October 28, 2005

Dear Khalid,

Once again, I thank you for your willingness and ability to address specific issues in Iraq, as this is one of the best ways for us to understand what is going on, and what is right. I also appreciate the faith that you hold on to in your positions, although I do hope you reserve enough of an open mind to try to understand some of my arguments. Some of the comments you made in your last e-mail do make me question your willingness to have a dialogue, and not to let this become a vehicle for you to air your grievances over the situation in Iraq (I will mention these specifics later in the article).

In general, I see much of our discussion going in the same direction as the discussion that I have with my friends from the Middle East, in that we seem to be running into some of the same barriers to communication. A couple of questions for our readers to ask themselves as they read both of our writing: Where are we getting our information and news? Who are we willing to believe? What do we want to get out of the discussion? How is the language barrier causing misunderstandings and barriers in our discussion? What have we placed on our “I will not bend from this position” list? All of these are issues that hinder our ability to communicate effectively and accept each other’s positions.

First, I hope I have been clear in my writing that I do hope and pray, along with almost all Americans (and all that I know of, although I’m sure there are some on the extreme right wing who would disagree) that “the occupation,” as you call it, would end as soon as possible. I should add that I really do not like using the terms “occupation” or “resistance” as they are terms that implicitly argue for a certain position rather than accepting other possibilities. We all hope that the Americans that we know and love will be able to come home soon, although there is much disagreement here in the states about when and how they should come home.

Now I will take a minute to point out a few positions that will greatly hinder the possibility of our discussion continuing fruitfully.

First, there is your “doubtless” faith that God and history are on “our side”. Essentially, I would like to know how I might continue in a manner that will not be simply rejected outright. I do appreciate your comments about my sincerity in my hope for the Iraqi people, but is there anything else that I have said or can say that will mean anything to you?

Second, there is your assertion from your first letter that I should “definitely not” believe what I hear from the White House. At this point, I feel justified in taking what I hear from my government as at least partly true, although of course I take it with a grain of salt. Based on my experience and study, I do not yet have enough of a reason to disbelieve my government totally.

Third, there is your belief about American intentions. It is obvious that the war happened for many reasons (some good and some bad), but I believe it is also clear that if the US intention were to take over Iraq for good, it would have already happened. This gets at one of the toughest points for our discussion and that is about the nature of military actions in general. I believe that there is a possible distinction between wars of conquest (such as Iraq attacking Kuwait) and wars intended to correct unjust and dangerous situations. If you look at the history of American warfare, it seems to me that we have a mixed record, but at least there were times when the military of the United States has been used properly, so the possibility should at least be admitted. Basically, not all wars are “occupations”.

Another difficulty is where we get our news and information. When two students such as us have such divergent understandings of the facts, it is hard to have discussions on an equal plain. This is not a fault of either of us, but it is simply something that we must strive to work through. For example, did the United States give a “green light” for an attack on Kuwait, or who was it that was responsible for September 11 (another dispute that I have had with many Arab friends)?

Before I conclude, I would like to list reasons that I can see for the war. While we have rightly been mainly discussing the effects and consequences of the war, some of the points that you raised in the last email warrant an explanation about causes. Some of these are clearly not good reasons and difficult for me to accept, but I will still lay them out: the continued violation of UN Rights violations and the US desire to back up the resolutions of the UN (specifically 1444), the remaining “grudge” from the previous Gulf War, oil interests, democratization of the Middle East, a further foothold for US interests in the Middle East, the wrongs of the Hussein government, the possibility of WMD and terrorist strongholds, the broader war on terror, and the Iraqi rejection of participating in the international community of states. I’m sure I have missed some, but I believe it important to understand that the reasons for war were complex, and that current situation in Iraq does not represent the impossibility of some of these goals.

Finally, I would like to recognize the many good points that you made in your last email. I have disagreements with some specific issues in your answers to my questions, but on the whole I accept most of your points as valid and indications of the truth of the statement that “war is hell,” and that the sooner that Iraqis are able to run Iraq the better. I do also believe that to leave now would be an injustice, and that the United States must do it best to finish what it started.

One final note: The questions that I asked were not just intended in terms of the United States. I hope to continue to seek answers to the following questions: What are the possible benefits for the Iraqi people and what are the intentions of the Iraqi leaders?

