Swamppundit

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

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,

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,

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,

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

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 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 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,

Our Congress debated resolutions regarding Iraq recently. Please don’t believe 90% of what you hear. While the debate of our politicians is free and uncensored, it is rarely wise, and rarely accurate.

While nearly everything about Iraq is debatable, and ever changing, there are some core truths that almost all Americans could agree on except for the fact that many in this country are refusing to agree on anything with our current President.

The first mission, the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, was achieved brilliantly. It happened more quickly, with less cost in lives or treasure, than anyone expected.

The second mission, the elimination of Iraqi WMD, was also achieved, but reasonable minds, in hindsight, differ as to whether the mission was required.

The third mission, the formation of a freely elected, democratic government in Iraq, has also been achieved. It took far longer than anticipated, and whether the new government will survive is still an open question. This mission has claimed hundreds of billions of dollars and the deaths of over 2,500 American Soldiers. In 2006, many argue 2,500 is a price too high. In 2003, before the first bomb dropped, most would have agreed 2,500 was an overly optimistic figure.

The fourth mission, the elimination of extreme Islamic terrorists from Iraq, has not yet been accomplished. (Although, if you defined this mission as the removal of Iraqi WMD from the hands of Islamic terrorists, it has been accomplished.) And, in fact, it is fairly clear that this mission is beyond our grasp absent improved cooperation in this task with all segments of Iraqi society. Which brings us to …

The fifth mission, the creation of a peaceful, free, democratic Iraq, has not yet been accomplished. This mission is different from the third mission. It is possible to elect and form a government even in wartime. The fifth mission is to create an environment where all Iraqi citizens agree to live in peace under the new government.

Frankly, the fifth mission may not be achievable. Maybe it is Iraq’s destiny to break apart and suffer a horrendous civil war. The thing about civil wars is that outside forces cannot start them or stop them. Only the citizens of a country can decide if their internal disputes are worth committing national suicide over.

Now that an Iraqi Government has been formed, the only remaining mission of the U.S. military is to assist the Iraqi government in its efforts to achieve the fourth and fifth missions. We are now an instrument at their disposal – within limits. The instrument cannot be used to favor one segment of Iraqi society over another.

It is now clear: should the unified government stand, should there be no civil war, then the fourth and fifth missions will ultimately be achieved at a price that later historians will applaud. Should the government break apart, should there be a civil war, then the fourth and fifth missions will not be achieved.

Because I am an optimist, I will believe the government will stand right up to the day that it doesn’t. Therefore, I will believe that the fourth and fifth missions will be achieved right up to the day that it becomes clear that they won’t be achieved.

U.S. military and civilian leaders may have made grave mistakes over the last three years, or maybe not. The rate of death in Iraq may go up in the future, or it may go down. On any given question regarding Iraq I am prepared to concede that I do not know the answer. But, on the one question being debated by Congress – when should our troops come home? – I do know the answer. Our troops should come home when the freely elected government of Iraq asks our troops to leave, or when the freely elected government of Iraq ceases to exist, whichever occurs first. To leave a single day before that time would be dishonorable, shameful, and stupid. To stay a single day beyond that time would be stubborn, overreaching, and vain.

That day may come in 3 months, it may come in 3 years, it may come in 30 years. I do not know.

Bye for now,
Clarence

Dear Salam,

The nutcases from your part of the world claim a tactical superiority over the West because of their embrace of death. They claim their willingness to be a martyr, and their willingness to kill noncombatants means they will overcome disadvantages in other areas and ultimately succeed.

First, I can understand why they would trumpet this so-called advantage because it is the only one they have. As fighters, they are outnumbered by the West; they have primitive technology compared to the West, they are less well-trained than the West, they are poorly equipped compared to the West, their military leaders are inferior compared to the West, and, in fact, they have been routed in each and every military confrontation they have ever had with the West.

When the only thing you are capable of doing is hiding in the shadows and occasionally striking out to kill unguarded, unsuspecting, innocents, then it is of course likely that you will proclaim that hiding in the shadows and occasionally striking out to kill unguarded, unsuspecting, innocents is the best strategy for success and that your ability to hide in the shadows and occasionally strike out to kill unguarded, unsuspecting, innocents guarantees you ultimate success.

