Letters from my uncle
Warning: really long post. Update: Oh my God, I just checked and this thing clocks in at over 3,000 words. If this is, understandably, too long to bother with, scroll down to the previous post. There's a good photo down there. Jesus, this is almost as long as an Adam Dorris email.

My uncle Jimmie is a career Air Force man. He's worked in Germany, in the Pentagon, and most recently in Iraq. After the General declared his candiacy, I sent him an email asking if he was familiar with Clark and any thoughts he might have about his run. I haven't had a chance to talk to him since he returned, so I also asked Jimmie about his tour in Iraq and his thoughts on President Bush in general. As you probably know, my family overwhelming supports the Republican party, and my uncle is no exception. I thought it might be interesting to see what the other side has to say, especially from someone so intimately involved, who wasn't praising the war from behind a Fox News desk. Here are the two emails he sent:

Howdy Matt,

I know Gen Wes Clark firsthand ... not appropriate for me to comment on his suitability for the position he seeks. I plan to vote for President Bush.

Iraq. As you may well imagine, Iraq is a country in extreme turmoil. For the last 6,000 years (give or take a decade -- or two) the people of Iraq were governed by extreme monarchies ... present day Iraqis have little to no experience with self governance. In under a year Americans and coalition allies have gotten regional councils formed and working -- Iraqi people are making important decisions based on community needs (translation: we've changed the face of regional governments in Iraq in under a year -- that's huge!).

This progress really irritates those who were once in power (i.e. Saddem loyalists/"tax" collectors). That group of "people" worry they will never regain the status they once enjoyed (with good reason, US Soldiers and Airmen aren't going to let them oppress their people any more ... it's time for them to join the civilized world). Unfortunately, they think "violent protests" (a.k.a. terrorist attacks) will rally fellow countrymen to their side (yeah right ... most average citizens in Iraq had at least one member of their family suffer corporal punishment by the previous regime, don't think violent protests will win the hearts and minds of the "man on the street"). In fact, each day sees fewer criminal acts in the country of Iraq than we see in a single state in the United States .. pretty sad commentary for American but serves to illustrate how civil order in Iraq isn't all that bad. It's true US Soldiers are the target for the terrorists in Iraq (that's bad) but as history shows, the American fighting "man" will persevere .

Our greatest obstacle: "normal" Americans who are so egocentric that they are unable to "get behind" (notice I didn't say they need to take a proactive role) the notion that the newest generation of Iraq's "deserve" rights and privileges enjoyed by free people. History is replete with examples of what it takes to win freedom. It may be an overused statement but the cold hard fact is "Freedom isn't free," it comes at a cost ... and the there are many men and women from free nations willing to pay the price for the people of Iraq -- that's a good thing.

I only went "in country" about 12 times ... many of those "visits" were to study the suitability of airfields for our transport aircraft. My impression: I was shocked to see the Iraq infrastructure in such disrepair--and not from bombs. Many of the Iraqi construction projects that began in the late 70s and early 80s had not progressed. It appeared work just stopped at construction sites (plans still on scene but project unfinished). Public facilities were left to deteriorate ... some would have been very modern structures until Saddem's team stopped work on them in the late 70s. Today a relatively small group of Americans and coalition partners are teaching an entire Nation of people how to make community decisions and upgrade their public services ... with great progress.

An ideal world: People who were once in power in Iraq realize international efforts to get them back on their feet will serve them and help them join the community of nations who look to the future rather than focus on the past. Americans must be patient and stay the course until we earn the confidence of people who do not understand the idea of selfless service ... if we our successful, your children will not face the terrible destruction we witnessed on 9/11 from a radical faction sponsored by nations that sanction/practice the Islamic Religion ...

Your thoughts?

Jimmie

I think he brings up quite a few interesting, albeit very debatable points, but that last line really disturbs me. For what it's worth, I'll attribute that to my family's strong Christian beliefs. I think there's a great misunderstanding about Islam from people who've done nothing but practice Christianity all their lives. I tried to get my mom to read The Autobiography of Malcolm X in the hopes that she'd come to see how similar the religions are, but I don't think she ever did. That book changed my opinion about so many things, but that's another story for another day.

The second email:

Matt,

The view I provided is my personal opinion and don't reflect those of my employer ... if you present them in that light you may share them with whomever you'd like. [In the previous email I'd asked him if I could share his thoughts with my friends.]

As for the crux of the matter you are investigating there seems to me to be a political question: Are we doing the right thing by fighting terrorist elements in Iraq?

That question, in my humble opinion, is too complex for anyone to accurately answer. In truth, hindsight provides new "insights" that affect the answer to that question with each new day. As in all social endeavors war is a dynamic process that often defies logic. An answer to the question above becomes kinda a "if I knew then what I know now" discussion. Those are always interesting and provide valuable models for future conduct but they're strictly academic (we can't know "then" what we know "now" ... we can only presume or in some instances use scientific principles to reasonably predict results we can expect to realize by our actions).

