The Kurtz Papers
In defense of
by Col Walter E. Kurtz
After the numerous letters I have received following my last contribution entitled Preventive Strikes, I felt inclined to further articulate some thoughts as well as correct any misconceptions one might have about what was intended.
Firstly and in all transparency I must say that the great majority of the letters called for a reform of our foreign policy so as to be even more aggressive in securing our interests.
Indeed all made clear the hegemonic aspirations of their authors, and how to bring about an era where rule of force supersedes rule of law, and where selfish national interests, often at the expense of others, is the only prevalent dogma.
Perhaps my tone led them to believe that I too share the same aspirations and ideas. And so the short answer is not at all and the long answer is as follows.
The United States was not founded on the same values as those of the Roman empire or even the Holy Roman empire for that matter, and so no, there are no roots to reach to, ours is a brand, novel, and courageous experiment where we are meant to engage the world as a nation of the world and not as a wolf amongst nations.
In that regard our conduct in Vietnam will come to be considered as a grave mistake that is going to simply squander all the goodwill capital we have reaped in the aftermath of World War II.
The preventive strikes I elaborated on are means to ensure peace and security in the world, both of ourselves and our allies, for indeed it is in our utmost interest to be the striking arm of law rather then let lawlessness prevail in the many places of the world where we have national interests.
Nor can we allow ourselves to stand idle where freedom, justice and human rights to be violated in places where we would have no immediate incentives to act, precisely because defending these is an intrinsic part of who we are as Americans, and represent what we stand for as a nation in this world.
A world where we will find many other nations pretending to be animated by the same ideals but who will fail to shield them by force of arms if necessary. Not because they are weak, but because they are old nations, who under their veneer of idealism harbor the same narrow interests that led to their existence in the first place.
And so, it is incumbent on us to defend what we believe in and that is where preventive strikes find their usefulness, in allowing us to extend a Pax Americana way beyond our frontiers.
If some come to call this interventionism or even imperialism then so be it, the very fact that we act in defense of universal ideals leaves their argument on thin ice.
However we should never act in a selfish manner, lest we forget that justice is a double edged sword. Indeed we will always be in a very difficult position should we make use of force outside of the scope of that I described, and aside from sound national defense priorities.
Ours is a young and vibrant nation in a world that is old and worn out, undoubtedly our ventures will be considered with a lot of cynicism by our 'friends', and some will even secretly wish us to fail while displaying their best intentions.
The world is what is, a place where we have to make our presence felt. Pragmatism will take care of the rest; even our most decided adversaries must be made to ponder on what it means to engage us militarily, and be made to desist by force if needed from their harmful intentions.
Preventive strikes will allow us to do just that, it is better to be feared for what one is capable of doing then to actually make use of the full extent of one's capabilities as conventional warfare entails.
Such strikes where never meant as instruments of imperialism, nor does it make sense for the authors of the letters I have received to consider them as such, imperialism implying holding the land whereas this strategy is the exact opposite both in scope and in shape, strikes are not invasions.
To conclude I would like to thank the fewer authors who wished for us to use wisely of our strength in defense of peace, justice and freedom in the world and who have seen my intent for what it was.
I hereby apologize to them that this letter did not dwell longer on the importance of our shared values and ideals. Some matters are best left to the heart.
I deemed it more important to answer the general mainstream that abounded in the wrong direction and how that mistaken ideology and its tenants surely are the reason of our current "involvement..." in Vietnam.
Cordially, etc, etc,
