letter to uncle alex

8/11/2008

Dear Uncle Alex,

It is with great sadness that I say the following things. I have been presenting the plausibility of nuclear coercion without hostility for it is real and leaves us with a duty to posterity. I am a man of peace. I argued against the first Gulf war; it was for oil and I condemned it. But after 9/11 and with extensive study of the Islamic Revolution, I have come to the opinion that Iran is a deceptive and deadly foe that is on what it says is holy mission. That mission began in 1979.

The first thing that I will offer is that if we are at war one cannot, with any intelligence, parse Iraq from the Middle East, the focal point of the war.

In 1979, I was geopolitical strategist and libertarian advisor for a gubernatorial candidate when the Islamic revolution began. The biggest concern for geo-politicians then was the Soviet client relationship with Iraq and its invasion of Afghanistan. The Reagan Administration worried aloud whether fundamentalism would be the result. At first we thought it would contain itself, but then 9/11.

I did not take Khomeini as a serious threat, but the Ayatollah created a revolution with world ambitions. He sent Revolutionary Guard, Quds forces around the world to commit atrocity. And his successor appointed by a revolutionary counsel of mullahs “The Grand Supreme Ayatollah” continues the world war to accomplish control of a world which, in the words of one terrorist, is obsessed with sex. And in the words of the Ayatollah Khomeini, America is “The Great Satan,” and the source of this immorality.

Muhammad tells us in the Koran that the Twelfth Imam will rule the Final Caliphate - a world under Islamic law. "Whosoever comes to you while your affairs have been united under one man, intending to break your strength or dissolve your unity, kill him." This is the scriptural basis by which the revolution recruits, not because we defend ourselves.

It does not take much research – simply google “Islamic revolution” and one finds the source of the extremism - The Grand Supreme Ayatollah of Iran. This Ayatollah is the dictator of Iran and he is the progenitor behind the continuing foreign policy mandates of Khomeini. That is atrocity by proxy and asymmetrical warfare by a revolutionary guard. The Ayatollah has warned that he, “. . . has 40,000 martyrs ready to die.” His puppet president, Ahmadinajad has mused out loud that “It is possible for “a world without the U.S.,” in one speech, and in another the incineration of Israel.

Should this mullah, who sends terrorists all over the world, be allowed to possess 2.2 pounds of highly enriched uranium, our freedom will be up to him. He is by selection a revolutionary, selected by a Revolutionary Counsel. It is with his blessing that his puppet President Ahmedinejad promises our demise.

There are foolish people among us who underestimate and stereotype Arabs. Nevertheless these revolutionaries are clever; the Arabs invented chess and our very number system. Of course Iran will not engage us directly, but through proxies. Despite them being called “tiny” and “no threat” by a presidential candidate, given nuclear weapons we can be coerced by subterfuge. If we just let them do what they are doing, we will leave up to them whether our children will face Kamikaze nuclear attacks.

George Bush realized this sad fact after 9/11. Thank God he did. Penetrations of spies from both the Afghan and Iranian border are making possible the replacement of this reckless regime that believes in the most incredible acts of barbarism the world has ever seen.

None of us thought there was a significant threat until 9/11. Certainly Carter did not, Reagan did not, Clinton did not, and Bush did not, until that fateful day. There are many Americans who still refuse to see this threat as morbid. Even as the dictator of Iran has 9,000 centrifuges making the fuel for Armageddon, there is denial. Traces of weapons grade uranium were reported there a year ago April by the IAEA!

To conclude that Islamic revolutionary activity will contain itself by some mystical barrier requires incredible mental gymnastics. It is not wisdom. It is rationalization and prevarication enabled by denial. It leaves liberty vulnerable. This head-in-the-sand mentality thinks the Jihad will somehow contain itself. They blame GW for the Jihad even though it began long before the invasion of Iraq.

