The Copeland Chronicles Miles Copeland Blog

Dear Tim Republican…

Dear Tim,

I am in receipt of your request for financial support for the Republican Party. I am indeed a Republican, but alas a Republican who believes in the Republican values of old when Republicans were pragmatic, low tax, low government intrusion and fiscal responsibility types and the Democrats were generally tax and spend idealists. I also took comfort in the fact that my Colliers Dictionary cited “republican” as one of the definitions of the word “liberal”. Indeed the US is accurately defined as a liberal democracy and liberal values are clearly what the US is all about. When the “Republicans” began trashing the word “liberal” as, in effect, anti-American values I had to look again, and hard, at where the Republican Party was headed. In the current campaign the Republican mantra seems to be to put down Barak Obama for being “too liberal”. Are you saying he is too American? Are you saying that the Republicans are not “liberal”? If so you are no longer espousing the values stated in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I can hardly vote for such a party now can I, let alone send cash as that would be entirely Un-American of me.

Meanwhile given the financial climate and recent Republican history your party can now clearly be called the CUT (tax) and SPEND party. The Democrats the Tax and Spend party (though they claim they will cut tax for 95% of Americans which does not help me much). So which financial plan makes more sense to you? Cut and spend or tax and spend? Any economist would say your method is insane. Given how far the Dollar has fallen under Bush, as far as I am concerned, the Bush years might as well have been high tax years as my Dollar is not worth what it was 8 years ago. Not to mention the current melt down of the US economy.

And when did God take over the party? Separation of church and state is a fundamental Republican value. What happened? Sold your soul to get votes from the far right? No-- this is not the Republican Party I knew, that my father knew, but some other entity entirely.

Finally when it comes to the current election I have to say the last thing we need in the White House is a “Maverick”. We need dependability and consensus to bring the nation together, not the unpredictability of a maverick. Furthermore we do not need a VP who thinks viewing Russia from a remote island off the coast of Alaska constitutes foreign affairs credentials. Or who harps on associations that are irrelevant and create hatred, animosity and fear towards someone who could be President if the Republicans loose. We all have to live in this country after the election whoever wins so it’s not a good idea to sew the seeds of discord on the way to the White House now is it? That is un-American.

No, I will not support this so called “Republican Party” this time and will not in the future until they return to the original values they once espoused.

Regards, Miles Copeland

Open Letter to Bill O’Reilly after watching the interviews with Senator Obama.

Hi Bill,

We met once when we both appeared on Bill Maher's "Politically Incorrect".  As I remember at one point you told me to "shut up".  I watch your show often and though I don't agree with much of your positions I believe you do try to see the other side on occasion and be fair as you did most of the time with Barak Obama.  However there are three points that I would like to make you aware of as the assumption by you that these are facts is distorting what I believe would be your better judgment.  First let me remind you, in case you have forgotten, that I grew up in the Middle East and knew first hand much of the behind the scenes goings on as my father was CIA and one of the first, if not the first American expert on terrorism and the inner workings of the type of regimes that exist there.  Under loan from the CIA he also built the Mukabarat, Egypt's version of the CIA.  I continue to do business in the region and I dare say I know the Arab/Middle Eastern mind very well.  I do have a perspective that I hope you will consider as I know you have great influence on how people think in this country and it is to all our benefit as Americans for us to really understand what is going on and be able therefore to make the best choice for President. 

First is the contention that the "surge worked" meaning the sending of additional troops secured a safer Iraq and the prospect of success.  In fact, the action that improved the situation had nothing or very little to do with the increase in troops.  It was a direct consequence of putting 90,000 armed Sunnis on the payroll, ie buying off the Sunni tribal leaders and funding their militias with U.S. Dollars.  We pay $300 per man a month.  You don't bite the hand that feeds you.  I know this is an embarrassing fact but someone who is looking for spin like you should point this out to the U.S. taxpayer.  Add to this the fact that the period leading up to surge saw the bulk of ethnic cleansing achieve the separation of the various factions so there were less points of friction.  It was a cash surge to the Sunnis not a troupe surge that "Worked".  When you grill Gov. Palin or Senator McCain on this issue you should bring that fact up.

Second is the point you made to Barak Obama about the danger of Iran getting a nuclear weapon and your belief that there is nothing to stop them giving it to Hezbollah.  If you understood the Middle Eastern mind you would know instinctively that the last thing the Iranians would do would be to give a nuclear weapon to ANYONE else least of all a "terrorist" group they only loosely control by the very nature of it being a secretive organization.  Tribalism and suspicion of groups who are not exactly like you is deep in the psyche of the region.  Every leader there is always looking over his shoulder at a possible contender for his position.  Rule number one, two and three is you NEVER give another tribe something that could be just as easily be used against you as a mutual enemy.  Look how easily the Lebanese after years of living peacefully together divided into sects (some with little difference) and shot at each other for two decades of civil war and indeed the Iraqis almost immediately after the fall of Sadam.  Lets not forget that Arabs and Iranians are not customarily friends.  Hezbollah is Arab.