But, Salam, really, is there any evidence that such a tactical advantage is advantageous? Is there any evidence that a culture that glorifies death prospers over a culture that glorifies life? Do not confuse, Salam, strength versus weakness, with death versus life. A culture that glorifies life can be strong, and a culture that glorifies death can be weak. In fact, Salam, any objective survey of world cultures would demonstrate that in the long run, the cultures that most value life are the cultures that thrive and grow strong.

Look what Israel is doing to affect the return of a single solder kidnapped in Gaza. Israel is clearly a culture that values each soldier’s life very dearly. Hamas on the other hand, clearly relishes producing martyrs for the cause. Salam, you don’t have to like Israel to open your eyes and see that an Israeli culture of life has created a very strong and vital nation, while a Hamas culture of death has created a society that is at the bottom of any scale of civilization you wish to use. Can you name a single country on this earth with poorer prospects for providing a good life for its people than a Hamas-run Palestine?

Embrace life, Salam. Reject martyrdom. To embrace life is to focus your energy on making a better life for your family as opposed to making a worse life for your enemy. Your enemies do not hold you back, Salam; it is your focus on your enemies that holds you back.

Do not listen to the nutcases among you. Their so-called advantage merely guarantees that they will forever have none of the other advantages of life.

Love,
Clarence

Dear Salam,

This letter is about the importance of truth, so permit me to be truthful up front and say that this letter is meant to be subversive. This letter is meant to cause you to doubt your leaders, to doubt your media, and to doubt all that you currently believe.

While this letter is about truth, I will not attempt to sell you a particular “truth.” I want to sell you a process you can use on your own to ascertain the truth. I want to sell you on the importance of asking questions.

I believe you are intelligent, Salam. I believe your brain and my brain are the same. I believe you are capable of using your brain just as I use mine. Therefore I believe, Salam, I don’t have to tell you what questions to ask, or what the answers should be. I need only encourage you to ask questions, get answers, and then question the answers.

Hitler’s Germany perfected the technique of governing by use of the Big Lie. Say the Big Lie loud enough, often enough, and forceful enough, and punish any who question the Big Lie, and soon the population accepts the Big Lie as true. Salam, the tellers of Big Lies are not good leaders. The tellers of Big Lies may succeed in the short run, but in the long run, countries with such leaders come to ruin.

Salam, here is my Big Truth, here is the Big Idea that I wholeheartedly believe to be true. I believe that anyone who tries to win an argument by force, fear, or intimidation, as opposed to logic, evidence, or an invitation to faith, is wrong. I believe that truth, whatever it is, can withstand questioning, and can withstand doubters. I believe a Big Lie cannot withstand questioning.

Keep in mind, not all questions have answers; and sometimes there are reasons not to answer a question. Sometimes the truthful answer to a question is “I don’t know,” or “I won’t tell you.” Don’t insist, Salam, that your leaders have all the answers. Insist only that they don’t lie.

And insist on the right to ask questions. Honest, good leaders should welcome questions. Proponents of a Big Lie will punish the asking of questions.

And most importantly, proponents of a Big Lie will often answer questions with little lies. Here, Salam, is the second key to exposing Big Lies. Listen for the little lies. Big Lies are often hard to prove false, but many little lies are provably false. Test the answers, Salam, don’t just accept them. I am not saying you should disbelieve all you are told, I am just suggesting that you use your brain to question what you are told.

This letter is not about answers. It is about the process of asking questions. I have faith in questions. And I have faith in the freedom that permits questions, and in the freedom to investigate the truth of the answers.

A final warning before I close: I have seen your newspapers and TV, and I have heard your leaders. I won’t be specific, Salam, but you are being lied to, my friend. If you follow my advice and start to question, investigate, and question some more, then you are in for quite a journey.

Tread carefully, my friend. In a good and just society the truth is a valued commodity, and truthseekers are welcomed and honored. I fear a truthseeker in your society could come to a bad end.

With love,
Clarence

Dear Salam,

Your part of the world is got even more destructive recently. Hamas and Hizbollah kidnapped some Israeli solders, and, well, Israel took offense.

Whenever people start killing other people over there a lot of people over here blame their own leaders for the killing. Somehow the killing done by others is due to the failure of leadership and diplomacy by Western (particularly American) leaders.