Consider this AP report, just one of many to report this disturbing news:
.
Deposing before a Congressional Committee on Homeland Security on April 2, Charles Allen, Undersecretary for Intelligence and Analysis and Chief Intelligence Officer at the Department of Homeland Security; and Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, the director of Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence for the Department of Energy testified before this key Congressional committee on nuclear terrorism. Mowatt-Larssen divulged information about a prototypical Al-Qaeda nuclear attack plot. ''The nuclear threats that surfaced in June 2002 and continued through the fall of 2003 demonstrated that Al-Qaeda’s desire for a nuclear capability have survived their removal from their Afghanistan safe haven,'' he said. Observing that the Al-Qaeda’s nuclear intent remains clear, he said it obtained a fatwa in May 2003 that approved the use of weapons of mass destruction. Al-Qaeda spokesman Suleyman Abu Ghayth declared that it is Al-Qaeda’s right to kill four million Americans in retaliation for Muslim deaths that Al-Qaeda blames on the United States. ''Osama bin Laden said in 1998 (emphasis mine) that it was an Islamic duty to acquire weapons of mass destruction.” (Why?) Dr. Matthew Bunn, a senior research associate for the Project on Managing the Atom at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's School of Government said if a bomb goes off there would be blackmailing tactics from these terrorists' organizations.

''One has to recall that the moment after a nuclear bomb goes off, someone -- either the perpetrator or another terrorist group -- is going to call up and say, ''I've got five more, and they're already hidden in U.S. cities, and I'm going to start setting them off unless you do X, Y and Z.'' And one bomb having just gone off, they will have substantial credibility,'' he argued.''The prospect for panic, uncontrolled mass evacuation of our cities, economic chaos and disruption is, I think, very great.”Gary Ackerman, research director for the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland said the efforts of non-state actors seeking to . . . “acquire and use nuclear weapons are growing in size and scope.”''Jihadists have, since the mid 1990s, made at least 10 statements advocating the possession or use of nuclear weapons, and there have been at least a dozen reports of jihadists' attempts to acquire nuclear weapons, fissile material or technical knowledge,'' he said.

Because of the potential for blackmail, just one detonation has the ability to coerce our military – a standing army. The Founders warned us about standing armies; they studied the history of standing armies. The Founders recommended “well regulated militia;” a standing army can coerce its own population. But we have ignored their wisdom and demonized by political correctness the very word: “militia.”

If nuclear proliferation is inevitable, and it is; the people must have a check on their leaders. Mothers of democracy teach their children to build careers not bombs, tolerance rather than a culture of violence and death. Given proliferation, there is no other viable strategy offered by anyone. Give women the vote and there will be peace.

I am continuously astounded at the ability of democracy to discourage militancy even when it is in self defense; our own democracy is a case in point. At the end of the day we all want peace. Because of the right to speak, assemble and vote, democracy cannot sustain violence for long. No democracy is feared even if they have nuclear weapons. This is the only hope for victory in this terrible war.

We can lose this war; that is the difference, and it is why I write. Nukes, in the hands of a dictator who believes that he is on a mission from God, are untenable. Dictators who support Jihad can never be allowed to control these terrible weapons. If a revolutionarily imam dictator get these things, we are highly vulnerable to their secret passing and use by stateless terrorists. The enemy of Iran’s enemies is their friend. The objective is the destruction of the West. They will plot and conspire together. Jefferson spoke of intrigues; foreign intrigues are nothing new.

It is true that Iran could secretly share nukes with Hezbollah, al Quaeda the Taliban and their ilk. But more likely and much more devious, as there are no requirement for Iran to actually give up control of the weapons is for Iranian agents to execute a surreptitious Kamikaze attack. All states will deny attribution.

And indeed, collusion will have determined which stateless group accepts and embrace public responsibility. The moment can not be characterized too melodramatically. Imagine the news report complete with video of the mushroom cloud in the distance. Hopefully it will be at sea. The panic that would ensue would rock the very foundation of this nation. The public will demand retaliation but we will have no location for Command and Control. There will me mass confusion and finger pointing. Only then will the profound consequences of our present denial be clear to all. Only then will it become apparent to all that we have no way to retaliate against a terrorist cabal. Suicide delivery by stateless warriors destroys the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction.

Immediately those who have come to hate him will continue the denial and blame George Bush for the bombing. They will continue the denial that this revolution has been conducted since 1979 and the denial of 9/11. After all, Bush “the liar” chose to go to war; he pissed off crazy people! But the revolution was in motion long before President Bush.

Defending oneself usually kicks up the violence. The alternative is to watch Iran consume the Middle East and then wait for them to come here once again, only this time with nukes. The scenario is likely if we stand and watch them gather enriched uranium. I call it “plausible nuclear coercion.” But it would be argumentative at that point. Our own authorities will enforce Islamic Law after “Plausible Coercion.” The argument is moot; the authorities will have no choice. The orders will come from the top down - not very comfortable to contemplate.

