Swamppundit

Dear Salam,

The news media is saying some U.S. Marines murdered innocent civilians in a town called Hidatha. I would like to be able to tell you to not believe it; that it is all a crock; that U.S. Marines would never do such a thing. I can’t tell you that because I wasn’t there. I can tell you this though, between a Marine and a reporter, believe the Marine. Between a Marine and average citizen of Hidatha, believe the Marine. This is not an insult to Hidatha. Between a Marine and an average citizen of Omaha, Nebraska (one of our most honest cities), believe the Marine.

Are Marines perfect? No, but they are damned good. You know what I would most like, Salam? I would like reporters from Al-Jazzera to follow Marines around for a few weeks. Honestly report on the typical Marine day – not the best, not the worst, but the typical day, week or month. You would be favorably impressed by such a report, Salam, I know you would.

Am I saying Hidatha doesn’t count? Should be ignored? No. Marines are as good as they are because they believe in accountability. If the Marines did not investigate and hold any wrongdoers accountable, they would do a disservice to their fellow Marines.

Salam, this shouldn’t have to be said, but of course the killing of non-combatants is wrong, and the intentional killing of non-combatants is abhorrent. Does anyone where you live really think Americans don’t believe that? Does anyone there really think Americans are indiscriminate killers? Really? Are your people really incapable of distinguishing between the norm and the aberration? Are you really unable to distinguish between the outburst of an overstressed squad and the cold blooded orders of a ruthless leader? Really?

If you can’t, Salam, I am sorry. For if you can’t, these letters are a waste of our time.

While I don’t know what happened at Hidatha, Salam, it appears women and children died, and for that I am sorry regardless of how or why they died. The death of Iraqi women and children brings only sadness to Americans – Americans in uniform over there, as well as Americans out of uniform over here.

To continue stating the obvious, permit me to say all War is Hell and part of that hell is the death of innocents. Throughout history societies have had to choose between submitting to the aggression of others, or resisting aggression and inviting the Hell that is War. Because submitting to aggression often leads to a longer, more prolonged Hell of its own, many societies choose to resist. Let us be clear, Salam, the aggressors in Iraq are the ones who kill women and children by design. Only one side does that, Salam, and we don’t need a final report from Hidatha to know which side that is.

This was an unpleasant letter. I look forward to more pleasant topics.

Love,
Clarence

Dear Salam,

I know I don’t read as much as I should, and I suspect that if I were a more adventurous reader I could find what I am looking for, but really, why should this be so hard to find?

Why can’t I find a cogent analysis of Islam (and/or the Koran) that gives comfort to the West that an enlightened, non-violent, non-coercive Islam can and does exist, and that a devoted, faithful, Muslim can, and indeed, should, go about his or her life feeling no compulsion from his or her religion to physically coerce anyone else (anyone – family member, neighbor, clansman, infidel, anyone) to conform their beliefs or conduct in an particular way.

I am not looking for a model Muslim that is indifferent or neutral as to the beliefs or conduct of others. I am simply looking for a model Muslim that is committed to non-violence regarding the beliefs and conduct of others. This is not a very high bar I am setting. Every Rabbi I have ever met (or read of) meets this test. Any Methodist Minister meets this test. Every Baptist Bishop meets this test. The Pope meets this test. The Dalai Lama meets this test.

But I am not just looking for the person. It is equally important that find a knowledgeable writer who can convince the West that such a model Muslim is a devotee of the true Koran – that it is possible to be such a model Muslim without dishonoring the sacred text.

Where is the article that tells the touching story of the respected Muslim Cleric whose heart was broken when his daughter told him of her love for a Westerner, but who ultimately accepted the marriage. Okay, maybe “accepted the marriage” is a little too much to ask for. The article doesn’t have to say the Cleric “accepted the marriage.” The article can say the Cleric never approved of the marriage. The article can say the Cleric never spoke to his daughter again. But, the article must make clear that the daughter was not killed. Am I asking too much?

Some say that the true Koran is a militant, coercive Koran that demands that its true followers make non-negotiable demands on others. Some say that Islam cannot peaceably co-exist with other religions in a pluralistic free society unless large, currently important, sections of the Koran are ignored.

