Letter to my mom
(In response to her request to investigate the veracity of the authorship of an essay she received via email, and provide my own opinion on the issues covered by it.)
----
Hi Mom, I checked it out.
To verify whether Major General Chong wrote it, I googled the words
"snopes chong" -- first result gave me this web page:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/soapbox/chong.asp
This is what I was looking for, the Snopes investigation of this
email. Snopes is pretty authoritative, and has a reputation of being
the trusted word on whether this kind of thing is true or false. Their
verdict? They say they talked to him, and he says he did not write it.
As it turns out, the attribution was apparently an accident that
occurred because he had once forwarded the email, thereby attaching
his name to it. The email that is circulating was originally presented
as a letter written by an anonymous retired attorney to his four sons.
The premise of the essay, overall, seems to be to communicate the
gravity of the war on terror and the importance of defeating Muslim
terrorists through military action, due to the consequences of not
doing so. I generally allow myself the luxury of not *having* an
opinion on how grave the consequences war on terror may or may not be.
It's extremely unpredictable, and we'll only know for sure after it's
done. I feel that this kind of prediction is best left to experts, and
I think a lot of people have a certain similar sentiment of not really
knowing for themselves, which is probably why it's so appealing to
believe that something like this is written by a US General.
I can respond to a few points covered by the essay, however.
The first is, setting aside the list of attacks that the essay cites
as being part of the war perpetrated against the United States and the
west in general, I note that it cites a statistic on the number of
terrorist attacks worldwide. I don't know where they got that number,
but it's not really important. What is important is that you
understand that most terrorist attacks are not international
terrorism. One example of a hotspot for terrorist attacks is the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as the "First Intifada" uprising raged
from late 1987 to early 1991. The roots of that conflict run back to
the division of the Ottoman Empire after WWI and the Holocaust of
WWII, and easily predate the issues described in this essay. Another
example of very local terrorism is The Troubles in Northern Ireland,
as Provisional IRA terrorist attacks had been ongoing for more than a
decade by the start of the period covered by the statistic, and didn't
cease until the late 90s. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union,
Russia faced a brutal civil war in Chechnya after the subject
(State-level government) declared independence. Since then, Russia has
accused the separatist Republic of waging a terrorist Jihad. The point
of these examples is simply to understand that terrorism alone does
not suggest that it is part of a broader east vs. west war. Indeed,
the American Sons of Liberty, responsible for the Boston Tea Party,
were, in practice, terrorists by modern standards.
The essay argues that terrorist attacks against the United States and
other western countries are because of "Envy of our position, our
success, and our freedoms." This is difficult to comprehend.
Individuals who are willing to sacrifice their lives and kill for
something do not do so simply because they envy the position or
success of others, or because they wish they were as free as those
they were killing. This explanation for the conflict has always been
strange, and seems to be more out of an instinct to demonize enemies
rather than out of an honest search for an explanation. For example,
the attack that the essay writer cites as the beginning of the war, in
Iranian hostage crisis, was part of the Islamic Revolution in Iran,
and was in direct response to President Jimmy Carter's decision to
allow the despotic Shah of Iran to stop off in the United States to
receive medical treatment after fleeing his country. Although
relations between the Shah's government and the west were poor at that
time, the United States and others had formerly been very strong
backers of his government, even aiding a coup in his favor against an
extremely popular Prime Minister. By not returning the Shah to his
country to face trial, the US was seen as protecting him, and outraged
militants stormed the US Embassy and took hostages. It may have been
frustration at the power that the US wielded and they way in which it
was used, but it certainly wasn't mere envy.
Another argument the essay makes is in favor of profiling against
Muslim men aged 17 to 40. Setting aside the question of the merits of
this tactic in security, the sense of discrimination perpetrated by
higher law enforcement scrutiny on a minority class of persons on the
basis of their race or religion is very alienating, and it is not
difficult to defend the idea that doing so could be highly
counterproductive if we are engaged in a broader cultural conflict.
The essay also spends several paragraphs hinting at what appears to be
the Abu Ghraib scandal. The fundamental argument made by the author of
the essay seems to be that such introspective criticism is a
detraction from the greater inhumanities perpetrated by the enemies
that those responsible for the conditions there are fighting against.
