My father, a good man who happens to be quite the conservative, continues to engage his children in political dialogue despite the yawning chasm that must regularly be crossed.
My sister sheba has written about this in her diary, as some of you have read.
I recently forwarded him Wesley Clark's essay on the Cold War and democracy in the Middle East. What follows is our resulting email exchange.
--- I wrote:
General Wesley Clark understands the Cold War very well. He fought and commanded in it. He also intimately understands modern war and diplomacy, as well as peacekeeping missions and the realities of today's global power balance, in a way few men can: he carried out those very missions for this country.
The following is a recent essay he wrote laying out how to bring democracy to the Middle East. It explains very well how we can achieve the stated goals of ending terrorism and the support for it -- without military force. In fact, it argues against the use of force in that region, based on the lessons of the Cold War.
I encourage everyone to make some time -- a good 20-30 minutes will be required -- to read it carefully and with an open mind. This man has done his legwork, and is a legitimate expert on the subject of military intervention, foreign policy (both theory and practice), and the Cold War.
Broken Engagement
The strategy that won the Cold War could help bring democracy to the Middle East -- if only the Bush hawks understood it.
By Gen. Wesley Clark
Read the essay here
--- Dad wrote:
Sorry, but I don't subscribe to any conspiracy or behind-the-throne theories, including the "neocon" one. Bush is his own man. Clark was a good general, as far as I know, but he's buying into the Left's mythology here to the point where I don't think it's productive to read the whole thing. If he'd just talk facts, strategies and ideas, I'd listen, but as long as he blames a shadowy group of theoretically powerful Jewish "neocons" for the problems he sees, I can't follow him.
Have you heard the latest right-wing myth, by the way, that the Democrats are planning to pull Kerry from the race in July and substitute Hillary? ;-)
Hope the trip to Point Reyes was fun. How's it look these days?
.. Dad
--- I wrote:
Huh?
This isn't a conspiracy theory piece. It's a philosophical piece about why those at the top believed going to war in Iraq was a good idea. Clark first lays out, with attributed quotations, their thinking. Then he lays out why he believes otherwise. I don't see any blame or insults being slung anywhere.
The meat of this piece is about the philosophy of those assembled around and behind the President. Of whom he is a part. Every leader is the sum of himself and his team. It's not suggesting Bush is a puppet; rather, it talks about a school of thought to which he contributes and subscribes.
BTW, I'm not sure where you got the "Jewish" from. Doesn't appear in the piece at all. And "neoconservative" is a common term for the new generation of activist conservatives, as distinguished from the more isolationist strain represented by Pat Buchanan; not some cultish conspiracy term.
I slog through a lot of vitriol to find the intellect behind it when I read opposing opinions. I'm sorry if this seems like a similarly onerous task to you. Clark's essay, in brief, explains why we won the Cold War and how that technique could win us this one too. I think that's a lesson worth learning.
In other news...Point Reyes has recovered nicely. It's clearly in a post-fire state; tall, burnt trunks poke out of the thick new greenery, festooned with new moss already. I may get Celeste to post some of our pics for you soon.
Love,
Kyle
--- Dad wrote:
Hi. My understanding is that the use of "neoconservative", particularly among the Left, is as a convenient label for the supposed cabal comprising at least Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Elliott Abrams, Douglas Feith, Dov Zackheim, Abram Shulsky, and Richard Perle. Podhoretz' book (p. 58) says:
"What links all these people together? It is true that they all know one another. Many of them are friends. Some attended college and graduate school together. They share a belief in a muscular American foreign policy, a belief that the use of American power to solve problems in the world will lead to greater stability and freedom. They are supporters of the state of Israel.
"And they are all Jews."
He goes on, of course, to argue that Bush is not in fact under the sway of such a cabal, nor does such a cabal exist.
If you believe that Clark is not thinking like this, I will try again to read his piece, but I will have trouble divining what he's getting at, behind all the finger-pointing.
Loveya..
---- I wrote:
Dad,
Thanks for being open-minded enough to consider reading what Clark has to say.
So much of the political dialogue these days is colored by preconceptions and loaded terminology that it can be rather challenging to cut through it and get to the core ideas.
I trust your judgment enough to part my own heavy fire curtains and consider the essays you deem important enough to pass along. I greatly appreciate your willingness to trust me reciprocally.
We may end up agreeing to disagree, of course. Sometimes, though, we learn something.
I have definitely come to understand the noble motivations and practical considerations involved in choosing to go to war in Iraq. This understanding allows me to disagree without malice. Indeed, my support for a greater involvement in Iraq is due, at least in part, to a careful consideration of the reasoning presented in the essays you have sent me.
It is my hope that you can similarly come to understand the noble motivations and practical considerations involved in choosing to give the nation-building job in Iraq over to the U.N. and NATO, while stepping up the "soft power" strategies that were so effective in winning the Cold War. Perhaps you might even come to agree with certain elements of such a strategy.
The key here is to separate an individual issue from the greater political context so that it can be considered fairly. If I'm going to read an essay you send me written by a conservative author, I must have the intellectual discipline to consider its content and arguments separately from other philosophies and essays put forth by its author and his or her political allies.
In short, a good idea may be supported by someone with whom one violently disagrees on every other topic.
Much love and appreciation,
Kyle.