A relevant parlor room quiz: It is 1936. Imagine you had the ability to hand pick the leader of every country in the world except Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union. Imagine that every leader you picked was the ablest diplomat, and the most brilliant strategic thinker, of his/her generation. The question is this: could these hand-picked leaders have avoided WW II without the use of military force?

My short answer: No.

In 1936, Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union were not going to be persuaded by anyone, or anything, from expanding beyond their borders. Only guns, bullets, bombs, and the blood of troops could keep these 3 aggressors in check. Replace Chamberlain et al with best of the best and you still get war. Ironically, you would probably have gotten an earlier war – and a war much of the world would have proclaimed as “avoidable, a result of failed leadership and diplomacy.”

In 2006, can Hizbollah and Hamas be diplomatically persuaded to accept Israel’s right to exist in the Middle East?

The short answer is No. If Israel wishes to live in a world without periodic incoming rockets, Hizbollah and Hamas must be defeated – not accommodated, not finessed, not intimidated, not isolated, not verbally condemned, not diplomatically persuaded – defeated.

This is not necessarily to say that they must be defeated in the summer of 2006, or that they should be bombed from the air at the present time. It is only to say the evaluation of the “tactic” of dropping bombs must begin and end with the realization that the end goal is not the peaceful coexistence with Hizbollah and Hamas, but the eventual defeat of Hizbollah and Hamas.

Therefore, any argument that asserts that a ceasefire is good idea because it will facilitate successful diplomacy leading to Israel someday living in peace is fundamentally wrong because diplomacy, alone, will never lead to Israel living in peace.

Therefore, any person advocating such an argument for a ceasefire is a person who is fundamentally wrong. The most depressing part of all the recent events is how much of the world is fundamentally wrong.

I still love you, Salam, but this is not a good week to be optimistic about your future, or ours.

Love,
Clarence

Dear Salam,

A lot of folks over there are celebrating what they claim to be a Hezbollah victory. Apparently victory is defined as shooting rockets at Israel and surviving. And apparently surviving is defined as having lots of fighters not killed, regardless of the number that are killed, and regardless of the amount of destruction to that area of Lebanon which Hezbollah once called “home.”

I have to say Salam, over here we have a different definition of victory. Over here we tend to view the people who are sending tanks through the other guy’s neighborhood as the victors. We usually think of the people who are relying on the Red Cross/Red Crescent and other relief organizations for things like food, water, and ambulance services as the losers.

Over here we have an expression for when a loser loses less badly than expected. We call that a moral victory. I don’t why we use that term. I see nothing moral in losing less badly than expected. And I certainly see nothing moral in intentionally firing rockets into civilian areas, so although some here would claim a moral victory for Hezbollah, I would not.

Also, here is the thing: over here everyone knows that moral victories are not really victories. Over here everyone knows the expression is a joke – we don’t really mean it. At best, claiming a moral victory is a useful way for keeping up a loser’s spirits. It makes them feel better about themselves. But, see, here is the other thing: When we say that, we mean that the losers feel better than being the lowest of the low, but we don’t mean that the losers feel as good as normal, or as good as someone who hasn’t lost, and certainly not as good as someone who actually won. Over here, people who win moral victories don’t celebrate in the streets; they just feel a little less depressed.

One last thing about moral victories: the more you have, the less well they work to improve spirits. You can’t really have a string of moral victories – it is just not possible. If you think otherwise, if you celebrate in the streets after a string of moral victories, you just don’t get it. You are delusional. You and reality are no longer acquainted.

Salam, a real victory would be creating a better life for you and your family. Has anything happened in the past month that improved the chances of a Lebanese family to lead a healthy, safe, productive life? There were no victories in Lebanon my friend.

Wishing you a peaceful life with real victories,
Clarence

Dear Salam,

I am in a sour mood. Please permit me to vent a bit about the current politics of my country.

The Republicans/Conservatives/Right of my country are having a debate about what to do regarding your part of the world. On one side you have those who argue that: Evil exists. Implacable, violent, enemies exist. Peaceful co-existence with such enemies is not possible. Such enemies must either be restrained/contained by military force, or the credible threat of military force, or they must be defeated – the sooner the better. On the other side you have those who argue that: There are severe limits on the effectiveness of American military and diplomatic power. When dealing with lands and cultures we don’t understand, the use of American military force, even if well-intentioned and noble, can produce unintended consequences that make matters worse, not better.