In real life (sans MTV), successful adults know when it's time to cease the discussion and "get on with it." Prudent adults will monitor their progress and amend their behavior/chosen course to more fully attain their original goal(s). Unfortunately, in our system of governance, we hold our leaders to a different standard ... talking heads continually entertain me with their question: Why didn't the President "see" this coming. My deep religious conviction makes mine a simple response: Only God "sees" (and knows) the future. Our national leader had to make the single most difficult decision in each problem set: Is it time to "get on with it" or should we continue to gather information (notice I didn't say facts) upon which to base the "get on with it" decision.

Therefore, my point of view is, after over two decades of poor leadership in Iraq we (the people of the world) have lived under the shadow of a society convinced by their leader that those people of the world who hold a different religious belief are evil and deserve to die (without regard to actual threat/provocation). Not sure what else had to happen to convince all US Citizens that it is indeed time to "get on with it" ... as for me and those with whom I work, seeing young adults jumping to their deaths from the World Trade Centers Twin Towers was sufficient evidence that the time is right to show the world the price for exporting evil far exceeds their "budget." We need to make absolutely certain the rouge nations or groups (a.k.a. Taliban) of the world understand that they will not survive an assault on the American people.

As always it's important to fully research an enemy ("To win, you must know your enemy as yourself." Sun Tzu) but learning sufficnet facts to help illuminate the decision our President made will be very difficult ... cause we just didn't know then what we know now ...

Trust that makes some sense to you and your buddies. Best of luck resolving this complex puzzle ... lots of very smart guys like yourself have spent a lifetime on the same quest for an accurate answer.

Jimmie

I had a very difficult time typing up a resonse to these emails. It was very hard to write honestly to a man whom I feel holds a higher authority on the subject and whom I know will disagree with much of what I say. I'll reprint my attempt, intimidation and all, and you guys can judge for yourself if what I told my uncle holds true to the beliefs I've expressed in our discussions.

Hmm...I was struggling to type up a detailed account of what I thought of the entire Iraq situation, start to finish, but this somewhat streamlined version is already pretty long. I think your comments about evidence vs. intelligence are important and not often enough stated. I've tried to recreate my perception of events at the time they were transpiring, with a conscious effort not to assign inevitability to the actual outcomes of our actions.

I fully supported the war in Afghanistan. I wanted us to completely finish up there before we moved on to other major engagements. So I thought Bush acted rashly in scurrying the war on terror off to Iraq. After all, we knew the terrorists who had attacked us were in Afghanistan. We could only speculate on their presence in Iraq.

Bush also never convinced me that war was necessary in Iraq. The WMD argument never swayed me because he didn't seem to acknowledge any evidence contrary to what he wanted believe, which led me to wonder if this was an issue he believed in or was an issue he was using for political mobilization. That said, I still thought we'd find irrefutable evidence once we got into the country, and I won't be surprised if we do turn up WMD eventually. But by implicitly tying Saddam to 9/11 and by giving the impression Iraq would attack us at any minute, I thought he unnecessarily played off America's fears to convince enough of the public of war's necessity. There were plenty of reasons to invade Iraq, but it seemed the arguments that were pushed hardest were the ones that, if taken to their logical conclusion, didn't make for sound policy. For instance, WMD in Iraq necessitated invasion, but in Korea, where the evidence was much stronger, what we needed was diplomacy. Likewise, while it was true Saddam supported terrorism financially, if we wanted to go after actual terrorists, then we would have to go into Palestine and stop Hamas, et al. And claiming that Saddam's violation of U.N. regulations justified invasion didn't logically add up since we'd be acting against the U.N.'s wishes to invade (not to mention a double standard given Israel's occasional disregard for U.N. mandates). Also troubling was the fact that Saddam had let in weapons inspectors when pressured, even though Bush oddly said otherwise some months after the war. But as far as WMD and terrorism went, I knew there may be more intelligence than the public knew about, so I didn't rush to judgement.

For me, the humanitarian effort was the single best reason to go into Iraq. It was also the only irrefutable one, which is why Bush is playing it up so much now, I think. But given how much emphasis he put on WMD to justify going to war, I don't like the public relations job he's put on the fighting. This was, after all, Operation Iraqi Freedom and we're constantly reminded how we liberated this oppressed people. Feels like spin. I guess, simply put, I have a big problem with THE WAY Bush has gone about implementing his foreign policy. He managed to alienate a lot of the international community--although France is proving how intractable it would have been under any circumstances except its own--and as such I don't think he fully explored all of his options for removing Saddam diplomatically, like Charles Taylor was ousted in Liberia. Granted, very different situations, but Bush never seemed to even give this option a shot. Also, preemption was a huge change in American foreign policy, unilateral preemption doubly so. The way he presented his argument, I never felt like there was any one solid reason to warrant this drastic change in foreign policy, a change which could have very damaging effects, like convincing more radical Muslims to join in arms agains the U.S. Because Bush offered so many shaky reasons, it felt like he wasn't sincere about any one--that is, he was looking for a rationalization that the public would buy in order to get what he wanted. Now, do I firmly believe this is what Bush was doing? No, not at all. I have no way of knowing what Bush's real intentions were, good or bad, although that does worry me a little. I don't have wholehearted trust in the man, nor do I automatically assume eveything he does is duplicitous. What I've commented on above is my perception of how it appeared to the public, both here in the States and around the world.

