Dear Congressmen, Senators and members of the administration;

I have been a participant on an internet newsgroup discussing the current situation and wish to pass along a letter from a Mr. Tamim Ansary, a Afghani-American as well as my analysis, as posted. I also include another post concerning the present situation. I offer this as a contribution to the ongoing efforts to address the problems presented by the terrorist attacks on us last Tuesday.

Sincerely yours,

David Burton

_____________________________________________________________

A LETTER from Mr. Tamim Ansary:

Dear Gary and whoever else is on this email thread:

I've been hearing a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age." Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio today, allowed that this would mean killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with this atrocity, but "we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage. What else can we do?" Minutes later I heard some TV pundit discussing whether we "have the belly to do what must be done."

And I thought about the issues being raised especially hard because I am from Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here (the US) for 35 years I've never lost track of what's going on there. So I want to tell anyone who will listen how it all looks from where I'm standing.

I speak as one who hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. There is no Doubt in my mind that these people were responsible for the atrocity in New York. I agree that something must be done about those monsters.

But the Taliban and Bin Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even the government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics who took over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden is a political criminal with a plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think Bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think "the people of Afghanistan" think "the Jews in the concentration camps." It's not only that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this atrocity. They were the first victims of the perpetrators. They would exult if someone would come in there, take out the Taliban and clear out the rats nest of international thugs holed up in their country.

Some say, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban? The answer is, they're starved, exhausted, hurt, incapacitated, suffering. A few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000 disabled orphans in Afghanistan--a country with no economy, no food. There are millions of widows. And the Taliban has been burying these widows alive in mass graves. The soil is littered with land mines, the farms were all destroyed by the Soviets. These are a few of the reasons why the Afghan people have not overthrown the Taliban.

We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age.

Trouble is, that's been done. The Soviets took care of it already. Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their houses? Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure? Cut them off from medicine and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that. New bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the Taliban eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away and hide. Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans, they don't move too fast, they don't even have wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul and dropping bombs wouldn't really be a strike against the criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it would only be making common cause with the Taliban--by raping once again the people they've been raping all this time.

So what else is there? What can be done, then? Let me now speak with true fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there with ground troops. When people speak of "having the belly to do what needs to be done" they're thinking in terms of having the belly to kill as many as needed. Having the belly to overcome any moral qualms about killing innocent people. Let's pull our heads out of the sand. What's actually on the table is Americans dying. And not just because some Americans would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's hideout. It's much bigger than that folks. Because to get any troops to Afghanistan, we'd have to go through Pakistan. Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan would have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just stand by? You see where I'm going. We're flirting with a world war between Islam and the West.

And guess what: that's Bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he wants. That's why he did this. Read his speeches and statements. It's all right there. He really believes Islam would beat the West. It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the world into Islam and the West, he's got a billion soldiers. If the West wreaks a holocaust in those lands, that's a billion people with nothing left to lose, that's even better from Bin Laden's point of view. He's probably wrong, in the end the West would win, whatever that would mean, but the war would last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but ours. Who has the belly for that? Bin Laden does. Anyone else?

Tamim Ansary

_____________________________________________________________

Comments on Mr. Ansary's letter:

I want to thank both Gary T and Tamim Ansary for bringing this perspective to our attention. I am preparing to send copies of Mr. Ansary's letter to my congressman and senators as well as others I can get to in the Bush administration. I can't assume they have this perspective, but we are approaching a critical moment in world history. I want to reiterate some of the things I said in an earlier post concerning this coming confrontation with the monsters who perpetrated this great crime against not only the United States, not just the West, but against the entire civilized world, as there were in fact people from all over the world in those buildings. New York is after all perhaps the most cosmopolitan city on earth. Many European friends of mine have called it the capital of the civilized world.

I am assuming that Mr. Ansary is correct when he says,

I said in an earlier post was that one of the things we must do is to be aware that in seeking retribution for what was done and what may still be done to us, we may be walking into a trap. Mr. Ansary and I are reading from the same page especially were he says that,

Mr. Ansary goes on to describe the utter destruction of Afghanistan that has already taken place. A Canadian journalist of my acquaintance was able to sneak in and out of Iraq after Desert Storm and reports much the same thing. The problem we are dealing with is not the people, except perhaps for the Palestinian Arabs who pretty uniformly feel that the Israelis are just the latest run of outsider oppressors.