This debate is civil and thoughtful. Both sides respect the individuals on the other side, and both sides essentially agree with the arguments on the other side. The argument is over how these two proper schools of thought should be applied to the particular, complex, partially understood, universe known as the Middle East.

The Democrats/Liberals/Left of my country are, unfortunately, not participating in the debate. Most of these folks are just silent and depressed on the subject of the Middle East. The ones who are not silent are also not debating. The ones who are not silent simply shout four-word slogans over and over. “No blood for Oil.” “Bush lies, people die.” “Cheney’s war for Halliburton.” “Rumsfeld is war criminal.” And the ever popular, and ever appropriate for any war at any time: “Bring troops home now.” If these non-debaters have any thoughts grounded in reality, they keep them to themselves.

As you know, Salam, I think the long-term solution to the problems of your region are for you, the people of the Middle East, to rethink your own situation and for all of you to realize what brings success in this world and what brings poverty and misery. This solution of mine is very difficult. It would be nice if my country could lead by example and show the world how a civilized country has a debate about important issues. At the moment, it appears much of my country is not up to the task.

Please accept my apologies.

Love,
Clarence

ps: Salam, I am afraid I have to add something. The Republicans are now combating four-word slogans with a one-word epithet: "Appeasers." Our non-debate now has balance, but even less substance. Again, I apologize.

Dear Salam,

I am going to make a statement that is overly simplistic, and therefore not fully accurate, but, at its core, is true.

In America, politics and religion are separate subjects.

I used to think this separation said a lot about Americans. Thinking about you Salam made me realize that is says a lot about Christianity.

American freedom can accommodate plenty of religions other than Christianity. The question is how many religions can accommodate American freedom.

Here is a simple test, Salam: The followers of every religion would like more and more people to adopt the religion as their own. Followers of every religion would be thrilled to have the entire world recognize their religion as the one, true, religion. Wanting the person next door to join the religion is universal. The test is: what methods does the religion promote to achieve the universal goal? And equally important, what methods does the religion promote to prevent current followers from leaving the religion?

If the answer to both questions does not involve violence or any kind of physical coercion, then that religion can accommodate American freedom.

Everytime I see a woman in a black head scarf I have the same thought. If she is wearing the scarf as a voluntary sign of humility and obedience to her God, then the act of wearing the scarf is ennobling and worthy of respect. If, however, she is wearing the scarf as act of obedience to a man, or men, who would punish her in some way if she did not wear the scarf, then the act of wearing the scarf is sad, demeaning, upsetting, and wrong. It is an act worthy of pity for the woman, and worthy of disdain for the man, or men, who control her. It is perfectly proper for a male cleric to preach that a woman should wear the scarf as a sign of humility and obedience to God. It is fundamentally wrong for the cleric to advocate beating the woman if she fails to wear the scarf.

That leads me to another simple test for whether a religion is ready for American freedom. Does the religion permit equality? Are all human beings equal? Can anyone, and everyone, join? And if they do join, are they equal members?

Salam, if your Islam meets these two tests, you and your Islam are welcome to come to America; and you and your Islam have nothing to fear from the U.S. military wherever you are.

If your Islam does not meet these two tests, Salam, I urge you to either change your Islam, or leave your Islam. If your Islam does not meet these two tests, it is incompatible with the modern world, and is in conflict with the tide of history.

Must you convert to Christianity? Personally, I would prefer it, but no. The future is not about Christianity; and it is not about America; the future is all about freedom. I am not saying you “must” do anything. I am just giving you something to think about.

As always,

Love,
Clarence

Dear Salam,

Our recent election resulted in our Congress going from slightly more Republican to slightly more Democratic. This switch in legislative power prompts me to write a letter that arrogantly, proudly, defiantly, and unyieldingly proclaims the virtue of modesty.

For all my letters past, and all my letters future, I would ask you to mentally insert the following phrase at the front of each paragraph: I could be wrong, but I think … .

Modesty does not mean a lack of steadfastness. A modest person can be exasperatingly stubborn. But, the modest person, because he acknowledges the possibility that he might be wrong, is reluctant to press his views on to others.

