Response to German intellectuals by average American citizens
December 5, 2002

You title your response to the American intellectuals "In the 21st century, there is no longer justification for war" and we non-intellectual American citizens would like an opportunity to join in the discussion.

You state "Under the current law of nations, only states can wage war against one another" and therefore conclude that a war on terrorist groups in not only unjust but illegal.  Not all wars are between specific states.  The "Cold War" was between two ideologies and forms of governance.  We even have the so called "War on Drugs" which is against drug producers.  To use the word "War" does not, in and of itself, have legal significance.  Our president has clearly articulated since, Sept. 11th, that "This is a different type of war.  It will be fought in many forms.  Some actions will be visible, some will not".  And more provocative, he has stated that "We are not only at war with terrorists, but with countries that support, finance or harbor terrorists".  If you were to take this literally, you would assume that the U.S. would have already launched an invasion of the entire Middle East since most Middle Eastern countries either "Support, finance or harbor terrorists".  We clearly have not done this.

What you fail to understand and seem to trivialize is that the attacks of Sept. 11th was not just the random killing of 3,000 innocent people, it was a wake-up call to the world that terrorism and Radical Islamic Fundamentalism has clearly reached a new level of power, insidiousness and boldness.  And you would even dare to insinuate that it is the oppressive policies of the U.S. that caused this attack!  We can blame this attack on our own policies, yes, that is true.  But it is the very policies which you offer as the solution that allowed this threat to grow to its current scary and deadly levels.

You say "Due to its potential for overkill, for mass destruction, modern warfare with its mighty weaponry has become totally irrational" due to "the hatred of many innocent persons who have come to harm".  If we understand this argument, our weapons have become so great that it is "unfair" and "unjust" to use them since some innocent people may come to harm?  Or, are you saying, that it is unfair to use these weapons because our poor enemies don't have a defense for these weapons?

The fact is that with the advent of these "irrational" weapons, "Just wars" can be fought today and in the future with fewer civilian casualties than at any time in world history.   But yes, there will be unavoidable civilian casualties, in all wars, yet you argue that it is specifically because these casualties can be minimized with new powerful weapons, that it is "Unjust" or "Unfair" to fight "Just Wars".

You say that it is "but merely pragmatic, appraising reason" that you "Oppose all wars today".  Yes, it is very easy to sit back and oppose all wars because all you need is mere pragmatic, appraising reason.  If only the suicidal, mass-murdering, civilization hating, fundamentalist fanatics had mere pragmatic, appraising reason, wouldn't life be grand.

You go on to ask "Can a war employing weaponry that does not combat troops, but destroys whole regions, their inhabitants, and the latter's vital resources, lay claim to the designation "just" at all?"  Since the only example of this type of war that we can think of, in recent years, was the attack on Sept. 11th, we would agree that this attack should not lay claim to the designation "just".  Since you give no actual example of your own, but do mention in the same paragraph the Afghan war, we will have to assume you were referring to this war.  You accuse us of employing weaponry that did not combat troops, but instead destroyed whole regions, inhabitants and vital resources.  We think if you were to have visited Afghanistan before and after the war, you will find that whole regions, their inhabitants and their vital resources had already been destroyed by the very regime that we forced from power.  Only now can you see actual rebuilding going on as millions of people return to their homes after fleeing the Taliban, not the war with the U.S. 

You argue that "The power to define whether a war is "just" surely cannot be left to the arbitrary views of the war-making parties" and that only a "Higher, impartial, moral and legal authority" can establish justice.  While, in a utopian world, where we had a "Higher, impartial, moral and legal authority" this would indeed make perfect sense if all countries and groups actually accepted the decision of this almighty authority.

The problem is we have no such utopian authority.  While the U.N. was and is a noble cause, it has proven more and more ineffective simply because it has itself become an impartial corrupt organization.  The basic premise is that all countries will work in the best interests of the world and decisions will be impartial by nature.  The fact is, the U.N. is a collection of individual nations all working for their own self interests.  It is the self interests of the majority, not the best interests of the world, which decides the outcome of any debate.