I hope they are wrong. I hope I soon read something that will convince me they are wrong. Can you convince me, Salam, that they are wrong? I hope you can. I hope you can send me the link to the articles I am searching for.

With love,
Clarence

UPDATE: This article in the New York Times isn't everything I was hoping for, but it is the closest I have found so far.

Dear Salam

The New York Times recently declined to publish the Danish Mohammed Cartoons out of, it says, respect for Islam. Do you believe that Salam? Neither do I. Where I come from, lying to someone is a sign of disrespect. The New York Times is showing disrespect.

Salam, please permit me to show my respect for you by being bluntly honest about what Americans do, and do not, respect.

Americans do not disrespect Islam. To disrespect a religion is impolite, and our mothers raised us to be polite. However, Americans also do not particularly respect Islam either. We Americans believe religion is a matter of personal choice, not a matter of respect.

Americans respect people, not religions; and we respect them for their actions, not for their religion.

Americans respect education. We respect societies that value education. We don’t respect societies who intentionally hinder some in their midst from getting an education. We respect women. We don’t respect those who do not respect women. We respect self-reliance. We don’t respect those that fail to achieve and then blame others for their failures. We respect Free Speech. We don’t respect those that attempt to limit, block, or intimidate Free Speech.

We respect strength, but only if used to help others. We respect warriors, but only those that defend others, or who defend freedom. Warriors that kill to limit freedom, or warriors that kill those that are not a threat, are warriors we do not respect.

We don’t respect those that demand respect by threats, as opposed to those who earn respect by deeds. We know the difference between respect and fear. We don’t respect thugs and others who confuse respect with fear.

We respect Israel, but not because it is Jewish. We respect Israel because it is democratic; because it is self-reliant; because it values education; because it respects women; because its warriors fight to defend; because it values free speech; and because it doesn’t threaten us with harm if we chose not to respect it.

We don’t respect those countries surrounding Israel, but not because they are Muslim. We don’t respect them because they are not democratic; because they are not self-reliant; because they do not value education; because they do not respect women; because their warriors kill the innocent; because they don’t value free speech; and because they threaten us with harm if we disrespect them.

We respect truth, and those that speak the truth. We do not respect those that lie, or those that keep silent due to fear. Which is why, at the moment at least, we Americans do not respect the New York Times.

Whew, that was a mouthful. I think I should add something important. We Americans actually prefer to think well of people. Our memory is actually shorter than it should be probably. We love stories of sinners who repent and then start doing acts worthy of respect. You know who we respect a lot right now? Your fellow Muslims in Iraq who risk death to go to the polls, vote, and proudly display their ink-stained finger. American respect, Salam, does not take a generation to earn. It can be earned quickly. Above I said we respect actions, not necessarily completed acts. While we respect acts and accomplishments, it would be even more accurate to say that we respect the effort to do the acts, the attempt to do the acts. We respect winners, but we also respect the honorable failure.

What I am saying, Salam, is that while your country does not have our respect right now, you would be amazed at how quickly that could change.

Like all these letters, Salam, this letter is written …

With love,
Clarence

Dear Salam,

I find the current cartoon dustup to be a cause for optimism. Because the West is prosperous, content, and in denial, its first instinct is to appease Radical Islamism. Appeasement (as ever) only makes matters worse. The West, properly, has no interest in rising from its slumber to defend Christianity against Islam. The cartoons episode encourages me to believe the West will wake up to defend freedom of speech. If the West draws a line the sand over freedom of speech, and means it, then appeasement will end, and a better future will draw closer. Radical Islam, of course, cannot co-exist with freedom of speech. Any modern society with freedom of speech will, in the long run, reject autocratic rulers. Such a society need not reject Islam, but it must reject autocrats clothed as Clerics of Islam.

The Imams, Mullahs, and Ayatollahs know this. That is why they find the cartoons such a threat. Freedom to draw a caricature of Mohammed is also freedom to question other so-called “unquestionable” teachings of the Koran. Freedom to draw a cartoon of Mohammad is freedom to ask why women can’t drive; freedom to ask why a petty thief must lose a hand, and freedom to ask why it is wrong to let the majority rule.