I think there is a deep philosophical problem with this line of
reasoning. The object of all people, be it the people of the United
States or otherwise, should not be to merely be better than someone
worse. It is easy to accept that others are evil. But to see evil in
the actions of those we align ourselves with and see as fellow
citizens under a common banner sparks even more shock, and rightly so.
Ultimately, if we ignore our own evils and look first to solve those
of others, then those of conscience in other places who feel
victimized by our actions will look to solve the problem of our evil
for us.
The author argues that internal strife over this kind of thing is
disastrous for us, but reading this, I am inclined to think that the
author of the essay does not understand the reality of a conflict
against terrorism. To go to war with terrorists is to go to war with a
few disparate people across the world. Their numbers are nowhere near
the size of the numbers of people who are not in arms against us and
do not want to be involved in a war, but can be dragged into it if the
battle crosses their lives. If these people, already sympathetic to
our enemies, see monstrosities committed by our side against theirs,
it is far better for them to see us "implode" with internal strife and
outrage that such a thing could occur. To see us try to stand behind
such actions, or dismiss and cover them up, would entrench our image
as a force of evil invading their lands. Terrorists are not limited in
number, they are created in greater numbers as desperate peoples
determine that it is better to fight than not to fight. We can
encourage them to think that they should fight against us by appearing
to be a force of evil.
In World War II, victory was obvious: the destruction of the enemy's
organized military, and the surrender or overthrow of their
governments. But the end of this war will not come like others have,
in the total destruction of the enemy's ability to wage war. There is
no Hitler whose suicide will end an era of government, or Japanese
Emperor whose unconditional surrender will silence the guns of a
nation. The author understands this implicitly, in that those who
fight us are not loyal to any secular state, but to their
interpretation of their religious beliefs, founded not on Earth but
somewhere beyond. Destroying organized groups will not destroy their
will to fight, it will only limit their reach, and only temporarily.
I've read CIA documents designed to teach common citizens in Nicaragua
to destroy car engines with screwdrivers, and make Molotov firebombs
with nothing but gasoline, a bottle, and a dirty rag. Terrorism is so
easy to carry out that even many of the poorest and most desperate
people in the world can find it in themselves to fight back using it.
We can destroy economic assets, crush armies, overthrow states, and
torture people, but the wanton application of raw power will only turn
more of these people against us, as we become beasts who wage a
crusade against nations and cultures across the Muslim world in their
eyes.
The author of the essay says that 25% of the world population is
Muslim. According to Encyclopedia Brittanica, that number is closer to
20%. If even a fraction of those turn against us, we are already lost.
Perhaps we could win militarily against such numbers, but victory in
an ideological conflict is not worth genocide. If this becomes a third
world war, the blood will be on our hands -- and it will be because we
didn't know how to use our own power.
Spider Man Philosophy: "With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility"
The end of terrorism will come when we have defeated, militarily or by
police action, those who currently act against us, and established
ourselves to enough of the world as a force of good to prevent the
hatred against our country from reaching the critical mass to cause
people to want to kill and die to beat us. This is a challenge in part
military, but primarily moral. The author of the essay writes "We are
arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful, and smart
that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us and
that, with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad
in the world. We can't!" I do not believe that we should tie our hands
behind our back, but I do believe that one of the great challenges
standing between us and victory is to ensure that we be the good that
we believe ourselves to be.
John McCain has stood against his party in taking a very hard line
against torture, and is determined to carry out the war with a level
of humanity that would make the country proud, not ashamed. Barack
Obama has shown more courage in his willingness to step down from
pretense to meet and negotiate with those we deem our enemies than any
other candidate for President.
Each of these men have faced attacks and criticism from their own
parties for their views on the war on terror and on America's actions.
They have very different philosophies, but they present visions of the
way forward that seek to soften the appearance and the reality of the
United States in the world. Both are very intelligent and have the
potential to do good things for the country. Whether you believe in an
assertive, sometimes aggressive foreign policy, or a conciliatory,
peaceful foreign policy, there is reason to be hopeful given the
choices ahead of us. I am happy because whatever our country decides,
he or she will be an improvement on the current path, and he or she
will not be the sort to embrace the philosophy that feels we should
overlook our own failings simply because there are those who would
kill us for them.