What I call the “Katrina Precedent” mocked the Civil War Era, Posse Comitatus Act that GW obeyed and thus hesitated to assume authority over Louisiana. Because of this precedent, federal officials can now override state officials – very dangerous to freedom. It staggers my mind what implications this will have, after the “Plausible Coercion.” Previous to this, only in matters of national security could the feds override state officials. And the masses will think: Better Islamic than atomic-ed.”

Please, in all humility tell me why these things are not plausible and relieve my trembling soul.

Have you seen the bloodletting of the Taliban? And how shall this generation be judged after the loss of freedom, women disenfranchised, homosexuals hanged and adulterers stoned to death? I think a man like you knows the answer. I suppose we can argue about it now, but I visualize myself in the court comprised of our descendants, and I want to be acquitted of being the one who was idle, or worse, an opponent to the struggle.

Should there be a first detonation, we will not know where Command and Control is. And the forces of coercive capitulation will be as strong as they were for the Imperial Japanese military. They had no way to respond to Truman’s attack. Unlike them we will have the capacity, but without retaliation coordinates the result will be the same. It would be the Islamic fascist dream to capture the most powerful military in the world to advance the Caliphate.

During the Soviet nuclear threat, we would speak of ICBM throw weights and MIRV capability. But we knew where Russia was; we could retaliate. Mutually Assured Destruction no longer applies because a stateless shooter is effectively invulnerable. Today missiles are unnecessary and neither is importation; small watercraft can carry a nine foot by two foot Hiroshima style bomb. Explode one on any shore, even at sea and coercion begins. It seems incredible to be living an Ian Fleming novel and Goldfinger or SPECTER (a cabal) is about to get The Bomb, but look alive.

This war is a different beast; should we default we can lose. The evidence and the fiend are incinerated with the blast; attribution to a state will be difficult. We cannot bomb everyone.
Because of this paradox, the time is right for freedom. Again, we fear no democracy for it breeds peace. The strategy: Terrorists will disappear into the safety and abundance man finds in democracy. To be safe in a nuclear world we must rid the world of tyranny, kings, despots and dictators.

The evil released by Truman with the nuclear coercion of Japan, took just two blows. Today it will take only one because now the world knows that without the ability to retaliate, the victim is defeated. Japan capitulated and surrendered their powerful military to Macarthur without a shot fired. Yes, there was an occupation; but when one thinks about it, there was no need. The tremendous coercive capacity of atomic weapons would have them do anything commanded to prevent another blast.

Truman required that Japan adopt a virtual clone of our Constitution. And look at them now; there is no interference in Japan’s affairs. They are unabridged friends. We would not fear them even if they acquired nuclear weapons. Why? Because of a constitution, no violent man rises to leadership by the gun; the people have the power reserved to them by representation and the vote. And this is the legacy of republican democracy - freedom. It is essential in the Age of the Atom.

To have any hope of winning the war there must be a rejection of the denial that nuclear coercion is plausible, credible and even likely should we revert to isolationism as some propose that we do. To escape the consequences posed by suicide nuclear terrorism, we must recognize first that the enemy’s strategy is to blind us by empowering amorphous stateless groups like Hezbollah who will coerce us with the threat of a second detonation - checkmate from the people who invented chess.

A house divided cannot stand. The credibility of the Commander in Chief is critical. To attack the credibility of our own leadership is suicidal. We are dividing ourselves behind the notion that our Commander in Chief is the opponent. The President has been impeached not by evidence or Congress, but by hyperbole such as “Bush is a war criminal, liar, butcher, Nazi, etc.

But George W Bush did not start this war; he is not the enemy. Demonized and inhibited by divisiveness and backbiting, his reputation is smeared and accomplishments obscured by slander and liable. Nevertheless the president has wisely moved the battlefront from NY, PA and VA to the Middle East. And because Iraq surrounds Iran together with Afghanistan, militarily the move is sound. At the same time, America has managed to free 60 million souls and create friendly countries in the most volatile region of the world. How much more could have been accomplished with unity?

I challenge those with real evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors; let’s see it and let it be vetted. Other than opinions without substance, impeachment rhetoric is allegation without fact and accusation without charge. It is divisive and hobbles the war effort. Thank God those in touch with reality can see this ominous specter rising in the east.

