(Originally published in Greater Democracy)

On October 4th, I wrote an entry which pointed to a blog by my daughter’s political science professor.

As a follow up, I wrote to him saying,

I am writing to tell you because in a recent discussion with my daughter, she mentioned that you have a weblog. I visited your blog and read your entry, 'Anti-American democracy?' and the related editorial. I was struck by how it relates to some of the topics we've been discussing on the Greater Democracy blog. I have written an entry there, 'McNamara Redux' (http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/archives/000242.html >http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/archives/000242.html) which references your blog entry, as well as relating back to Farnaz Fassihi's letter from Baghdad (http://www.forward.com/campaignconfidential/archives/001096.php >http://www.forward.com/campaignconfidential/archives/001096.php) and Robert McNamara’s speech, Security in the Contemporary World (http://www.oldcolo.com/McNamara/mcnamara.txt >http://www.oldcolo.com/McNamara/mcnamara.txt).

As I looked up your email address to let you know about this blog entry, I noted that your dissertation was on "Interests and Ideals: United States Foreign Aid to Latin America, 1960-1965". In light of that, I am particularly interested in your reflections on my blog entry and particularly bringing Robert McNamara's speech into the discussion. On a related topic, I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts on David Sirota and Jonathan Baskin's article, "Follow the Money - How John Kerry busted the terrorists' favorite bank" (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html >http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html) describing his involvement with the BCCI investigation.

He responded saying:

I enjoyed your entry in your blog, and found the comment "beyond economic development, there is the need to develop a public sphere where open and intelligent discourse can take place" quite insightful. The aspect of modern life that is most beyond our direct impact is that one, yet it is probably the most important in the long run. How to promote emergence of that sort of society only indirectly is assisted by holding elections, bringing in monitors, etc. Something more fundamental --an attitude of tolerance among Iraqis and Afghanis-- will first have to emerge; and amid fighting, and in the presence of armed terrorists who seek no such society to emerge, it is a tall order to hope civility can flower.

Thus, the security situation remains crucial both before and after elections, whether this security is provided by outsiders (in this case the U.S. Marines et. al.) or by some Iraqi force is largely beside the point (though it surely will be us in at least the short run). No genuine public discourse of the type all free people seek in the region can occur if meetings are bombed, party headquarters targeted, mass media and reporters attacked, etc. The Zarqawi group has done all this and more, and other opponents of the new Iraq favor the same tactics.

Thus, I am reluctant to view the choices as a "development strategy" versus a "security strategy," for I believe the two must go hand in hand. I imagine McNamara hedged his emphasis on the former with at least a tip of the hat toward the latter, as well. How to draw that line, however, is of some considerable significance.

On a related note, it was to our collective misfortune that the email I read just before yours was from a student explaining her absence tomorrow in light of her grieving over the death of a friend yesterday in Baghdad, in combat. Life in the electronic age presents such huge juxtapositions sometimes. I felt her pain in more than the cheap way that phrase so often is used. It is now more than a week since I have heard from my relative who is a Captain with the Marines at Fallujah, and all earlier assurances from him tend to evaporate into worry when silence is the only news from him and the war zone.

It may be that to McNamara, or to many, the course ahead seems best pursued by ending such worries and such tragedies by rapidly bringing the troops home. Reluctantly, I cannot agree. Since 9.11 I have held the uncomfortable view that more from the terrorists is ahead that imperils us, truly imperils Connecticut and New York, Washington and Virginia, all of us.

In such eventuality, the first obligation is to secure America to minimize the effect, and to find a strategy to achieve that is a matter about which intelligent people can disagree. If we had unlimited resources, financial and human, I would take the high road and say "send in both troops and Peace Corps. A Marshall Plan for the Middle East," but we don't have unlimited resources, thanks in good measure to the economic recklessness of the current Administration and Congress. We can't afford both guns and butter for the defeated states; ironically, this time it is not about protecting the security of societies like our own (i.e., western Europe in the 40s to
80s), it is about protecting these shores.

Again, thank you for writing. Thank you for reading my weblog. And thank you for thinking seriously about what a responsible citizenry is to do when confronted by choices as profound as the one we will be making four Tuesdays from today.

While Professor Bowen and I may not agree on all the issues, or perhaps even on who should be elected in November, I believe that the interchange we have had is a good model for the discussions that people should be having about the issues. In the long run, I believe that this is the sort of discourse that needs to be promoted in developing countries as well. Perhaps sending in the troops and the Peace Corp is not enough. Perhaps we need to send in the League of Women Voters as well.

With that, I would like to clarify and expand on some of my comments. While it is possible to read my exploration of the rhetoric about ‘U.N. In, U.S. Out’ as arguing for a black and white choice, I believe it is a false dichotomy, and we need to be looking at ways to make sure that organizations like the Peace Corp, or NGOs can safely operate in Iraq.

I believe the discussion about how to bring peace and democracy to Iraq needs to be expanded to talk not only about U.S. and international troops but also about U.S. and international aid and U.S. and international rebuilding efforts. I believe that Elissa made a very astute comment questioning whether the current efforts reflect some racists tendency against the Iraqis.

For intelligent discourse to take place, we must strive to understand our interlocutors, whether we are trying to reach across a political divide, or a cultural or religious divide.