An area where we agree is when you speak of the structural imbalance between the "Haves and have-nots" and that when "naked powerlessness is confronted by structural domination" that "Such hopeless situations result more and more frequently, out of the despair they create, in acts of violence".  The only problem is you did not even try to address the cause of the structural imbalance.  If we are hearing you right, your problem with U.S. power is that it is so far advanced over the rest of the world, including yourself, that this, in and of itself, creates terrorists.  We think that if you take a little closer look at how this imbalance actually is created, you will find that there is one primary common denominator.  The "Haves" in all cases are Democratic societies and the "Have-nots" are ruled by ruthless, authoritative, oppressive dictatorships.  The countries that breed and export terrorists, of the Islamic fundamentalist variety, all have one other thing in common.  They all openly preach and teach hatred of the West and especially the U.S. and Israel for one reason and one reason only, to blame their people's powerlessness on someone other than their own oppressive governments. 

Another area where we agree is that you would welcome it if our official policy were to "limit, not extol the use of force".  You then go on to say that "Of course, a limitation of military force has actually been practiced until now" for if it had not, none of us would be alive.  It can be argued, in recent history, whether the U.S. has used force before all other options have been attempted and there is no way to prove or disprove this argument.  What can be said for sure is that whatever President happens to hold the Whitehouse, it is the most difficult decision that can be made to send young U.S. soldiers off to war and this decision is never taken lightly by the president, congress or the people.  Yes, the U.S. has had to fight more wars than any other modern industrialized country, but the decision to go to war was never the first option, but in fact the last resort.  Not all wars have the desired outcome, probably most do not, but some have had very positive effects on the world.  What we will never know is if we had not fought these wars, would we and the world be better or worse off today. 

Again, we agree that it is senseless, after the end of the Cold War, to maintain an arsenal of thousands of nuclear weapons yet we believe it would be suicide to dismantle them all.  We still have the possible threat of future rouge nations obtaining significant numbers of nuclear weapons and therefore must maintain a deterrent.  We have recently agreed, as did Russia, to dismantle thousands of warheads.  Properly dismantling and safely disposing of these weapons is very costly and takes time and we bare the entire cost of this and the majority of the cost to dismantle the Russian stockpile.  Maybe you could offer some assistance in this costly, yet very worthwhile, endeavor.

You make a long argument that the U.S. should recognize the International Criminal Court, again, a very noble cause.  There are many reasons why this is not in the interests of the U.S. at this time yet may well make sense in the future but would take to long to address here.  The problem is how worried you are that we may be mistreating enemy combatants and suspected terrorists.  While, again, another noble cause, you must realize that the people we are fighting do not recognize any institution, law, country, religion but only their own twisted brand.  Who was outraged when one of our soldiers was captured and immediately dragged off and killed?  We guarantee that the treatment of these terrorist and combatants in our custody is far superior to leaving them in Afghanistan prisons.  When fighting an enemy that lives in the shadows and in total secrecy, we must reserve the right to some secrecy of our own.  Sometimes you just have to trust that our government, as hard as that may be for you, is actually doing what is in all our best interests.  As you know, this country does not keep secrets very well and when all the smoke clears we will learn whether your concerns are, in fact, justified.

What really concerns us is your contention that our government has been taken over by fundamentalists.  It would appear you have had too much dialog with the radical left in this country who labels all Republicans with such nonsensical names.  You also express concern about our President using language "Good and evil, Axis of evil and Rogue states".  All war time leaders have used similar language to unite the people in a common cause.  If you compare the U.S. and a world wide terrorist network and cannot distinguish the good from the evil, then we may be writing these letters for next 1,000 years and never get close to agreement.  What is the most disturbing is that you actually believe the widespread Muslim belief that "there is a latent threat from the West" is somehow only the result of U.S. policies, with no mention of the culpability of their despotic leaders.  Since you seem to agree with the causes for this belief, do you not take some credit for the spread of this belief?  The real question is where did this anti-American propaganda begin, in Europe or the Mosques of the Middle East?