Meanwhile the whole point of possessing a nuclear weapon is the power and prestige it brings and the idea of using it is considered absurd as we all understand the concept of MAD, mutual assured destruction.  After spending a fortune to develop a nuclear weapon and thereby gain the prestige from membership of an exclusive club of nations, how counter productive it would be to give it to a small time "terrorist" group thereby belittling one's prestige in the process.

If you have any understanding of the basic Iranian mind you would know that there is zero possibility that they would give up a trump card, especially one that could lead to such dire consequences.

I have to add to this that your understanding of Hezbollah is way off base.  It is not your typical "terrorist" organization and certainly not like Al Kaeda.  It was formed specifically as a reaction to the invasion and occupation of Southern Lebanon by the Israelis, an act that even the Israelis now admit was completely uncalled for and detrimental to their interests.  Its principle goal has always been to drive the Israelis out of Lebanon, a cause that has not yet completely succeed with the continued occupation of the Shebaa farms region by Israel.  If the Israelis had never invaded there never would have been a Hezbollah.  A little checking by your researchers you told me about at the Bill Maher show would show that there had not been one single incident across the Lebanese-Israeli boarder in the year prior to the invasion (Time Magazine reported this at the time) so the injustice, in this instance at least, was clearly perpetrated by Israel and therefore Hezbollah a normal response.  If it had been Texas they occupied you can bet we would be calling the response to it "patriotic resistance" and not "terrorism".  All to often we make the understanding of a situation impossible by quickly labeling it with a sound bite like "terrorists" so that debate and investigation stops. There is always more to it than that.  A "no spin zone" should not fall pray to such tactics.

Third, I would like to ask you if you think our country is better served putting anti-missile missiles in Poland and the Check Republic to defend us against the remote possibility of an attack by a "rogue state" like Iran who does not yet posses a missile nor a weapon to put in it that would worry us; or trying to maintain positive non-threatening relations with Russia, a country who DOES possess a large number of nuclear weapons and the missile systems to deliver them.  The fact is, if you were a Russian and looking for the "no spin zone" in this situation you would be deeply suspicious of the U.S. really believing Iran was a threat.  After all, Iran is a third world country where the donkey is still a major form of transport, a country that could not defeat Iraq after many years of war when we defeated it in a matter of days.  I have no doubt you would assume that the missiles were really there as a threat to Russia.  On top of that there is the continued moves by the U.S. to add more countries to NATO further surrounding Russia.  Why do we need to add Ukraine and Georgia?  Who are we uniting to defend against?  The only conclusion the Russians can come to is this is all about them.  You too would come to that conclusion.  I ask you, how does that do anything to advance our real interests in this world?  Why drive Russia away and convince them we are out to put them in a box?  This is major foreign policy stupidity.  Consider this; if we announced that there would be no further additions to NATO and the missiles were not going to be placed there is no doubt there would be an immediate improved relations with Russia and our security and that of Russia's neighbors would be greatly enhanced.  War with Russia as Sarah Palin suggested was possible is a completly silly notion. That can't be a policy we should accept without question.  You should put the smack down on that one.  Those missiles in Poland are completely stupid and unnecessary.  Then there is also the question of whether they would actually work.  In my opinion they are going up for one reason only and it has nothing to do with Russia (tough they won't believe it) or Iran.  It has to do with 'jobs for the boys', one or more of our defense contractors getting a nice pay day to build something we don't need.   Business as usual I am afraid and the warning of Republican President Eisenhower once again coming back to haunt us.

I hope you will consider my points and I will continue to watch your show. 

Regards,

Miles

[Bill, you can contact me here... through Aaron Stipkovich]

“Experience” The Achilles Heel in John McCains Bid for the Whitehouse

Ever since Sept 11 and the "War on Terror" we have been told by this Republican administration and McCain himself, that this is a war like no other, a new game with new rules.  This has been the argument for accepting torture, and other negation of American principles.  If this is true, that alone puts the question of "experience" in an awkward state.  If it's all changed now  than would not that make experience pre 9/11 irrelevant?  That would make Obama as experienced as McCain  Worse for McCain, one might also assume that since "teaching an old dog new tricks" is never an easy task, previous experience may actually be a detriment as old school thinking has traditionally been hard to shake for anyone let alone an opinionated - shoot from the hip type of man like McCain.  After all, a new kind of war needs comfort with a new kind of thinking.