Ending appeasement always runs the risk of things getting worse in the short run. But, the quicker appeasement ends, the quicker we get to the better future, and the less bloodshed we will have to endure to get there.

All in all, I am drinking a toast tonight to a handful of Danish cartoonists who reminded us that this upcoming clash is not You vs. Me, Salam, or even Christianity vs. Islam, it is Freedom vs. Tyranny.

In friendship,
Clarence

Dear Salam,

I know this is arrogant of me, Salam, but the thought that democracy, freedom and capitalism would ever succumb to Radical Islamism is ludicrous. In the long run, really, Radical Islamism has zero chance of sweeping the world.

But in the short and medium view, I must confess that I am worried. It appears millions of people are in the grip of an ideology that is determined to return to the good old days of the 8th Century. The worst part is that one part of the 8th Century that they admire is the notion that violence in the service of the greater truth is noble, and the notion that death (of others, of themselves) in the service of the greater truth is noble.

I am not saying, Salam, that the problem is Islam. It is 8th Century Islam. 8th Century Christians held similar beliefs. 8th Century Christians also believed it was proper to inflict physical punishment on heretics. 8th Century Christians also believed that it was good governance to coerce citizens to abide by religious customs and practices. It took Christianity over 1500 years to become “enlightened.” While it seems obvious to our 21st Century minds, the notion that a religion should non-violently accept heretics in their midst, even heretics that were actively, and successfully, persuading the faithful to turn away from established church teachings, is a radical notion. It is a notion that was unprecedented until the Age of Enlightenment.

Unfortunately, I cannot envision the Imams and Mullahs peacefully accepting a 21st Century of women’s rights, freedom of religion (aka freedom to reject religion), and open questioning of the Koran’s teachings by those outside the formal hierarchy. The realist in me can’t help but picture the Ayatollahs choosing to release an orgy of violence in a doomed quest to return to the 8th Century before admitting that their views of mankind, womankind, and religion are outdated, outmoded, and in need of enlightenment.

You see, Salam, my fear is not that we will lose, it is that your side will choose to lose violently.

Bye for now,
Clarence

Dear Salam,

Understanding America requires understanding typical Americans. This could seem difficult since we are most diverse nation on earth. But, we all have something in common –we are all Americans. Plus most of us, but not near all of us, have our religion in common. With that in mind, I’ll pretend I am typical and explain myself to you.

The first thing you need to understand is that when I say that I am a Christian American, I am talking about two separate things. These two things influence each other I suppose, but as far as I am concerned, I go through my life wearing two hats.

When I wear my Christian hat, I am one passionate, non-tolerant, non-violent fellow. Just like you, Salam, I think my religion is the one true way to heaven. And, because I love you Salam – no, really, I really do love you – I want you to get to heaven. Therefore, I really would like to you to convert to my religion. That is what I mean by non-tolerant. It is not that I specifically dislike or disapprove of your prophet or your holy book, it is just that I don’t believe they will get you to heaven. To me, you tolerate something you don’t feel strongly about. Well, I feel strongly that I would like you to get to heaven, and therefore I feel strongly that I would like you to change your religion over to mine.

Some people mistake tolerance for tactics. You see, while I would like you to convert, I am not going to do much about it if you don’t. When I wear my Christian hat, I am one non-violent fellow. This is a biggie, Salam, you have really got to chew on this awhile. We Christians are really into this concept of Free Will. It means if you go to church and pray just because everyone else does and you want to fit it, well, then it doesn’t count. It won’t work. It won’t get you into heaven. You have to really want to go to church. You have to pray even when no one else is around to notice. So you see, Salam, if I twisted your arm and made you go to church, it wouldn’t get you into heaven, so why bother? Get it?

So, when I appear not to be trying too hard to get you to convert, it is not because I don’t care, and it is not because I “respect” your religion and therefore I am “tolerant” of your religion. I have a daughter who is currently into some new age nonsense involving Earth Spirits. I don’t respect Earth Spirits and I am not tolerant about the idea of my daughter going to Hell. But, I still love her, and while I will be forever inviting her to come back to church, I am never going to force her, and I am never going to punish her for not going.

So, Salam, you have nothing to fear from the Christian side of me. The Christian side of me is never going to hurt you. The American side of me is a different story.