The majority has spoken; GW was elected twice. Derived from democracy, the Commander in Chief is critical to our defense, especially in war. But not accepting the democratic decisions of November 2000 or 2004, people who call themselves “Democrat” have disowned the CIC chosen by democracy – the ultimate hypocrisy. They tear this country apart in the gravest of moments. I pity those who do it for the gain of power.

First, to advance that the Commander in Chief is a liar because there were no WMD, assaults the intellect. It is like calling the weather man a liar for rain. If Bush was a liar, indeed, we would have found WMD a long time ago – if you know what I mean. The intelligence director chosen by the previous president called WMD a slam dunk and does to this day confess he and the world intelligence community agreed. GW never said there was WMD; demonstrate to me otherwise. One cannot. And yet, GW Bush is a liar? It is appalling during war time. But verily, the lie that Bush is a liar is a lie, and thus the liar is condemned by his own judgment.

Dissenters charge that a proactive invasion of Iraq is a violation of international sovereignty. But I submit that Hussein’s Articles of Surrender under Desert Storm gave us the right to enforce surrender terms. And after numerous and consistent violations and 12 UN resolutions over twelve years of trying to get Hussein to conform to those Articles, give testimony to international judgment. I would also suggest that Hussein’s attempted assassination of a sitting president is a direct act of war. Hussein’s use of WMD and potential for WMD was only one issue.

Impeachment advocates also name the failure to provide writ of habeas corpus to terrorists at GITMO. In answer to them, I say read Article 1, Section 9, Clause Two, of the US Constitution.

To those that cite the Patriot Act, I say it has no victim. And, so far, the ACLU cannot find a plaintive. The act passed both houses of congress twice. Congress can change the law if it had the will; it does not. Congress would be blamed should attacks recommence after such an irresponsible action as removing the right to tap terrorist phone calls as they come in.

Congress cannot usurp the Executive and tell the Commander of the armed forces what to do, as some rhetoric implies they can. It cannot micromanage the military. Separation of Powers must be recognized; Article 2 of the US Constitution gives the Commander in Chief designation to the President not congressmen. Congress can remove the funding for the war but it elects not to do so because it fears the truth will be revealed about how many of us really want to lose the friendly democracies we have brought to the Middle East.

History will show that GW was the first to take significant action against Islamic revolutionary fanatics. He knows that democracy can end nuclear fear; he knows it is the only viable solution. The cost of war is always far too great; but it is miniscule compared to the price of complacency.

There is no evidence he is not a good and honorable man who does what he says he is going to do. There have been errors committed but he has done an outstanding job with limited affect on our freedoms here at home. Attacks have soared all over the world while we have been free of terrorist violence. He is precisely the leader we need as the minority becomes shrill in promoting complacency, isolation and a pre 9/11 mentality. GW does not stick his finger in the air and obey whining dissenters. Opponents are furious at this essential aspect of leadership.

I believe it is heresy to call oneself “democrat” yet claim certain people are not worthy of democracy. The majority has spoken in Iraq; they have dipped their fingers in the polling station inkwell. They are our friends. Yes, they are still not strong and if we left they would soon succumb to the Iranian inspired insurgency. It is only a small minority of thugs who kill these purple fingered democrats. These terrorists hide behind the innocent of new born freedom. But they cannot do this for long in a stable democratic country. It will take a few election cycles for the people to elect better leaders. But democracy breeds peace.

I know that the anger and enmity towards GW is palpable and Bush-bashing common. I was disappointed to hear this personal attack from such an eloquent and influential man. But the majority felt the same way toward Lincoln in 1863. That does not mean those who think the Commander in Chief is wrong are right. It certainly does not mean that all the opposition thinks monolithically that we must leave Iraq.

Here is why and this is my prediction: Even though some say that all those who disagree want us to pull out of Iraq, the 66% who disapprove of GW are split in two factions, those that disagree because GW goes too hard, and those that think GW goes too soft, one that believes we are in a war of serious consequences and another who sees no need for hostility. These factions will diverge in the general election. That is profound.

In my view, neither faction realizes the gravity of the divisiveness.

Still, GW does have 30% approval of the people, who I believe are correct. Some of that faction supports him because they respect democracy; he was reelected after the invasion of Iraq. But I suspect that the great majority of that third of our population fears that if we revert to isolationism, it is only a matter of time before the enemy returns to face our children with nuclear Kamikaze warfare. I embrace that conclusion whatever people choose to call me.