Most telling was the vote allowing Bush to go to war, arguably the most important vote of this century and one where "experience" would have been most valuable.  McCain got it wrong along with many others following the pack.  Obama, wisely saw what was coming and called it accurately.  If that was not experience on Obama's part it was certainly insightful and wise.  Score one for Obama.  Now McCain claims a similar wisdom in voting for the "surge" pointing out Obama voted against it and the surge "worked".  Score one for McCain.  Or does it?  Those in the field know that the surge had little to do with the decreased violence in Iraq.  It was a more traditional, tried and true method of watering down a conflict; bribing the protagonists and putting them on the payroll so they have a vested interest in playing nice.  Yes the US military occupation is now giving millions of US taxpayer dollars to tribal chiefs to pay their fighters so they will not shoot at our troops.  A "surge" in dollars  NOT a surge in troops is what worked.  McCain is talking about the wrong serge. 

Recent developments open further doubts as to the argument for "experience".  Choosing a Vice President with a minute resume is under intensive debate at the moment.  Surely there must be a right kind of experience and a wrong kind of experience, not just experience alone.  Does McCain have the right kind of experience?  The Georgia situation casts some light on this.  Claiming that "countries in the 21st century do not invade other countries" as McCain did would indicate he suffers from memory loss as quickly pointed out by such commentators as John Stewart and just about every political commentator outside the US.  If McCain has forgotten that the US invaded a foreign country just 6 years ago unprovoked and on false pretenses (AND IS STILL THERE) then we must assume that with such memory loss, "experience" is hardly something he can rely on.  Furthermore, the talk of territorial integrity over Georgia is an about face from the position the U.S. took over the territorial integrity of Serbia over Kosovo.  In fact both the US and the Russians have reversed roles on this one.  What is surprising is that John McCain does not see the absurdity in objecting so strongly to the Russians doing something that U.S. has  done so readily in the past few years.  They went into the Georgian break away republics on the same pretext that we did in Kosovo and Serbia only they did it faster before any ethnic cleansing could take place. The U.S. inflicted "collaterial damage" on Belgrade as the Russians have in Georgia so we hardly have much moral authority to criticize the Russians. The minimizing of U.S. moral authority is one of the great tragedies of the Bush administion.  It is such statements by McCain, so in line with the past eight years of similar statements by Bush,  that make our foreign policy appear so one sided and hollow.  Even more scary is that McCain already seems to have set himself on a course to antagonize the Russians needlessly.  Surely it is in our best national defense interests to have a constructive dialogue with the Russians not simply rub their noses in it from time to time because we can.

Needless to say this all plays into the hands of Ben Laden and co.  In the good old days the CIA used to give money to 'tin pot' politicians who they favored over other less onerous 'tin pot'' politicians in countries around the world, in most cases without the politicians even knowing it, as if it became known that the US backed someone it might tip the scales towards the other guy.  Likewise I would not be surprised to learn that Ben Laden was secretly funneling millions into the McCain campaign coffers while publicly stating that he favored Senator Obama.  Ben Laden needs a McCain victory.  This would give validation to his basic mantra and give further evidence that America has declared itself the enemy of all Arabs, Muslims and the like.  It would boost his recruiting just as the Iraq war has boosted his efforts on a worldwide basis.  An Obama win would likewise be a serious depletion of wind in his sales.  Obama winning is the worst thing that could happen for Ben Laden.

Meanwhile McCain's statement that he was going to "get Ben Laden" as a solemn campaign promise shows just how myopic his approach to the problem of "terrorism" really is.  Real experience would indicate that you do not get rid of Malaria by swatting down every mosquito you can find - you do it by draining the swamp.  It is a long term process of undermining and eliminating the causes and breading grounds of terrorism.  When McCain speaks of defeating evil he must also realize that environments of hopelessness, discrimination, foreign occupation  and social injustice are the evils that bread terrorism.  You can NEVER defeat terrorism if you simply talk of killing terrorists, more will just follow just like mosquitoes from the swamp.

You can also never defeat terrorism by making martyrs of its leaders.  McCain has at his disposal an experienced and amoral group of Republican image makers who are expert at destroying opponents through innuendo, exaggerations and outright fabrications.  Tell a lie enought times it becomes true in perception.   Why not apply these talents to undermining Ben Laden's credibility as opposed making him a martyr.  Put it  out that Ben Laden likes little boys or other things that would offend the morality of his flock.  As you have seen from the "swift boat" attack it does not matter that there is not a shred of evidence but just saying it enough gives it currency.  That is how you really destroy Ben Laden. 

So far, as I consider the 3 am call, I unquestionably pray for Obama, just as most of the US Ambassadors around the world do and from recent reports the vast number of US combat troops.  It may make Ben Laden unhappy, and the weapons makers around the world miserable but I would sleep easier for sure.