I know he isn't very popular on this site, but I am a fan of Andrew Sullivan's blog. Not because I agree with what he says; most of the time I don't. I suppose I like it because in the age of Coulter and Malkin, it's nice to have a somewhat level-headed conservative out there.
Anyway, he recently posted on his blog a bit about the democrats, middle east reform, and national security. I vehemently disagreed with him, as I believe most people on this site would, and wrote him a letter. Since it's such a shame to have long pieces of email disappear into the "series of tubes" never to be seen again, I thought I would post it here. See the flip.
Too see the post this letter refers too, click on the link
http://time.blogs.com/...
Here is my letter
Dear Mr. Sullivan
You argue in a recent post that until the Democratic party lays out a plan for democratic reform in the middle east, they cannot be taken seriously on national security. Reforming other parts of the world is and should be a long term goal of the U.S.A., but national security is not, as much as some would like it to be, completely tied to this goal. They are certainly related, but the two objectives do have different implementation strategies and thus a failure of democrats to pledge immediate reform in the middle east should not render them meaningless.
National security needs to be primarily focused on actual threat prevention and response. That means a secure border, better communication between intel and law enforcement, and a general streamlining of the beaurocratic and cronyistic establishment currently in charge. Additionally, it means assesment of threats foreign and domestic and appropriate dealings with these threats. This could mean anything from arresting suspects domestically to a full scale invasion of a country deemed to be a direct threat such as Afghanistan.
Does democratic reform in the middle east strengthen our national security? Absolutely. However, it is dangerously simpleminded to believe, as the neoconservatives who led us into Iraq did, that this can be accomplished easily through military force. America didn't work out the kinks in its democratic system overnight (some would argue we still haven't) and it didn't have to deal with the repressive religious system that is radical Islam. In Iraq, the U.S.A. was and still is plagued by incompetent leadership, inflated expectations, and a gross lack of knowledge and wisdom concerning the history, culture, and people of the region. As a result, our troops our now playing the role of brave but largely ineffectual referees in a struggle which has transcended the U.S. presence in the region.
Which brings me back to the Democrats and national security. As Wes Clark, a man who I think we can agree has fairly good credentials when it comes to war and security, recentley said, "There is no anti-security wing of the democratic party." There are many who oppose the current war and would like to see troops brought home. This does not mean that they are not serious about national security, nor does it mean that they are not serious about the America's long term interest in reform in the middle east. However, they believe, as I do, that in order to be strong we have to re-evaluate the system and examine how we are allocating our strength.
If the government can assemble hosts of experts, both military and civilian, to have a real discussion of the Iraq war, that is a step forward. We need to hear real knowledgeable and informed testimony from the military on our options and needs in Iraq. We need to hear from civilians who have spent their lives studying the politics and people of the middle east. We need to hear from economists who can make impartial, real predictions about the cost of all these actions and their effect on the economy and political climate of the world. Most importantly, the people we need to hear from need to be indepent and impartial. The American people deserve a realistic picture.
I suspect that the reason we have not seen this type of dialogue is that the administration knows it will hear what no one wants too: that the effort to democratize Iraq will take years and probably decades, that it will require a massive committment of resources, both personell and finances, and that even with a democracy, liberal reforms may not be apparant in our lifetimes. This is a far cry from, "we will be greeted as liberators and the war will probably be over in less than six months." Reform may start with blood, but it often doesn't finish that way, and for some reason American's and their leadership are much more stingy with the dollars and humanitarian aid they send to the middle east than they are with the bombs. Reform won't work when it is the Hezbollah's and Hamas's who present aid to their people. The reason most people turn to these organizations who conduct practices we find barbaric is that the American's and Israeli's aren't building them schools, giving
them good medical care and nourishment, and rebuilding their homes after the bombs fall. I believe that the majority of individuals in the middle east probably don't, deep down, have a problem with Israel and America, but they support those who do because it is these groups who offer individuals and their familes help. Yes, I realize from the outside perspective, it is easy to make the argument that it is because of extremists that outside nations attack, but try explaining that to a Lebanese family whose house just blew up. I predict this will be especially true when the current conflict ceases and it is Hezbollah who is rebuilding Lebanon, not the Israeli's. Who do you think they will turn to then?
The current U.S. leadership simply refuses to acknowledge the complexity of the issue. Look at the troop levels in Iraq. If they were serious about this conflict, those levels would probably be rising. But they aren't, because they realize that would be tremendously unpopular. The only thing they take seriously is not looking stupid. All that the administration wants right now is to run out the clock on a tremendous mistake which, try as they might, cannot be swept under the rug. If I could hear an impartial and expert case for staying in Iraq, combined with a realistic, comprehensive military and humanitarian strategy for acheiving long term goals there, I would be willing to listen. But I'm not hearing that. Instead, I am hearing "stay the course" while American soldiers die and American dollars are funneled away from secure borders, better intelligence, and our myriad of domestic problems. It is because of this that I believe the time has come to exit Iraq. Reform in the
middle east is a good goal, but having our troops get blown up by IED's while watching a civil war unfold before their very eyes does not remotely further this goal. We may need these troops to fight a real war for our security soon. I don't wan't them dying because people in D.C. are too afraid to admit they were wrong about virtually everything leading up to this war.
So here I am, asking myself about the parties. One wants to regroup, preserve our troops, and dedicate our resources to securing and improving our homeland. The other wants to let our troops die until it is no longer their problem and they don't have to lose face. I think I know which one I take seriously on national security.
-A reader
That's the text of the letter. Got a lot off my chest.