You continue with "One of our most urgent tasks is to break this pernicious chain reaction of fundamentalism and to build bridges by breaking down hostile stereotypes and by a dialogue between the cultures".  Please tell us how to build a bridge between a Democratic, freedom loving, civilized and secular people and an organization that has no government, no embassies, no statesman and no official home that has amongst its goals to hijack and radicalize one of the great religions of the world, use this religion to educate current and future generations in the hatred of civilization and other religions, to slowly but surely plant the seeds and grow this fundamentalism throughout the world and use its own children as suicide bombers to accomplish the ultimate goal of world domination and control.  We would like to see the blueprint for this bridge for it surely would be the next great wonder of the world.

One more area where we agree is your conviction that to ward off fundamental dangers can best be accomplished by strengthening the trust of the powerless with universal values such as human dignity, human rights, individual liberties and universal principles of law.  Please tell us which country on the planet has done more to spread, encourage and strengthen these universal values?  We believe our record is clear yet your record has not been so clear.  You may talk a big game, but please name a country other than East Germany that you have helped achieve these lofty goals? 

You then go on to question our "moral and legal creditability" by "condemning Islamic Fundamentalism" while "doing deals with Saudi Arabia".  Well, you may have a point here and we have no explanation for this behavior other than the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have been unlikely bedfellows for over 50 years which has resulted in a relatively smooth flow of oil from which all industrialized countries have benefited.  We will go even further and admit that our country has wrongfully propped up the corrupt Saudi Royal family and have probably contributed to its ability to stay in power even while recognizing the repressive nature of this regime.  Yet, had we done otherwise and condemned this regime, would we not also have been criticized for meddling in the affaires of another state or culture.  While you have pointed out an obvious inconsistency, again, we have a question.  What have you done?  Have you not benefited from a consistent flow of relatively cheap oil or have you boycotted Saudi oil?  Before Sept.11th, we did close our eyes, as did the rest of the world, to the growing threat of Islamic Fundamentalists mostly founded, funded and spread from Saudi Arabia but you can rest assured that our eyes are not closed any more.  But, as always, the solution to this problem rests in our laps, not yours or the U.N.'s.

The next inconsistency you point out is between our condemnations of human rights abuses in Iraq while being silent about the violations in other areas such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  It is really hard to imagine you saying we are silent on this issue.  The reason you must believe we are silent is we take the side of the Democratic and freedom loving country while you take the side of the terrorist state.  While it can be argued as to the rational of establishing a Jewish state in an area surrounded by Arab and Muslim countries, if it were not for the U.S., the Jewish state would have long ago been driven into the sea and its people massacred.  We really would think that it should be you that would have defended Israel all these years since the entire reason for the creation of the Jewish state was to award the Jews a land free of persecution and genocide.  By your actions, it appears to us that you hope the Arabs will complete the job that your country started.  This may be harsh, or maybe it isn't, but again, on this conflict, you help spread the same propaganda that fuels the Islamic fundamentalist's movement. Let's not forget, it was the Arab's on three occasions that attacked Israel and it was the U.S. on two occasions that came within spitting distance of the creation of a Palestinian state only to have the effort abandoned by the Palestinian leadership in favor of new suicide attacks on Israel.  There are two very important things to understand in this conflict.  First, no Arab state actually wants this conflict to be resolved for as long as it exists, this conflict can be used as propaganda to deflect the failures of the governments of these same Arab states and blame all problems on the Jews and the U.S.  Second, you must recognize something fundamental about this conflict.  The vast majority of the Israeli people would love nothing more than a resolution to this conflict.  They have democratically elected numerous leaders, both dovish and hawkish, in the hope that one of them would resolve this conflict and all have tried.  The majority of Palestinian's too would like nothing more than to resolve this conflict and have had one non-democratically elected leader the whole time.  You please tell us, in general, who maybe needs a change of leadership.