In that, I disagree with the essay.
Jonathan
----
Hi Mom, I checked it out.
To verify whether Major General Chong wrote it, I googled the words
"snopes chong" -- first result gave me this web page:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/soapbox/chong.asp
This is what I was looking for, the Snopes investigation of this
email. Snopes is pretty authoritative, and has a reputation of being
the trusted word on whether this kind of thing is true or false. Their
verdict? They say they talked to him, and he says he did not write it.
As it turns out, the attribution was apparently an accident that
occurred because he had once forwarded the email, thereby attaching
his name to it. The email that is circulating was originally presented
as a letter written by an anonymous retired attorney to his four sons.
The premise of the essay, overall, seems to be to communicate the
gravity of the war on terror and the importance of defeating Muslim
terrorists through military action, due to the consequences of not
doing so. I generally allow myself the luxury of not *having* an
opinion on how grave the consequences war on terror may or may not be.
It's extremely unpredictable, and we'll only know for sure after it's
done. I feel that this kind of prediction is best left to experts, and
I think a lot of people have a certain similar sentiment of not really
knowing for themselves, which is probably why it's so appealing to
believe that something like this is written by a US General.
I can respond to a few points covered by the essay, however.
The first is, setting aside the list of attacks that the essay cites
as being part of the war perpetrated against the United States and the
west in general, I note that it cites a statistic on the number of
terrorist attacks worldwide. I don't know where they got that number,
but it's not really important. What is important is that you
understand that most terrorist attacks are not international
terrorism. One example of a hotspot for terrorist attacks is the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as the "First Intifada" uprising raged
from late 1987 to early 1991. The roots of that conflict run back to
the division of the Ottoman Empire after WWI and the Holocaust of
WWII, and easily predate the issues described in this essay. Another
example of very local terrorism is The Troubles in Northern Ireland,
as Provisional IRA terrorist attacks had been ongoing for more than a
decade by the start of the period covered by the statistic, and didn't
cease until the late 90s. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union,
Russia faced a brutal civil war in Chechnya after the subject
(State-level government) declared independence. Since then, Russia has
accused the separatist Republic of waging a terrorist Jihad. The point
of these examples is simply to understand that terrorism alone does
not suggest that it is part of a broader east vs. west war. Indeed,
the American Sons of Liberty, responsible for the Boston Tea Party,
were, in practice, terrorists by modern standards.
The essay argues that terrorist attacks against the United States and
other western countries are because of "Envy of our position, our
success, and our freedoms." This is difficult to comprehend.
Individuals who are willing to sacrifice their lives and kill for
something do not do so simply because they envy the position or
success of others, or because they wish they were as free as those
they were killing. This explanation for the conflict has always been
strange, and seems to be more out of an instinct to demonize enemies
rather than out of an honest search for an explanation. For example,
the attack that the essay writer cites as the beginning of the war, in
Iranian hostage crisis, was part of the Islamic Revolution in Iran,
and was in direct response to President Jimmy Carter's decision to
allow the despotic Shah of Iran to stop off in the United States to
receive medical treatment after fleeing his country. Although
relations between the Shah's government and the west were poor at that
time, the United States and others had formerly been very strong
backers of his government, even aiding a coup in his favor against an
extremely popular Prime Minister. By not returning the Shah to his
country to face trial, the US was seen as protecting him, and outraged
militants stormed the US Embassy and took hostages. It may have been
frustration at the power that the US wielded and they way in which it
was used, but it certainly wasn't mere envy.
Another argument the essay makes is in favor of profiling against
Muslim men aged 17 to 40. Setting aside the question of the merits of
this tactic in security, the sense of discrimination perpetrated by
higher law enforcement scrutiny on a minority class of persons on the
basis of their race or religion is very alienating, and it is not
difficult to defend the idea that doing so could be highly
counterproductive if we are engaged in a broader cultural conflict.
The essay also spends several paragraphs hinting at what appears to be
the Abu Ghraib scandal. The fundamental argument made by the author of
the essay seems to be that such introspective criticism is a
detraction from the greater inhumanities perpetrated by the enemies
that those responsible for the conditions there are fighting against.