However they mock me, I see the answer to nuclear proliferation as democracy; and democracy alone. If that requires being called names, I accept my fate. Call me “neo con” if it makes one happy. It is just ignorance. I embrace it if it means I want freedom for the masses.

I am by scholarly definition a classical liberal - one who believes in liberty enforced by the rule of law with representation. Now, if there were no such thing as nukes and their delivery by suicide bomber, the Islamic Revolution would be nothing more than atrocity. We should be so lucky.

There is some risk at being outspoken. There is no question that they have sent warriors here.

I am among the very few that are active for democracy. I have lived a long and prosperous life. I don’t have a lot of time left. I do not fear for myself. But I am afraid for my grandchildren’s liberties and those of posterity - your grandchildren and their grandchildren. I am a democrat and therefore I embrace democracy. To bring freedom to those suffering under tyranny is the noblest goal of all. And it is necessary in the age of the atom to bring tolerance and peace with liberty.

Arabs are upset with our support of Israel. But we must question: Are we to be coerced from supporting Israel? And would radical Muslims quit attacking Americans if we completely abandoned our allies there? A study of Islamic revolutionary rhetoric and the history of it since 1979 show otherwise.

McCain was corrected by dissenters for “repeating” the falsehood that Shiite and Sunni are enemies. But both Sunni and Shiite have attacked western interests and both are carrying out jihad against the West, sometimes in tandem.

The Arizona Republic Apr. 18, 2008 reports:

“Indeed, the critics of John McCain who contend the GOP candidate is "mistaken" in his comments linking the Sunnis of al-Qaeda to the Shiites of Iran would do well to re-read that report the (the 9/11 Commission). It includes, in Section 7.3 under the heading "Assistance from Hezbollah and Iran to al-Qaeda," the following: "Intelligence indicates the persistence of contacts between Iranian security officials and senior al-Qaeda figures after (Osama) bin Laden's return to Afghanistan."”

With the history of Jihad, can we rely on the fact that they will not use atomic weapons offensively? Do we not believe what they repeat over and over? Can one leave liberty in the hands of a tyrant, a religious bigot and fanatic mullah? And, if there is an attack, where can we retaliate if bin Laden takes the credit for a detonation? Afghanistan – Pakistan? That is where we think he is.

This is the plausibility conundrum we face. And I ask, how shall you answer your descendents when they ask you if you did all you could do? When the purple fingers of democracy were weak will we let democracy die in its crib?

I am not saying that the Commander in Chief should not be criticized for error. I merely ask to suspend sloganeering against the President during apocalyptic times. “Impeach Bush” is an opinion. If there is “real” evidence of high crimes, I say back it up with evidence in an adversarial court with defense and counsel. Put up or shut up.

I do not agree with the aspersion, if I heard you right, that “If they can impeach Clinton for a tryst, we can sure impeach that bastard.” In my mind the use of the term bastard is simply a slur designed to demonstrate enmity. I am sorry for that because your ancestors will honor this man in a way most of us do not yet realize. Your opinion saddens me and makes me believe somehow you have the wrong information.

We can agree to disagree. My point is that the repetition of propaganda, although having no effect on me, will no doubt have an effect on others It is obvious that you are a respected and influential man. I say this in sincerity and respect.

I make no accusations of patriotism; are we not all patriots? Anyone is entitled to say anything in a constitutional democracy. But we must consider carefully of the value of unity during time of war. Rhetoric designed to damage the Commander in Chief obviously has its price. In my view, it is unwise at best.

Walk into the hallowed ground of the Jefferson Memorial, and you can see words cut in marble as big as one’s head that declare: “I swear eternal hostility to tyranny over the minds of men.” He did not say American men; his mind was far too great.

And yet we who believe in this goal are called “Neo-cons?” Well, let them have their witty pejorative. But it is simply clever sloganeering meant to slander, mock and condescend to a political view that promotes the progress of liberty as the solution to nuclear war – for all time!

We must be united. I implore you to join us; fight with your pen; start writing to media and whoever you can to support democracy. Persevere until Americans are united behind freedom. It is the solution to the madness regardless who is president. Call talk shows and email. Tell people that the only solution to nuclear fear is the purple fingers of freedom. Tell them that democracy is essential in the Age of the Atom. Forward the video I have produced: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSptuRgSXoM

If I were John Lennon, my tune called “Imagine” would sing of a world with hundreds of states, all of them because of democracy as friendly as our own fifty. Democracy can do it.

With great affection and respect,


Neil