Modesty does not necessarily mean non violent. While a modest person could not be quickly roused to violence, and could never be roused to offensive, aggressive, violence, a modest person could be provoked to engage in defensive violence.

Most non-Americans disagree with this statement, but most Americans are modest. Democracy breeds modesty. It takes a modest person to bow to the will of the majority when you are convinced the majority is wrong. Here in America we often have leaders that receive only 51% of the vote. We have citizens that have voted for the loser in virtually every election they ever participated in. We have policy issues that divide us deeply. I have a neighbor with whom I disagree on almost any topic you can imagine. He is a nice neighbor, appears to be a good husband and father, but frankly, I think he is dead wrong about virtually everything, and I am sure he thinks I am dead wrong about virtually everything. The one thing we share is modesty. We share the notion that we might be wrong. We share the notion that majority rule is more important than having our way.

Modesty is what prevents us from becoming angry when the majority is against us. Anger is not a helpful emotion, Salam. Almost any action done from anger is an action that is not helpful and is an action that is later usually regretted.

You folks over there appear to us to be constantly angry. You folks over there appear to us to lack modesty. You are all so certain, and angry, about everything. All this anger and certainty is not good for you Salam. It is not good for the rest of the world either.

Remember, Salam, the certain man never listens, never learns, and never grows or improves. Or at least, I think so, I could be wrong.

Love,
Clarence

Dear Salam,

I would like to correct a deficiency of my past letters. I think I have given a false impression regarding you and “most” of your countrymen (and women). I write these letters not simply out of Christian love and fellowship, and not simply from a desire to explain America. I write these letters as a show of support for those I so greatly respect and admire – the millions in the Middle East who risk the lives of themselves and those they love by standing up for democracy, freedom, and the rule of law in their countries.

We civilians in American lead pampered lives. Democracy, freedom, and the rule of law are not threatened here in America. (Some like to proclaim otherwise, but that is just political babble.) While people like me tell ourselves that we would personally answer the call should our freedom be truly threatened, events never truly test our resolve.

You are not pampered, Salam. You did not inherit democracy, freedom, and the rule of law from your ancestors. You inherited autocracy, repression, and the rule of violence.

I write letters from the safety of my home country without any fear of reprisals. You, Salam, and millions of others, live in an environment where violent reprisals are commonplace. We here in this country do not give you enough credit, Salam. We focus too much on those around you that are anti-democratic, anti-freedom, and anti-rule of law. We are wrong in overlooking all that you risk, all that you have already lost, and all that you have already accomplished.

Please understand, Salam, our soldiers and marines remain in Iraq for only one reason, and it is not oil. The sole reason is our universal desire to aid those who don’t have democracy, freedom, and the rule of law, but who are willing to fight to achieve them. Brave, noble, Iraqis risk death fighting for freedom. My government honors their bravery by sending troops to assist in that fight. This decision of my government is not universally popular here in America. This letter will not attempt to explain why. All this letter will do is apologize for not giving enough credit in the past to those so worthy of credit and praise – the men and women in the Middle East who risk all for freedom.

I praise and admire each and every one of them.

Bye for now,
Clarence

Dear Salam:

Great Britain has done more to assist the freedom loving, democracy loving, rule-of-law loving, people of the Middle East than the rest of the Western world combined. America has done 10 times more than the U.K. And yet, we haven’t done enough. We haven’t truly committed to this grand and noble endeavor. We have sent our fine soldiers and marines; we have sent our money, but we haven’t truly committed, because we, the vast majority of Americans, haven’t made any personal sacrifice in furtherance of the cause. Without our personal commitment, Iraq is improperly considered to be Bush’s War, not Our War. If it were truly Our War, there would be no talk of exit strategies, the talk would be of victory strategies.

Islamofacism, or whatever you wish to call it, will never be finessed, managed, contained, or controlled by patient diplomacy. It will grow ever more violent and dangerous until it is defeated. The West can defeat it now, at great cost and sacrifice, or it can defeat it later at a much greater cost and sacrifice – there is no third option.

It is time to up the ante. It is time to let the world know that America, all of America, is ready to go to war to defeat an enemy that is a threat to the entire world.

