President Bush open letter III

[ Home ] [ News Page ] [ Feedback ] [ Contents ] [ Search ] [ Bagatelles ]

12 November

Dear President Bush

Your Department of Defence asked for proposals to combat terrorism. I read about them here (I only looked for the proposals because I read a controversial article here).

On Friday I discovered that you have had at least one submission, from the Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy. They propose a solution with a lot of evidence to back up its effectiveness. The cost? a mere $1 billion. For ever.

Today I read in the New York Times a report by James Dao indicating that "The United States expects to spend more than $1 billion a month on the early phases of the war in Afghanistan, and the cost is likely to rise rapidly above that level as the Pentagon builds its forces in the region".

Yet war, as we know, has not been proven to work. Every death, particularly in the circumstances of a "jihad" creates the potential for a new terrorist or even a suicide terrorist to spring up. And we know, following the events of September 11th, that terrorism is more or less unconquerable using conventional technology. The Secretary General of NATO made that quite clear in Ottawa when he talked of the untold billions spent by NATO yet it was still defenceless in the face of biological or chemical weapons. (I wrote to him about it here to tell him he was correct about conventional methods but that solutions were available.)

So on the one hand we have a conventional war which by James Dao's account could cost anything between $5 billion and $20 billion by the spring of next year and on the other hand a non-violent proposal with solid scientific evidence to back up its effectiveness that will cost $1 billion total. Seems a no-brainer to me. Especially as you can run them both side by side if you don't want to take any risks.

Let's draw up a balance sheet:

Solution applied	Cost	Results
Conventional war/diplomacy	$5B to $20B (Afghanistan alone, 1Q02)	No history of success - especially with terrorism al-Qaeda denied a sovereign base - at least temporarily. West has to broker a new constitutional government for Afghanistan. Western military casualties and fatalities. Afghanistan reduced to rubble and has to be re-built at the expense of the west. Many Muslims "inspired" to become martyrs for the cause. What about Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Syria, Palestine and all the other rogue or problem states?
ISTPP proposal	$1B (Worldwide, perpetual)	A history of success The peoples and nations of the world who feel oppressed, or otherwise imposed upon, find suddenly that all become their genuine friends. At long last justice comes to everyone and all prosper. As consequences: al-Qaeda denied a base of supporters - permanently. new constitutional government for Afghanistan spontaneously arises no Western military or civilian casualties and fatalities Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Syria, Palestine and all the other rogue or problem states find solutions to their problems A new sense of indomitable security is felt by everyone in the world. Peace descends on earth. (Isn't that what you are trying to achieve with your war?)

Please ask your Department of Defence to properly evaluate the proposal from the Institute of Science Technology and Public Policy.

Look at the proposal yourself and make sure that you fully understand its consequences - if you get this one right the world will never forget you.

Yours sincerely

William Hite

Top