I Write a Letter

An e-mail I recently sent to a friend currently serving in Iraq:

I was thinking about you when I read Murtha's speech regarding the war. I am glad you are aware of what's happening here. What struck me most about his comments was the fact that, as an 'insider' he almost certainly would not make such a bold and controversial statement without having thoroughly discussed his concerns with his associates in the defense establishment, or without a strong feeling that he was taking a position that wouldn't be considered by serious people as extreme. He strikes me as a reasonable man, and a man fully informed about the consequences of the use of American military power.

I watched the floor debate in the House Friday evening when the sham "Murtha Resolution" was introduced (it basically said 'let's just cut-and-run'), and it was deeply disturbing and disappointing. I found Murtha's actual proposal well thought-out and worthy of honest debate - as it would open the door to a debate about just what our role should be in Iraq over the next two or three years. It is a national discussion that we most sorely need. With the Administration so weakened politically, and with the public no longer taking the Administration's word for granted, in my judgment it is the natural course for us as a national citizenry to reevaluate our role in Iraq. Instead, what the Cabal in the House arranged was a farce. The comments by the Ohio rep (the one who barely defeated veteran Paul Hackett in Sept) made a complete mockery of the entire House and of our public discourse. And it was all orchestrated.

It is quite clear that our political leaders (and I'm limiting this term to mean those who really control the instruments of power) are unwilling to engage the public in discussion of the real policy issues relating to this war. Forget for a moment the issue of whether we should be there or not, or why we went in or any of the other post-mortem issues. Just on the issue of what should we be doing today and tomorrow, most of our leaders simply are unwilling to have a real honest discussion and debate. It's all politics.

The American people are far ahead of their elected leaders on the war - and Murtha rightly pointed that out. The public wants to reevaluate and honestly debate this war and then decide on a strategy that serves the best purposes. That is what I believe. I also believe that having an honest discussion of the war will go a long way to restoring the public's confidence that we can, ultimately, find an acceptable solution - both political and humanitarian.

But, what is occurring, it seems to me, is an age-old tactic of repression - take the reasonable objections (of reasonable people) to the status quo and equate them with uber-extreme ideologies to stifle change or alteration. Make patriots into traitors, decent men into pariahs, liars and cheats into the guardians of virtue. This is dangerous.

Who's to say that after an honest debate occurs, that a renewed commitment to success in Iraq is not agreed to by all? Why is it that those opposed to a debate think that "debate" equals "cut-and-run" or cowardice? Maybe through honest dialogue we find a solution where everyone wins. How could that be a bad thing? Maybe it's true, maybe wise men are protecting us from ourselves and what horror we might unleash if we go down this road of honest assessment. But if they were so wise, why are things not going better?

As I said, a majority of people in this country are ready to examine this war from top to bottom so that we find a solution that serves everyone, or at least as many people as possible. At some point, the public will tire of politicians who refuse to recognize this. I only hope that this tipping point occurs soon - both for our own interests and for those of the millions of Iraqis whose very lives hang in the balance.