People have asked why we didn't get Saddam Husein when we had the chance? For many reasons we didn't have the chance. I am aware of at least two reasons, one of which is enough to have made it difficult or impossible to make "getting Saddam" the prime objective of the Gulf War. For one thing there was at the time a power struggle going on in the disintegrating USSR. Had the UN mandate been exceeded, it would have strengthened the hands of the hard liners in the Kremlin who would have been persuaded that had the Alliance that fought the war against Iraq been given the chance to go after them, then they would have done so. This was the primary reason why we couldn't just get Saddam. We had to show restraint then, and we probably have to show restraint here as well, though of a different kind.

Now, ten years later, Saddam Husein may in fact be dying. He will be succeeded by one of his sons, probably the worst of them who is much worse than Saddam ever was, another Bin Laden.

So if as Mr. Ansary says, and I firmly believe him, that

This is precisely what Bin Laden and the son of Saddam and all the other Islamic radicals want. They are able to motivate sentiments among their people, EVEN THOUGH THOSE SAME PEOPLE ARE BEING RUTHLESSLY EXPLOITED BY THE BIN LADENS IN THE REGION, because these leaders are able to pull all the usual Arab and Islamic strings; "we are the dispossessed of the earth, everyone treats us like dirt, etc. It's time for us to make them pay."

Turn this around and let's suppose that instead of Islam these people were Christians or Buddhists. Would it matter? They are INSANE, driven by an idealism that sees everyone living under the yoke of radical Islam with themselves living off the rest. As Mr. Ansary says,

OK, a few points.

1) There is NO DOUBT that the rest of the world, the West, could if it wished indiscriminately crush out Islam in any pitched conflict. The kinds of weapons we have, some of which were demonstrated on the battlefields of Desert Storm, resulted in the most lopsided victory in history.

2) Despite the breathtaking treachery done to us, which some actually believe is beyond the capabilities of Osama Bin Laden, and hence was orchestrated behind the scenes by other nefarious factors (none of which I suppose is correct), we stand to win nothing by a wholesale devastation of the populations of the middle eastern countries. What in fact is true as I said in my earlier post was that these subject Arab populations, and those non-Arab populations in Iran as well, are awaiting a liberation from their oppressors that they cannot pull off themselves.

3) People who are forcibly subjugated, starved, kept in ignorance, and fed the LIE that the rest of the world only cares about getting their oil from them but nothing more, are far more likely to follow any strongman who shows up and promises them even a particle of fake dignity. In the coming conflict, we have the opportunity to Americanize the common people in the region without denigrating their religion, without killing them off wholesale or "bombing them into the Stone Age." Guess what? Most of them are already living in the Stone Age and people like Bin Laden are telling them that we in the rest of the world are keeping them that way or telling them that somehow living in hopeless squalor is holy.

There is absolutely no question that a military solution must follow. It is also absolutely certain that ground forces will get a look at some of the most rugged terrain in which ever to fight a pitched battle or a prolonged guerrilla campaign (which is exactly what it will be).

4) We will need to isolate the Islamic radicals from the rest of Islam. This is a difficult matter but there are cleavages in the middle east that make this possible, except for the Palestinian problem which will complicate things until a solution is finally worked out that everyone in that region will be forced to accept, because obviously nobody there will be satisfied with anything less than all of what they want.

We are looking at a quagmire. We cannot succeed if we don't make it abundantly clear that we will accept nothing less than the total unconditional surrender of the Taliban and the capture or death of Osama Bin Laden and all of his henchmen. We must make it clear TO THE PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE EAST that there will be SEVERE retaliation for aiding these terrorists, but that just as we did in Germany and Japan, we WILL bring about a change in middle eastern societies.

We are looking into the future and seeing a lot of blood, a lot of intense conflict, but after the monsters are overthrown, we have the opportunity to reconstruct these societies as was done after World War II by the Marshall Plan and SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE after the breakup of the Soviet Union.