I think there is a deep philosophical problem with this line of
reasoning. The object of all people, be it the people of the United
States or otherwise, should not be to merely be better than someone
worse. It is easy to accept that others are evil. But to see evil in
the actions of those we align ourselves with and see as fellow
citizens under a common banner sparks even more shock, and rightly so.
Ultimately, if we ignore our own evils and look first to solve those
of others, then those of conscience in other places who feel
victimized by our actions will look to solve the problem of our evil
for us.
The author argues that internal strife over this kind of thing is
disastrous for us, but reading this, I am inclined to think that the
author of the essay does not understand the reality of a conflict
against terrorism. To go to war with terrorists is to go to war with a
few disparate people across the world. Their numbers are nowhere near
the size of the numbers of people who are not in arms against us and
do not want to be involved in a war, but can be dragged into it if the
battle crosses their lives. If these people, already sympathetic to
our enemies, see monstrosities committed by our side against theirs,
it is far better for them to see us "implode" with internal strife and
outrage that such a thing could occur. To see us try to stand behind
such actions, or dismiss and cover them up, would entrench our image
as a force of evil invading their lands. Terrorists are not limited in
number, they are created in greater numbers as desperate peoples
determine that it is better to fight than not to fight. We can
encourage them to think that they should fight against us by appearing
to be a force of evil.
In World War II, victory was obvious: the destruction of the enemy's
organized military, and the surrender or overthrow of their
governments. But the end of this war will not come like others have,
in the total destruction of the enemy's ability to wage war. There is
no Hitler whose suicide will end an era of government, or Japanese
Emperor whose unconditional surrender will silence the guns of a
nation. The author understands this implicitly, in that those who
fight us are not loyal to any secular state, but to their
interpretation of their religious beliefs, founded not on Earth but
somewhere beyond. Destroying organized groups will not destroy their
will to fight, it will only limit their reach, and only temporarily.
I've read CIA documents designed to teach common citizens in Nicaragua
to destroy car engines with screwdrivers, and make Molotov firebombs
with nothing but gasoline, a bottle, and a dirty rag. Terrorism is so
easy to carry out that even many of the poorest and most desperate
people in the world can find it in themselves to fight back using it.
We can destroy economic assets, crush armies, overthrow states, and
torture people, but the wanton application of raw power will only turn
more of these people against us, as we become beasts who wage a
crusade against nations and cultures across the Muslim world in their
eyes.
The author of the essay says that 25% of the world population is
Muslim. According to Encyclopedia Brittanica, that number is closer to
20%. If even a fraction of those turn against us, we are already lost.
Perhaps we could win militarily against such numbers, but victory in
an ideological conflict is not worth genocide. If this becomes a third
world war, the blood will be on our hands -- and it will be because we
didn't know how to use our own power.
Spider Man Philosophy: "With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility"
The end of terrorism will come when we have defeated, militarily or by
police action, those who currently act against us, and established
ourselves to enough of the world as a force of good to prevent the
hatred against our country from reaching the critical mass to cause
people to want to kill and die to beat us. This is a challenge in part
military, but primarily moral. The author of the essay writes "We are
arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful, and smart
that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us and
that, with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad
in the world. We can't!" I do not believe that we should tie our hands
behind our back, but I do believe that one of the great challenges
standing between us and victory is to ensure that we be the good that
we believe ourselves to be.
John McCain has stood against his party in taking a very hard line
against torture, and is determined to carry out the war with a level
of humanity that would make the country proud, not ashamed. Barack
Obama has shown more courage in his willingness to step down from
pretense to meet and negotiate with those we deem our enemies than any
other candidate for President.
Each of these men have faced attacks and criticism from their own
parties for their views on the war on terror and on America's actions.
They have very different philosophies, but they present visions of the
way forward that seek to soften the appearance and the reality of the
United States in the world. Both are very intelligent and have the
potential to do good things for the country. Whether you believe in an
assertive, sometimes aggressive foreign policy, or a conciliatory,
peaceful foreign policy, there is reason to be hopeful given the
choices ahead of us. I am happy because whatever our country decides,
he or she will be an improvement on the current path, and he or she
will not be the sort to embrace the philosophy that feels we should
overlook our own failings simply because there are those who would
kill us for them.
In that, I disagree with the essay.
Jonathan