Friday, July 18, 2008

Dear Larry Hunter, Here is why you are an idiot.

Larry Hunter

Dear Larry,

Here is why you are an idiot and clearly are not engaging in any deep thinking. You claim Obama is the answer because he will only engage venial sins versus mortal sins. You couldn't be more wrong.

First the war is justified. You may not have like how it was managed. You may not like all the choices made but actions occurred that provoked our reaction. The policies exercised were put in place before this administration and the tactics used were the same as we have used in the past. The United States clearly created allies that would be a wedge on power within regions that had continuously been at war for several centuries in an attempt to keep the peace. We engaged wholeheartedly in full blown nation-building in the past. We did this in Germany for Europe. We did this with Japan in the Pacific Rim. We clearly are trying to do it now in the Middle East. With the former two we still have a large stabilizing military presence in each and there has been relative peace within those regions.

The Middle East has been continually unstable for centuries and 9/11 made us all realize that the piecemeal efforts that had been occurring there in the previous decades were not getting the job done. Our current policy is nothing more than the Truman Doctrine applied to terrorism. Likewise the history often erases the turmoil that mistakes within that time period caused. Bush has been criticized as knowing how to win the war, but not win the peace. I'll remind you that that Marshall Plan was not signed into law until three years after World War II.

You ask about how we can extract ourselves from Iraq, avoid going to war with Iran and preserve our personal rights. The point has clearly been driven home to us that we cannot just ignore and leave the region while hoping that the problems there will work themselves out. Each time we have done this the extreme elements within those regions manage to coalesce, begin blaming Western civilization for their problems and soon after that terror attacks begin and continue. The reason our hands have been forced now is because when we they continue this time, we suspect it will be with nuclear weapons.

It may be distasteful to occupy and craft an ally in a region where we were not welcomed, but I doubt we were not welcomed in Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany as well. Each time we ignored or put off action on the latter two, the situation grew worse.

You say McCain would continue the Bush policy of interventionism. I tell you that Obama will as well. The only change is Obama has foolishly stated that instead of keeping our forces in Iraq, he will spread them out through the Middle East though primarily in Afghanistan. The change is only in where they will be fighting. Obama has claimed a timeline for getting troops out of Iraq, but not for bringing them home. Additionally if we follow his misguided political pandering as foreign policy prerogatives, it is likely those troops will never be home since the problem will be prolonged.

Obama claims a humbler outreach, but threatens our trade partners, demands to speak at foreign venues for campaign purposes and is already informing certain leaders that our troops will be arriving with or without their consent. I do not call that humble. I call that political pandering.

You claim domestic matters are of no concern because you consider Obama to be dishonest. You take him at his word on far off foreign matters yet discount that word at home where it matters most. That is ridiculous reasoning.

You "quietly hope" Obama doesn't create an activist government when he will be a Democratic president with a Democratic Congress. You call his current actions crusades yet hope he will give them up when the power will be his to exercise in a completely unrestricted fashion. You even call the possibility of enduring his policies an economic ransom yet you will pay it because you have some inane view that when 9/11 destroyed a trillion dollars worth of wealth in a few hours, that somehow spending a trillion over several years to prevent similar destruction is somehow misguided.

You couldn't be more wrong, and again I will share why. The Marshall plan cost $12.4 billion in 1948-51 dollars. That is $113 billion dollars today when adjusted for inflation. The actual war itself cost a trillion dollars in 1944 dollars. That would be 11 trillion dollars today. So we have spent and continue to spend money to prevent attacks and to limit the scoop of terrorism. However it is clear based on past numbers that letting it fester could be profoundly more expensive.

I'm hoping you get a clue before November,
Nick