I'm sorry that at this point in time I cannot see the wisdom of putting America on the defensive by forcing her and us to accept recriminations for the evils we may have been responsible for as some have suggested here and elsewhere. In the balances of human affairs, America has given more to more people around the world than any other nation in the history of mankind. This is without question and is even acknowledged by most honorable people around the world. It seems that the business of the future is upon us, this terrorist attack has roused America to action. We will not stop until we have made the people responsible pay for this. But after we are through, we had better take care of the widows and orphans, and there will be many.

David Burton

_____________________________________________________________

WHAT SHALL WE DO?

A war has always been an opportunity for America to make some place in the world better, after we eliminate or subdue the evil enemies who have brought us into a conflict. We have failed in this a number of times, but I am not as interested in those past failures at this time or in this post. If we are about to pursue a protracted war, as seems likely, it is best we determine ahead of time what objectives we will accept as achievable, with clear military objectives, so that the war can be won. We do not want another Vietnam. We especially need to understand the people we are about to do battle with.

is that we are dealing with a people who feel so ashamed of themselves for their political and economic situation that they must lash out against all those who have done better than themselves. This is only part of it, but Pryce-Jones' comments about the usual run of traditional relations between ruler and ruled in the Arab world are also part of it. But some of the rest of it should be mentioned as well.

Though they comprise some 247 distinct tribes, the Arabs are among the most racially pure group on the planet. Very few other peoples have mingled their blood with theirs for many thousands of years. They have lived in relative isolation in an inhospitable land where there was no practical place for a police force of any kind, therefore even before Islam institutionalized revenge and lifted suicide during a Jihad to the level of a sacred blessing, these were common sentiments among them, for the Arab needed these to preserve his freedom and his possessions. And the Arab feels most free when he is moving about the vastness of his realm from oasis to trading post.

Essentially the Arabs are a wild and pre-eminently nomadic people who feel most uncomfortable in closed in urban situations and not very much better on farms or practicing agriculture of any kind. Arabs are among the most genuinely hospitable and gracious people I have ever known. They can be staunch friends and terrible enemies as nobody is a better liar or more treacherous. These are generalities, but to a greater or lesser extent they are supported by many people (close friends of mine) who have lived and worked among them for many years. One thing is clear, as it was even during the Crusades; no one who has lengthy contact with the Arabs has ever been left unaffected; certain cultural traits, words and concepts seem to rub off and become part of the home culture; the zero, coffee, playing cards, perfume, silk, dates, and much more.

Their religion is integral to the problem posed by considering an Arab as your enemy. Precise in trifles, but strict in observance, Islam seems easier than many other religious practices. In its mildest or most mystical forms, Islam is capable of inspiring a sense of great serenity and beauty. Unfortunately it also has a fanatical and totalitarian side. Islam was spread by the sword and they are not about to give up this option without a bloody fight. Someone of my acquaintance who lived in Iraq and Iran before they were forced to leave by the Ayatollah, remarked to me that the Moslems seemed to feel themselves of the dispossessed; if they weren't born among the Jews (their brothers only in a sense, I'll explain in a minute) or were unable to be Christians (because they have a deep suspicion that Christians are really polytheists who worship three gods, and maybe more), then they can profess themselves Moslems and remain content with their portion. Giving alms to beggars is an essential requirement of Islam. Since I have been doing this for years, I guess I am Moslem myself at least in this sense.

Believing things that are unsupportable seems to be part of all religions, but for a Moslem, these beliefs must be as absolute as the edges between sun and shade on the desert. Any deviation means going to hell. There is far less concept of forgiveness among them than among other groups as it just doesn't seem reasonable to forgive the unforgivable. This tends to give the Moslem Arabs a rather severe and serious cast. Interestingly, the Prophet seems to have detested music. Despite this, there is a musical tradition among the Arabs far older than Islam, that manages to survive where it is not suppressed.

Obviously the Arabs must have some fun. And they do. Their chief pleasures are food, not drink as alcohol is forbidden among strict Moslems, sex and war, not necessarily in that order. Of course to make a living they prefer trading. They have a looser concept of private property than we do, but they definitely believe in capitalism and have always had an uneasy relationship with socialism as a concept.

All this being said, terrorism is far more likely among Arabs than direct conflict with them in the sense of formal standing armies, as the need for treachery among themselves to settle scores goes back many thousands of years, long before the rise of Islam.