In the end, I thought Bush's push for war was too hasty. There were still so many unanswered questions about reconstruction and conflicts of interest (oil, revenge, Israel, etc.) that I wanted to see more discussion about these issues instead of the entire debate hinging on: Does Saddam have WMD? Like I said, regime change was warranted regardless of whether Saddam had WMD. But you correctly pointed out that it was ultimately Bush's call, and he felt diplomacy had run its course. When the first bombs dropped, I remember whishing it could have been done another way, but I realized my questions may never have been answered and diplomacy may have never removed the Baath party. More than anything, I was relieved that something tangible was happening, because I thought it would put all of the former discussion behind us. Yellow cake, etc., didn't allow that to happen, unfortunately, and the facts of that particular fiasco are disconcerting. They're also disappointing, because while we haggled over 16 words in a debate that had already been decided upon, proper attention was being diverted from the reconstruction of Iraq. [Rereading this particular point, I feel like I pussyfooted around how I felt. To me yellow cake indicated a greater general trend of, well, maybe not deception, but more like the "implied lie," as Bill Maher put it, based on the "technically correct" "fact." Then again, at the time, I didn't want public debate to lose sight of rebuilding Iraq, so it was tough spot ideologically. Of course, that business with the administration outing a spy was disgusting.]

As for the war itself, the military did a good job of demonstrating our domination and efficiency, while doing their best to make war as humane as possible. I never expected reconstruction to be quick and easy, but it seems far from a disaster, as some people want to paint it. Then again, it is not the cakewalk Bush implied it would be. True, a good many people have welcomed the U.S. as liberators, but there are also those many agitators to whom you referred, those who held power under Saddam and are now fighting to bring it back. Why Bush implied they'd slink away peacefully is beyond me. Again, this is how it's appeared to me through the lense of the media and the administration's statements.

Now, I don't understand those who complain about Iraq's price tag. This should be one of those issues that has a limitless budget. If one wants to criticize Bush on fiscal issues, one should focus his or her critiques on the tax cuts. Of course, I'd like to see better records kept on where Iraq money goes, but that's a minor quibble. I'm glad Bush is working with the U.N. now. It takes the imperial scent off our mission and, more importantly, it hopefully helps prevent our troops from being overworked or spread too thin. I'm confident in reconstruction, but I know it will take time. Like you, I have full faith in our armed forces. I think a flexible timeline would go a long way toward appeasing the international community and toward making the Iraqis more secure in their eventual autonomy. But like all my opinions, this is just a guess.

I'm reading a Benjamin Franklin biography right now, and in it Franklin talks about how in any representative government, the system must make sure the people FEEL represented. Lately, I feel like Bush has been subtly manipulating the public--casuistry is maybe the appropriate word--hardly the straight shooter he promised to be during his campaign. But my criticisms of Bush are influenced by my disdain for his domestic policies. Now, I think the most important thing is to finish what we've started. Regardless of whether one agreed with invasion, regardless how much one may like or hate Bush, getting Iraq up and running should be our top priority.

The other day, after American troops accidentally killed those Iraqi police officers, I saw footage of Iraqis protesting U.S. occupation, demanding our withdrawal. It struck me that no matter how much those few people may hate us, their protest in itself represented Iraq's enormous progress.

In the end, I'm left in a confusing situation. I think the president led us into war under shaky pretexts, but I also think the result will ultimately be good for the Iraqi people. I disagree with unilateral preemptive attacks unless we can prove that our safety is at risk, but I also have to acknowledge that Saddam could have been an imminent risk even if we could not prove it. I know controlling rogue states is crucial, but I don't think invading them is the answer. And right now we need a leader who is attuned to fighting terrorism and not afraid to use military force when necessary, but I disagree with Bush's domestic policies almost across the board. Given all this, I think you can see why I'm attracted to Wesley Clark as he appears on paper. I'll be watching him closely over the next couple months to see if he can live up to his resume.

I hope all that makes sense. Thanks for all your work and sacrifice over the past year.
---matt

I think this calls into question just how much we write with our audience in mind. It is often noted that Abraham Lincoln's arguments shifted according to whom he was writing, leading to almost contradictory ideas in different letters. Similarly, if what I said above comes off as disingenuous, I can only defend myself by saying I was trying to present my opinion in a form that would not totally repulse my uncle. But couldn't this be my excuse for misrepresenting myself in hopes of winning my uncle's approval? Maybe I didn't lie to him because my statements were "techinically honest." You two people who read all this be the judge.