This Free Will thing carries over when I wear my American hat, maybe more so. The American part of me is really into Freedom. We Americans disagree about almost everything except the importance of having the freedom to disagree.

Like virtually every American, there is an “old country” that “my people” came from. Actually, many “old countries” since three of my four Grandparents each trace their people back to a different “old country.” Since my wife has a different set of “old countries,” our kids can practically throw a dart at a map and be guaranteed of hitting an “old country.” The thing you have to understand about Americans is that we all bond together for a reason different than clan, tribe, race, or the place “our people” came from. We bond together through a common love of freedom. Should you ever come to live in America, Salam, once you let everyone know you love freedom, I mean really love it, love it more than anything else love it, then whammo, you belong – you become an American. And you don’t become some sort of second-class American, either. This Freedom thing comes with an Equality thing joined at the hip.

Now, assuming you stay over there in your country, there are some things you have to understand about the American part of me. First, the American part of me doesn’t care squat about your religion. I don’t respect it or disrespect it. I really don’t care. This Freedom thing includes Freedom of Religion, and so the American in me feels quite strongly that you are entitled to have any old religion you want.

The second thing is that we Americans are suckers for people in other countries that say they want freedom. We genuinely feel sorry for anyone who doesn’t have freedom. When we hear that someone who doesn’t have freedom is trying to achieve freedom, we instinctively want to help. That doesn’t necessarily mean we will do anything to help them, but if we don’t help them, we feel a little guilty.

The third thing is that we Americans understand deep in our bones that only the strong are truly free. The weak can also be free, but only if the strong say so. Therefore, deep in our bones, we know our freedom depends on our being stronger than everyone else. The need to be strongest means two things. First, the bottom line is that we will never be defeated. We may quit a war that we grow tired of, but we will never be defeated. The second is that because we are all one single tribe of freedom lovers, we all take it personally when any of us are killed. I didn’t know, nor am I related to, a single person who died on 9/11. But that didn’t matter. Americans died on 9/11. My fellow freedom loving Americans died on 9/11. Being strong means when you are whacked, you whack back harder. So far, we have taken down two countries due to 9/11.

If we sense a threat to our freedom, or to the lives of our fellow Americans, we will kick the butt of anyone and everyone.

So here is the bad part Salam. I sure hope I am wrong, but it sure looks like your religion has this thing against Free Will and Freedom. It looks like all of your clerics go around ordering people to do this and not do that. Our preachers tell us what we should do, not what we must do.

As long as your religious leaders preach stuff that is anti-freedom, Americans are going to be on the side that opposes your religious leaders. We might do absolutely nothing except cheer from the sidelines, or we might help a bit; or we might help a lot. Either way, if your religious leaders are anti-freedom, I can understand why they dislike Americans.

Frankly, both the Christian me and the American me are hoping that you will exercise your own free will and change. I hope you Muslims overseas find a way, as American Muslims have, to interpret your holy text is such a way as to permit freedom for both men and women.

Otherwise, Salam, I see us approaching a bad end. I don’t know when, where, and how, but unless the trends improve, I see us deciding one day that you are a true threat to our lives or to our freedom. Should that happen, dear Salam, the American part of me is going to fight you, and fight to win. The Christian part of me will feel real bad about it, and will pray for your soul, but it won’t stop the American part of me from, pardon my bluntness, killing you.

Love,
Clarence

p.s.: I am sure you can figure this out from what I said above, but permit me to add 2 + 2 for you. If you ever find your country filled with American military, the quickest and easiest way to get rid of them is to organize yourself into an at least semi-democratic government that promises to at least semi-protect freedom and then have that semi-democratic government ask us to leave. The best way to get us to stay a very long time is to commit frequent acts of violence in support of the notion of denying freedom to your countrymen (and women).

Dear Salam,

You ask why we invaded Iraq. I am sure wiser men than me would tell you that it is complicated. I am not so sure.

