I submitted a rebuttal to a guest column that appeared in last Thursday's Wisconsin State Journal. In it the writer seemed to be acknowledging the inevitability of our fighting some insurgency or another for the next 100 years. I have been informed by the WSJ's letters editor that they "can't" print my submission because they just printed one of mine on December 6th (the same day as the guest column in question). Sounds a bit arbitrary to me but it's their paper. So here it is:

I feel that I must respond to Thursday's guest column, "In Iraq, A Golden Opportunity". It's the nature of this "opportunity" with which I have the biggest problem.

"This is America's opportunity to learn to fight the type of conflict we will face for the next 100 years, counterinsurgency warfare."

Why will we be facing insurgencies for the next 100 years? How many more countries are we planning to invade and occupy?

He claims that we are "a target to those countries, groups, beliefs or organizations that envy our power, freedom and wealth". That's why we're fighting an insurgency? Not because we invaded and are now occupying their country, but because they were envious of us? Does the letter writer know what an insurgency is?

He attempts to make two points that illustrate perfectly the fallacy of his argument.

First, he proclaims that "al-Qaida Iraq's back is broken". That is good news only if we forget that Al-Qaida Iraq only came into existence to respond to the American invasion/occupation.

Second, even more tellingly, he mentions the disaster that was our "war" in Vietnam. The problem, in his view, was that we won the "conventional" component of that "war" but we never defeated the insurgency. Exactly. We had no business there. An insurgency began in response to our presence. We "won" most (some have even said all) of the battles. Yet we "lost". Why? Because nations resent being occupied. This has been the case throughout history. You can't crush that and you can't outlast it.

Sadly, I believe that the writer's 100 year plan is reflective of the long term strategy of the current administration and its supporters. Is this really what we the people want for America? Please say no.

Let me get this straight. Wounded soldiers (not troops, soldiers) are coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan and are being presented with a bill for some of their enlistment bonuses back (cuz they didn't finish their tours!) at the same time that Bush has the nerve to demand another 152 Billion dollars with no strings attached for his insane attempt at global hegemony? And we aren't screaming for a full accounting of every dollar that they've run through?

Seriously, what are they at so far? How f&ck#ng close to a m!th#r f*ck^ng trillion m$th@rf%ck*ng dollars are they? And this is how they treat our soldiers? (the ones that we're all supposed to support, remember?) Where the Fuck! is all that money going?

Let me see if I can guess: (Say it with me if you want), the Military Industrial Complex. Or, in simple English, the fucking arms manufacturers and other "defense contractors" that are awarded huge, often no-bid, contracts with no public accounting. Really? We put up with this? Why? Or is that information available? If so, where?

Now how can this be? You mean we can't just build more prisons and hand out longer, harsher sentences (tough on crime) and solve our crime problem? Why not? Read this first, if you want:

US prison system 'costly failure'

The US prison population has risen eight-fold since 1970, with little impact on crime but at great cost to the taxpayer, researchers say.
There are more than 1.5 million people in US state and federal jails, a report by a Washington-based criminal justice research group, the JFA Institute says.

Inmate numbers are projected to rise by 192,000 in five years, costing $27.5bn (£13.44bn) to build and run jails.

The JFA recommends reducing the number and length of sentences.

The Unlocking America report, which was published on Monday, also advocated changing terms of parole and finding alternatives to prison as part of a major overhaul of the US justice system.

"There is no evidence that keeping people in prison longer makes us any safer," said JFA president James Austin.

Women convicts

The report said that US crime rates, which have been in decline since the 1990s, are about the same as those for 1973.

It says the incarceration rate has soared because sentences have got longer and those who violate parole or probation are more likely to be given prison terms.
The report said that every year hundreds of thousands of Americans are sent to jail "for crimes that pose little if any danger or harm to society".

It cited several examples including a Florida woman's two-year sentence for throwing a cup of coffee at another car in a traffic row.

Its recommendations run counter to the Bush administration's policy of longer, harsher sentences, which the government says has contributed to falling violent crime and murder figures.

The JFA researchers found that women represented the fastest-growing sector of the US prison population.

The report was funded by the Rosenbaum Foundation and the Open Society Institute.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7102054.stm

Published: 2007/11/19 17:44:20 GMT

© BBC MMVII

Some of you may realize that there is a strong link between poverty and crime. You may feel, as I do, that one way to address the problem of crime in our society is to address the issue of poverty. I can pretty much guarantee that the Bush administration (compassionate conservatives) has not gone about it that way, nor will any future Republican administration. Especially Giuliani. Not that I see the Republicans winning the White House any time soon.

I expect a lot from my federal government; the job facing the next President is even more daunting than usual because of the need to make up for the inactivity, and negative activity, of the fucking jack-asses that have been fucking things up for the last seven years.

How much longer? (406 days and about 20 hours.)

Somebody please tell Mr. Charles Phipps of Lodi that he most certainly does not speak for all of us, or even, I hope, the majority of us when he makes his "case" for waterboarding in a Saturday letter.

First, please tell him that the "battle" is not "between those who want to hold the moral high ground, despite the potential loss of human lives, and those who are willing to ruffle a few feathers". Ruffle a few feathers? Seriously? That's how we are to view this? It's just ruffling a few feathers. Oh, well, if you put it that way... The Inquisition should have had this guy around to do P.R. for them.

As to the fact that some of us do indeed want to "hold the moral high ground": is he saying that he does not want that? Oh wait, it's OK until there is a "potential loss of human lives". Then, because we're really scared, I guess, we abandon this high ground and do whatever we feel is needed. Or is waterboarding the one and only approved technique (when we're really scared and there are potentially human lives at stake)?

But of course "...waterboarding has already been banned by the regular military and only a few cases since 2003 have been authorized on specific, known, high level terrorists." (He knows this)

It's banned for a reason. The good guys (that's supposed to be us) don't do this. Whether or not some extremely unlikely scenario presents itself in which we somehow have someone in custody who we know has kidnapped someone and buried this person alive but is not willing to divulge the location of his victim without a little "persuasion".

And why would we think that it would stop there? Genies don't easily go back into bottles. Why not use it on the "suspect" in the child molestation case, the one on whom there is only a shaky ID from a six year old because a confession seals the deal? What about other criminals who are unwilling to "rat out" their accomplices? How about any POW whom we think might have valuable and timely intelligence that we "need". How about we use it on certain politicians to see if we can find out how they really raised all that money? How about anyone that voices dissent? How about whomever the people with the power feel like using it on?

Never happen, right?

You gotta hand it to Pervez Musharraf (especially if you're Dick Cheney). Way to create an emergency and then claim special "emergency" executive powers. And use those powers to attempt to silence your critics, whose very existence is the foundation of your "emergency". Maybe he should read the previous post.