In your final remarks you consider previous comments to be dangerous because we grant our warmongering President the intellectual and moral justification to plunge the world into further military adventures instead of using our might towards a credible peace policy.  And then, as your example, you bring up Iraq as our next "misguided adventure" which will have catastrophic consequences for millions of people around the world.  This really puzzles us.  For those with short memories, it was the previous administration in 1998 that created the standing U.S. policy of regime change in Iraq after the Iraqi's forced the shut down of inspections.  We did not hear cries from the world at that time.  The U.N. agreed that inspections had failed and Iraq must pay the consequences.  There is only one problem.  The previous administration did nothing, nor did the U.N., to hold Iraq accountable and continued to enforce sanctions that only punish the Iraqi people.  The new administration inherited this nasty situation and vowed from the beginning that it would address it during this four year term.  Sept. 11th surely created a sense of urgency. 

Now, what has our warmongering President done that is so threatening to the world?  Well, he first let Saddam know that he must disarm or he will be disarmed and he also reminded Saddam of the standing U.S. policy of "Regime change".  He made it clear that we were serious by beginning war planning.  He asked for congressional approval and received it.  He then gave the U.N. one last chance to restore its own creditability by passing a resolution that gives Saddam his last chance to disarm or face consequences.  Oh, and by the way, a unanimous vote for the new resolution was achieved.  Wow, what a warmonger we have in the Whitehouse. 

We believe the problem you have is that you, the U.N. and Saddam actually believe that if Saddam does not disarm, this President will have the guts to follow through with the consequences.  Does anyone actually think that Saddam would ever disarm without a credible threat of serious consequences?  As Tony Blaire has said on many occasions, "It is up to Saddam.  He can choose to disarm or he will be forcefully disarmed by a coalition of nations".

We believe your entire argument can be summed up in the following words. 

War, in the 21st Century, can never be justified because innocents will be harmed.  If only the U.S. allowed the International courts and the U.N. to control its foreign policy, all problems in the world would be solved.  Our weapons are so powerful that it is unfair to use them.  Anti-Americanism in Europe and Islamic Fundamentalism are a direct result of U.S. policies and no fault of anyone else.

Our arguments can be summed up as follows.

You have finally shown your true colors.  You are in fact pacifists.  You believe and spread the same anti-American propaganda as do the Islamic fundamentalists.  You are jealous of American economic and military power which makes you feel powerless.  You criticize all things American, yet offer no real alternative path other than lets all live in peace. 

We only hope that the people who wrote this dissertation are part of the fringe of Germany and not the mainstream.  We have the same peace sign waving, anti-American intellectuals in our country that are able to spread their hatred of America through the sanctity of their tenured positions in our colleges and universities.

Final comments:

Our faults:

America does and will always make mistakes.  We tend to be isolationists until our interests are threatened.  We tend to be arrogant towards the rest of the world. We have propped up despotic leaders for a larger perceived cause.  We, in general, value an American life more than lives in other countries.  We have a long history of waging war to resolve small, medium and large conflicts where it may have been possible to solve these conflicts through peace.  We have the largest and most powerful economy and military the world has every seen and strive to maintain this superiority since we believe in our ability, versus other potential countries, to use this power for good rather than world domination.  We tend to be the last to see major threats brewing in the world since we tend to look inward rather than outward.

Our strengths:

America has come to the aid of more people in the last century than any other country in world history.  America was instrumental in winning all three greats wars of this century and was always on the side of the defender, not the aggressor.  We have welcomed freedom loving people of all faiths, cultures and race to our shores and have strived to live in peace and prosperity together.  We have done more to spread free enterprise and Democracy to the rest of the world than any other.  We have not used aggression for territorial gain in over a century.  We have made more contributions to world health care, scientific knowledge, technological advancement, worldwide food production, space exploration and world communications capability than any country in world history.  We are a proud, diverse and strong culture which, at its heart, tries to do what is right for our people first and the rest of the world second but we do hope that a strong America will, over time, begin to reverse this fact.

Maybe this last sentence can be used as a basis for further discussions on just how we may do a better job.

Sincerely,

Jody Green, Self employed, Boca Raton, FL

Richard Davidson, Bartender, Sarasota, FL

Bill Washburn, Manager, Nashville, TN

Mary Stetson, Housewife, Sullivan, MO

Marc Hoffman, Fishing charter owner, Islamorada, FL

Susie Stanford, Engineer, Boston, MA 

Sven Singular, Construction foreman, Atlanta, GA

Top | Follow-up