November 29, 2005

Dear Evan,

The truth is that although I hope we end up as friends when this debate is over, I have to remind you of the reasons for this conversation: It’s a debate!

The reason behind it is not for us to get closer to each other; we both are believers and are given the chance to go public. We should demonstrate what we believe in and convert as many people as we can to our beliefs, politically speaking.

Resistance, on the other hand, is when people resist the occupation. I can’t see how we can disagree on that.

Well, I think that this is exactly what happened, isn’t it? There are full military equipments, fixed bases all over Iraq, a puppet government, and more.

So, what you are saying is that the US went AGAINST the will of the UN in the war on Iraq in order to support the UN resolutions? And why haven’t I seen the USA making a war on Israel to back up the resolutions of the UN which states that Israel must withdraw till the borders of 1967, as well as the resolution about refugees’ right to go back home? With all due respect, I haven’t seen this much hypocrisy in my whole life!

This I agree on: Figures published in the report for the first time show that the estimated cost to Iraq over the life of the new oil contracts is US$74 to US$194 billion, compared with leaving oil development in public hands. These sums represent between two and seven times the current Iraqi state budget. These contracts would guarantee massive profits to foreign companies, with rates of return of 42 percent to 162 percent.

There is one part I don’t agree with: Why don’t I see the USA “democratizing” countries like Egypt, for example? In the [Egyptian] elections that are happening these days, the government is hiring gangs to stand in front of the voting centers to prevent people from voting to anyone but the government National Democratic Party, they are not even hiding it. Go read the Egyptian newspapers and blogs. They are buying votes publicly too, and the violations of human rights by the government in a lot most Arab countries are beyond description. Why Iraq?

 I agree.

I disagree, the only mistake that Saddam’s government made, as far as the USA is concerned, is that he didn’t accept to be a slave of it, because all the other Arab governments have mistakes that are even worse than the ones Saddam’s had, and they are still in their places as long as they are being good children of the US government.

Well, let me tell you something: this part alone should make you question whatever your government says. They told you they were sure that Iraq has WMD, and that Iraq is related to Al-Qaeda; they told you Iraq is responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and that was all what they needed to make you strongly support this war. They used the secret word, 9/11, and the American people bought it and supported Bush, until it turned out that they were both terrible lies and that Iraq didn’t have WMD, and that Iraq didn’t have any relation with Al-Qaeda (like we didn’t know that, extremely religious Al-Qaeda with secular Saddam? Not in this world!). It has been proven that Iraq had nothing to do, directly or indirectly, with 9/11. Besides, you don’t make a war, destroy a country, and kill over a 100,000 civilians for a  “possibility,” do you?  

And what’s the fault of Iraqis in this? Why did so many Iraqis have to die? Why did so many Iraqis lose their jobs? Why did we all lose electricity and security? What did we do to deserve it? Just because some crazy politician in the USA had some crazy possibility in his head? Do you think that is morally right? Do you think that’s how things should be done? Do you think these are the kind of actions that God supports?

So is it like this: You either play with us or we shoot you? What exactly do you mean? 

Well, there might be some benefits (I can’t recall any, though). But just because there are benefits doesn’t make it right or any better. For example, I can think of three benefits of me hitting you with a bus: You will have a lot of time, months probably, to read in bed while healing, which would be very good for you; it will give you a good chance to see relatives and family; and it will help you appreciate health when you have it, right? But you don’t want me to hit you with a bus do you? Would you be grateful if I hit you with a bus because of the good things coming out of it? Not even mentioning that whatever Iraqi people got from this war and destruction isn’t even close to what you would get.

What are the intentions of the Iraqi government?

I can think of a better way to make our conversation more fruitful, my friend. I suggest that you go to my last post, and start to reply to every point I made separately, as I am doing to your posts. Because I believe that every word you say matters, and I respect everything you say, your points of view, and want to make sure that you feel I give a lot of attention to what you are saying. In return, I am asking you to reply to all my points in this post and the last one, the readers and I can know where you stand. I also hope that you can prove that some of the things I said were wrong, so you can attract more supporters to your cause, or open the space for me to debate about them and prove they are right, at least from my point of view.

Thank you for your post. I can see that we are helping each other realize where we stand.