Specifically, it is time to place a significantly large tax on oil and earmark all the funds for growth in the defense budget. In addition, it is time to put Iran out of the oil exporting business. All oil tankers currently in Iran should be allowed to leave, but empty tankers should not be allowed to return. All oil pipelines out of Iraq should be severed at the border, and should remain severed.

I don’t have a next step to propose. I don’t make any particular predictions as to the consequences of the above steps. Maybe, just maybe, the world will see that America is truly ready to be “the strong horse” in the Middle East and Islamofacism will be defeated quickly. Maybe, things will instead get much worse. I fully expect the U.S. economy to suffer. It is time that we suffer a bit. It is time that we realize we have a war to win, not a situation to exit.

Hang in there, Salam. Americans know that thousands of people in your part of the world are dying because they seek freedom, democracy, and the rule-of-law and because they looked to America for help. You and I both know they are worthy of support, not abandonment.

Love,
Clarence

Dear Salam,

Did that last letter surprise you? I surprised myself. Severing all oil pipelines out of Iran and sinking any oil tanker that defies an order not to enter an Iranian port are unquestionably acts of war. These are not acts of total war, of course, and I am not advocating total war with Iran. But, let me acknowledge, my recommendation is not for further diplomatic talks with Iran, my recommendation is not for non-violent economic sanctions against Iran. And, let me further acknowledge, my recommendation is not for some multi-lateral strike against Iran. No, I recommend a unilateral use of U.S. military force.

Would the world condemn such an act? I suspect it would. Will anti-American sentiment increase? No doubt. Will Iran respond, in part, with acts of violence against Americans (and Israelis)? Probably.

Iran is currently actively engaged in two proxy wars. Iran is making war against Israel through its proxy Hezbollah. Iran is making war against the democratically elected government of Iraq, and the United States, through its proxies in the Shiite militias.

Proxy wars were understandable during the Cold War. If the U.S. and the Soviet Union ever fought directly, the unthinkable could happen. The Soviet Union wished to expand communism throughout the world. The United States wished to contain, or roll back, communism. Conflict was inevitable, war was unthinkable. The result: proxy wars.

Iran is waging proxy wars for an excellent reason, it knows it would lose a direct war, and yet, just as Soviet Union leaders were totally committed to expanding communism, Iranian leaders are equally committed to expanding the role of Islam in the world, and the role of Iran in Islam. The current Iranian leaders will never change their goals. Time, world opinion, diplomacy, and sanctions will never succeed in producing a peaceful, non belligerent Iran.

At present, Iran does not have nuclear weapons. At present, war with Iran does not raise the specter of the unthinkable. Therefore, the question is: why should the U.S. (and Israel) tolerate being the target of a proxy war waged by Iran?

There is only one reason to tolerate a proxy war waged by a country without nuclear weapons – you are winning the proxy war so there is no need to escalate. Well, are we winning in Iraq? Did Israel win in Lebanon?

Waging total war on Iran is justified; but is not smart. Using Air and Sea power only, we should slowly, surely, systematically cripple Iran until the Iranian people replace their leaders with people who are content to rule a non-nuclear Iran that is at peace with all of its neighbors – including Israel and a democratic Iraq.

This strategy is not without risk. Iranian leaders will not meekly accept defeat. An Iranian invasion of Iraq is possible. Iranian sponsored terrorist acts in America are possible. Highly expensive oil is probable. This strategy might actually be counter-productive in Iraq. Shiite outrage might actually drive the U.S. out of Iraq. (Leaving Iraq in response to a demand from the Shiite dominated elected government is not the worse possible outcome in Iraq.)

Remember: Iraq is the proxy war; the real war is against the centers of Islamofacism, of which Iran is the largest. It is better to lose in Iraq and have a secular, peaceful, non-nuclear Iran, than to win in Iraq and have nuclear armed mullahs running Iran.

If the lasting lesson of Iraq is that the U.S. should never invade and occupy, let the lasting lesson of Iran be that the U.S. will respond to losing a proxy war by taking the war to the source.

Lasting peace can never be achieved through good intentions alone. Those with bad intentions must be defeated. Iranian intentions are not hidden. Just as WWII began with a proxy war in Spain, the Iranian War has already begun. The need to defeat Iran cannot be avoided, it can only be delayed – and in the delay, become far more costly.

Sorry to be so belligerent,
Clarence