[Madison]

Mike Rush writes, ”Yes, at times in our past, we have done things which were wrong. Does this negate the validity of a future course of action? I think not.”

I think that sounds great on paper. It’s also practically useless in the context of this debate. It epitomizes everything that is wrong with our culture and foreign policy in just a few brief words. It assumes a disturbing level of superiority over the entire globe, and somehow, people can’t understand why there are people the world over who want to destroy our society.

You argue that the United States’ future actions shouldn’t be governed by its history; that we should be given the opportunity to learn from our mistakes and that our future actions have an implied validity, given our own virtuous pipe dream that it is a benevolent beast unleashed upon the world. What your argument fails to acknowledge, however, is that our past actions have not been plagued by misguided benevolence, but by genuine avarice and the entitled attitude of superiority that you’ve encapsulated. Further, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that differentiates arguments supporting unilateral action against Iraq from our past indiscretions.

The entire case for swift, immediate against Iraq is built upon evidence of its nuclear rearmament, existing stockpiles of chemical and biological agents, and a past history of aggressive intent and action. How, precisely, does that differ greatly from the history of the United States? While we may not be able to make a point-for-point comparison, I think that to argue that we’re entitled to take military action because of this buildup, and furthermore, that we’re somehow an agent of justice and humanity is hypocritical and selfish. Many Americans view Iraq as a direct threat against their way of life, and Iraq and other Middle Eastern nations resent American involvement in their affairs, the influence of American and western culture on their people, and the bullying attitude that is frequently demonstrated by our government and populace. Just because we’re the more powerful nation, we have no right whatsoever to lead the mob.

If you’ll recall something I’m so fond of pointing out – this country was founded with great care put toward preventing the tyranny of the majority. In that vein, we have established a government that has checks and balances in place that maintain the sanctity of the republic. These same checks and balances do not exist in the international political arena, and the United States conveniently and unabashedly takes advantage of this, insulting the work of its founders and presenting a clear picture to the world that shows what little respect we have for our own history.

Mike Rush continues, “These freedoms we enjoy are not free. They must be defended from those who, given a chance, would take them away. They must be paid for. Yes, even in blood.”

That is, I’m afraid, the rallying call of a nation who doesn’t understand its own history. But, in the context of what you’ve written, I hope you understand that I am defending my freedom against those who seek to take it away each time that I vocalize my dissent, each time that I treat an Arab-American just like everybody else, and each time I cry out at the loss of those ‘inalienable’ rights people wax on about. Terrorists do not need to fly their planes into buildings every week, or send anthrax-laced letters, or point a dozen nuclear missiles at every major city in the United States. They’re smarter that most Americans, and our government, because they see – through our international political and military action – that the majority is getting anxious to be tyrannical. It is, after all the majority, and most people in America belong. Those of us that do not, though, can see it coming, and we’re terrified. As I mentioned to someone in conversation last night, when the mob comes your way, you either turn around and lead the way, or you get trampled. Britain is about to turn tail and start waving an American flag. I am not.

My freedoms are already being stripped away, little by little, in the name of Homeland security. ‘Homeland’ is, as already mentioned, one of the scariest choices of langauge I can imagine, as it is frighteningly evocative of the German state preceding World War II. But, I digress. The terrorists have done their job, I fear, and they shall just watch as the former glory of the United States as a platform for change and diversity and innovation withers away by our own hand. I am not scared of an Arab man on an airplane. I am scared of the politicians in Washington – the upper class – that is willing to do whatever takes to protect their interests and leave me for dead on the side of the streets paved with gold.

Again, he writes, “For this is the only way to convince those who would destroy us of the strength of our conviction.”

Violence against another is not a symptom of conviction, but rather fear. Those who believe in the truth of their knowledge and their way of life hold no need for violence because it serves no purpose. To strike out against an opponent is a reaction of fear and legitimizes the fallibility of your position and the threat of the opposition. To prematurely or unilaterally strike against Iraq clearly demonstrates our fear of Saddam Hussein, in that the Government, which is, after all, comprised largely of rich, white folks (previously referred to as the majority), may lose the faith of its people.

How? Well, in the moments following September 11, 2001, our President made some bold statements regarding international terrorism, and he captured the bleeding hearts of a nation. He rode a wave of public opinion polls that allowed him to pass and propose legislation that violates the rights of all Americans. Now, the wave has crashed, the Government has little tangible evidence, short of ‘classified documents’ and ‘reliable sources’ that the ‘War on Terror’ was the least bit successful. They did manage, however, to meddle in the affairs of another nation yet again, committing money and manpower to the region for years to come.

Do we see history repeating itself yet?

Now, Bush’s latest trumpet of patriotism has become Iraq. He recognizes, probably through the help of his aides, that if he loses grip on the fervent streak of misguided patriotism that’s captured America, his Presidency will be a failure, and his future opportunities for egotistical greatness will be cut short. In kind, so goes the story with everyone else in Washington. It is, after all, little more than a political game of manipulation that shows no regard for the lives of mere mortals.

“Do you really believe that if we turn a blind eye to a threat it will go away?”

I think we need seriously reevaluate the definition of a threat, and wholeheartedly reexamine what it is that’s being threatened with the same intensity and fervor that we wave the red, white and blue.

“Do you really believe you can negotiate with someone willing to die while killing you? What would you negotiate with? What is it you can say to convince your mortal enemy to change his mind?”

We could just rest assured in our conviction that we are, somehow, better than everyone else. We could play the game, and we could outsmart the opponent. Or, we could give in to fear and further weaken the foundation of our country while eliminating one short-term threat, and probably creating dozens more.

“There comes a time in everyones life, in every societies lifetime, when they must ask themselves what is it they believe in. For us as a people, this is one of those times. Will we rise to the occasion and be victorious? Or will we go silently into the night? It is entirely up to you.”

I don’t think there’s anyone among us who doesn’t have at least some small instinct for self-preservation (though, according to my parents, mine must be very small, since I always start trouble), though I don’t think that’s really what’s in question. Rather, our fundamental definitions of victory are, really, what seem to be largely divergent. With the connotation that you ascribe to the events of the past year, and the events of the foreseeable future, I’d much rather go silently into the night, and perhaps emerge into a dawn that holds promise for the future of humanity, rather than the American way of life. I am many things and I possess many qualities. Among them, I am American. Above them, I am human.

“But remember, with every thought, comment, or question that brings our conviction into question, the enemy gathers strength.”

This makes me want to vomit, and is only further indicative of the frightening shift toward near-fanaticism that has characterized this country. The freedom you are so concerned with maintaining is precisely what allows me to question everything in this world, and yet you seem so steadfast in abandoning those freedoms, and the principles they represent, in your battle to save them.

Perplexing, no?