administration desperately wished to invade Iraq for reasons both related and unrelated to 9/11. I do believe they mustered whatever argument they thought was sellable to the American people and the world. I do believe that they read the intelligence in a manner to support that pre-ordained conclusion. I do believe that the reason we are in Iraq is for what is perceived as our self-interest rather than the altruistic act of liberating the Iraqi people. I say this last point because it is non-sensical to wait for the greatest crisis in our natonal security in decades to suddenly reverse the policy of nation-building and believe that with an Osama Bin Laden still running free that now is the time that America can afford to do the benevolent act of liberating the Iraqi people.

These are only my opinions and only in one specific area of disagreement with Bush. I also have strong disagreement with the way I believe he is acting in the self-interest of our time, while burdening our children and future generations with debt, environmental problems, healthcare problems et al.

I do not know many undecided voters. Thank you for inviting me to make a case against Bush--and for a different approach that I believe will be fulfilled by Kerry. I am certain that those who support Bush can make an equally persuasive argument on why to vote for him. Fundamentally, I think it does come down to a matter of values. And I do not think it is a matter of one set of values being right and the other being wrong. Rather, it is a matter of choosing what kind of nation that we wish to live in. I believe that the mark of true leadership is showing both generosity and respect. In my view, Bush is attempting to lead in the manner of the bully who wishes to compel respect from others. One is the way of a Gandhi or a King; the other an Alexander or Napoleon. Each had their successes. But which of them triumphed in the end?

Good luck with your decision. Let us know how it turns out.

Sincerely,

Oxy J. Moron


PS: My comments about Gandhi and King are not an advocacy of pacificism, but rather an advocacy of dialogue informed by strong moral commitment and earning of respect rather than a demanding of it.

The Daywalker

Yeah, that war thing is the one thing i don't care about. I'm glad Bushy went in there, don't care the reason.

*Ledi*

I agree COMPLETELY with that letter.

oxymoron

Me too.

86amanda86

Well, I guess it just goes back to the debate about whether or no he was honest with us. I belie he was. You don't. I have my reason and so do you...

JohannafromIHJ

The rest of the world does care. A country can't just attack another country for no reason, it's illegal, dangerous and creates serious political tension.

Milt Palacio

Yes, he lied.

alli balli

Here's my letter to an undecided voter:

YOU'RE A MORON.

Seriously. Who are these idiots who STILL can't pick one or the other? Its not THAT difficult.

The Daywalker

Illegal. I've never in my years of school heard of a war that was legal. Death is death, no matter how much butter or jam you put on it.

*Lauren

Well then your school didn't educate you properly.

A "legal" war is one that is endorssed by the UN, and therefore the rest of the world. Pre-emptive war is never legal. Look at the examples of WWI and WWII, most historians consider WWI a war that should never have happened. The countries went to war, as the leaders wanted one. Its considered immoral. WWII was a war that had to happen, one of the very few I've agreeded with (of course that is with hindsight)

oxymoron

I must admit I find the concept of legality in war a bit absurd. In the first place, it assumes that international law is binding. The Bush administration has consistently demonstrated that international law is useful when it supports your position and to be avoided when it is inconvenient. What exactly is the binding force of international law other than the consent of participating nations?

Secondly, the legality of war is also a dangerous tool that allows powerful countries like the U.S. to deny the ability of less powerful countries to press grievance. The so-called rules of law are designed to set ground rules that ensure that those with more power and weapons succeed. Acts of terror, for example, would not be considered within the legitimate bounds of war. But acts of terror are the only way that a less powerful party can confront a more powerful party.

Certainly, acts of terror are heinous. But in a conflict both sides think they are right. If we decide that violence is the way to settle conflict, then delegitimizing the tactics of the less powerful ensures the more powerful will win. Clearly, this is an unacceptable conclusion for a less powerful party who believes they are in the right. Thus, terrorism is an inevitable conclusion.

By perpetuating the use of violence as the means of conflict resolution in the world, the Bush administration has necessarily increased the use of violence among the world's less powerful parties as well. As such, this type of leadership will have the effect of increasing terrorism in our current conflict and future conflicts around the globe. Is that the kind of leader Americans want to be?

oxymoron

Actually, that is only one aspect of the issue. The other, and more important, is the consequences of his action. As I stated, I believe that the actions were based in an ethnocentrism, probably unintentional, that causes even greater animosity by inflicting humiliation upon a people.

The people of the middle east have seen the imperialism, hypocrisy and decadence of the west. For us to follow up our economic and cultural invasion with a military invasion. wearing our moral righteousness on our sleeve is only going to create more rage.

Whether fairly or not, we have humiliated another culture. Their young, proud males will not soon forget. The world will be worse for it.

Ashleigh

Yes, that is true. And it is going to come back to bite us in the ass later on, when they're sacrificing our people even more than they do now.

Raonaild

The problem wasn't whether war with Iraq was legal or not, the problem was whether it was a Just War. The US was never able to make a particularly convincing case to the world that it was, and what little supporting "evidence" the US could produce to validate pre-emption has since fallen apart.

The Bush administration could have played the whole situation differently and ended up with a lot more support. Instead they were in such a hurry they cashed in all their good will and said **** you to the rest of the world and went in guns blazing.

The fact that some of the Americans in this thread are saying they don't care why America went to war is precisely why the rest of the world is not happy with the situation and wants Bush out. If you're perfectly willing to invade a country on a whim just because you think it's in America's best interests, what's to stop you from doing it to anyone else?

I haven't been posting at this board lately because I'm not really interested in the specifics of the US election. It's not my country, Americans can vote for who they want to run their country. As a non-American though, I desperately want Bush to loose, because I fear for what will happen outside America if he wins.

*Ledi*

Well said.