On 9/11, we, as a country, were attacked by an entity known as Al Qaeda. For reasons that are complicated, this entity declared war against the United States. Al Qaeda’s reasons, just like the reasons Japan had for bombing Pearl Harbor, merely introduce needless complexity to the discussion of what is this country’s proper response to the attack. It is really quite simple: when a country, or entity, declares war on you by a murderous attack, you declare war back and start fighting. You fight against the enemy until (1) you win by destroying the enemy’s capacity to fight; their will to fight, or both; (2) you lose because the enemy has destroyed your capacity to fight; your will to fight, or both; or (3) you negotiate mutually agreeable terms with the enemy for a negotiated peace.

Al Qaeda has no interest in outcome number three, and outcome number two is not possible. That only leaves outcome number one – we fight until we win.

Not fighting is not an option. However, that does not mean that any and all forms of fighting are the best options. Some decisions may indeed be tactical mistakes. Maybe the decision to invade Iraq was a wise tactical decision in the war against Al Qaeda, maybe not. I think it was wise, but you didn’t ask if the invasion was wise, you asked why. The “why” is 9/11.

The simple truth is that Al Qaeda still exists and therefore we will continue to fight to destroy it. We should pursue this fight as intelligently and as vigilantly as we can. Since Al Qaeda is currently fighting in Iraq, we should be currently fighting in Iraq. It is that simple.

Smart people can debate what tactics give us the best chance of destroying Al Qaeda. Such a debate is important and if the outcome of such a debate is for us to leave Iraq, we should leave Iraq. Debates about subjects other that what are the best tactics to destroy Al Qaeda are distracting and not really important.

It is true, Salam, that many in here in my country spend a lot of time debating distractions. We do that a lot over here – that is what free societies do – we argue about lots of things. But, when it comes to the question you asked – Why Iraq? The simplest answer is also the best.

Bye for now,
Clarence

Dear Salam,

Greetings. My name is Clarence, and I would like to talk to you. It seems to me that you and I don’t understand each other and that is not good.

For instance, it has recently been made clear to me that any visual image of your prophet is deeply upsetting to you. On the other hand, it seems like almost every Tom, Dick, or Harry over there wants to adopt the prophet’s name as their own. I’ve got to tell you, Salam, that strikes me as strange.

Anyway, I am not seeking complete and total mutual understanding Salam, I am seeking just enough understanding to avoid us killing each other.

Frankly, Salam, you should want to understand us even more than we want to understand you, because should push ever come to shove (that is an American phrase meaning “War”), you lose.

I understand you folks will be the more aggressive fighters because of this martyr thing you guys have, and because some of you folks apparently don’t have what we would call the normal human aversion to killing innocent non-combatants. But you need to better appreciate some things. First, we have a military that is better trained, and better equipped than any army the world has ever seen. No matter how good you think they are, trust me, you are underestimating them.

Instead of the example of how they decimated the entire armed forces of Iraq in a few days with less than 300 casualties, I would instead direct you to the example of the Serbia/Kosovo affair.

The bottom line, Salam, is that we own the night sky you sleep under. It is ours. We can do anything we want up there and you can’t stop us. Night after night the Serbs suffered the loss of target after target, helpless to do anything about it. Not a single pilot killed. Do you value electricity, Salam? Imagine three power plants a night destroyed – twenty-one power plants destroyed a week; each and every week until your entire country is in darkness. Yes, Salam, if we did that oil prices would rise and our economy would suffer – a little. Your economy would cease to exist.

Here is the lesson we have learned from Iraq, Salam. We can defeat any army on earth – with relative ease. We can control the sky of any place on earth. We can destroy any particular target or targets on earth. What we can’t do, and what we have no interest in doing, is rule a large country by means of military force against the wishes of the local population. But, Salam, please don’t think our only options are to invade your country or do nothing. There are other options, Salam, and if we choose them, we can do them.

Oh yes, I am aware that we apparently are also not capable of finding Osama. Let’s see, Salam, since September 12th, Osama has had all of his training centers destroyed and has had most of this top co-conspirators killed or captured. He spends his days and nights hiding, being afraid to make a single public appearance anywhere in the world. From time to time he makes threats that he can’t carry out. So tell me, Salam, between us and Osama, who’s winning?

So please, Salem, please try to understand us. Please try to understand what will provoke us, and what will not. I’ll do what I can in later letters to help you.

With love,
Clarence