One of the things that we must do is to be aware that in seeking retribution for what was done and what may still be done to us, we may be walking into a trap. We are probably not ever going to be able to trust any of them for too long without accepting certain realities among themselves.

There has been, going back to the time of the Prophet, political splits among Moslems. Islam is idiomatic not monolithic, as all religions in fact are. More to the point, the moderate Moslems have been living in fear and conflict with those who wish to impose a more totalitarian form on Arab societies. There is a conflict among them set up by contact with the rest of the world and the customs of outsiders. Civilizations are in conflict.

One very important question we need to ask ourselves if we really decide to go to war with these people is whether we want to change the Arab culture permanently and forever by force, making it inconceivable to them that the rest of the world would ever again tolerate the spreading of Islam by the sword!!! In the process we would force them to accept a democracy like ours where someone like pique or Bernard could have their opinions aired without fear of being killed for them. This is a concept that is even foreign to many central American societies, although it is changing.

Then there's the matter of Israel. Strange that the Jews are referred to as Semitic people when very few of them are anywhere as Semitic as any Arab. The word Semite derives from being descended from the patriarch Shem. Caucasians are said to be descended from the patriarch Japeth and the black races from the patriarch Ham. These were the sons of Noah. The yellow races of the Far East in Asia are believed to be the descendants of Cain who killed his brother Abel and was driven out from among the rest of humanity, "east of Eden." This is all mysterious and still unproved but there are researchers looking into all the archeological evidence and it is beyond the purposes of this post to pursue these matters further, except concerning the Jews who currently comprise the majority in Israel and elsewhere. To the Arab, these people are Europeans, not Semites. They have been away too long. They have mixed with other races. Before 1948, the Palestinians, whether Jew, Christian or Moslem, got along well. They appreciated being free of the Turk and anticipated being free of the British and French as well. The Arab never minded trading with foreigners, they just didn't like having them camp out among them for long periods of time and imposing their foreign rules on them. This is the prime beef with Israel. The Arabs look upon these people as nothing like their racial brothers, the Jews who have always lived with them, at least those who can with relative ease trace themselves back to Isaac, their younger brother. To reiterate, to the Arabs, these Israeli Jews are just other European outsiders who disturbed the Arab wandering pattern of life, closed off and invaded their land, and have threatened to take one of their holiest sites from them, the Temple Mount, one of the most mysterious pieces of real estate on earth. To the Arabs, the state of Israel is as much a blight on their "portion" as the Kingdom of Jerusalem was during the middle ages. Christian? Jew? Not to the Arab. These people are neither, as they are not truly Semitic and they wish they would go back where they came from and stop treating them like dirt. Unfortunately the Israelis can't go back where they came from and like it or not, Jerusalem and its surroundings have always been considered the legitimate homeland of the Jews by the rest of the world. And the rest of the world is not particularly interested in what happens to three and a half million displaced Palestinian Arabs whom they suppose can jolly well find plenty of space in the vastness of Araby to remove to. It's just not that simple.

This is the quagmire we are being drawn into. In a mysterious way, the terrorists are making us "feel their pain." The message is probably even stranger. They recognize what they have done. They know and expect that revenge will follow. They know that it must be severe. They expect it. But behind it I believe is the desire to have us eventually correct the problems they cannot correct for themselves, as long as we are willing to leave them to their portion after we are through. This seems oddly to be the big problem for this present century. Are we as much up to the fight as we must be up to the compassion?

And remember folks, let's go easy on pique, Bernard and others who may disagree with us. This is after all still America. This is the land where the First Amendment, as Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "allows the fool the right to drool in public." And contrary to political correctness, which is NOT a true or honorable American concept, It also allows the bystander to say who they regard as a fool. Certainly I have been the fool from time to time and I am grateful that America has allowed me this right. The fight we are about to enter with the Arab world, or a significant part of it, will determine how these American ideas of human rights (young concepts as world history goes) which we so often take for granted, may be planted among the oldest people on the planet. Remember, the innocents among them are awaiting liberation and not just from Israel, but from some of their own leaders, both political and religious. Are we up to it?

David Burton